Comes in two sizes, 66 ton and 250 ton carrying capacity.
On its way to FAA certification.
http://www.businessinsider.com/aeroscraft-airship-could-change-avatiation-2013-9
http://www.sfgate.com/business/press-releases/article/Aeroscraft-Dragon-Dream-Successfully-Passes-All-4751948.php
Lockheed has been playing around with one too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isJRgEu7DQo
Let's hope it goes better than this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY
I know the Coast Guard has been playing around with one for Drug intervention. It can sit on site for 40 hours and monitor everything for a wide range using radar. It may not be fast, but you can't outrun a motorola
Interesting for it's remote freight ability, I hadn't thought of that. At first I was wondering what purpose it was supposed to serve.
JoeyM wrote: Let's hope it goes better than this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY
I hadn't heard of the Piasecki PA-97 before. It's absolutely disgusting that something like that could have happened as recently as the 80's. I hope someone went to jail for manslaughter for such a negligent design.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:JoeyM wrote: Let's hope it goes better than this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPYI hadn't heard of the Piasecki PA-97 before. It's absolutely disgusting that something like that could have happened as recently as the 80's. I hope someone went to jail for manslaughter for such a negligent design.
dude must have played with erector sets, balloons, and model helicopters when he was a kid, then when he grew up he got the government to fund his childhood fantasies...
I could sort of see it for moving train types of freight - ie, large bulky stuff that doesn't need to get anywhere particularly fast. Of course, trains already do that well, and aren't trying to fight gravity to do so.
HiTempguy wrote:
Came here to post this.
I wonder why they vent excess hydrogen instead of compressing it to an onboard tank. Venting hydrogen is dangerous too because it can hit the sweet spot air:fuel mixture where you can get a Hindenburg incident.
http://www.millenniumairship.com/
This is one I did the designwork on.
DILYSI Dave wrote: I could sort of see it for moving train types of freight - ie, large bulky stuff that doesn't need to get anywhere particularly fast. Of course, trains already do that well, and aren't trying to fight gravity to do so.
The idea is that they can take large, bulky items to remote locations that there aren't train tracks, or even roads, to get to. Or where roads are dangerous.
Again, the one I was working on.
Shipping companies are quite interested, as are forestry companies, and oil companies. We've been in talks with a number of them, about getting on board with the smaller craft.
In reply to Chris_V:
I could see these osrt of things putting a hurt on the ice-road trucker business.
Those are really cool. I hope they "take off" so to speak.
GameboyRMH wrote: I wonder why they vent excess hydrogen instead of compressing it to an onboard tank. Venting hydrogen is dangerous too because it can hit the sweet spot air:fuel mixture where you can get a Hindenburg incident.
Aeros' website says they move the helium between compressed and decompressed states to manage the buoyancy as needed.
jeffmx5 wrote: Aeros' website says they move the helium between compressed and decompressed states to manage the buoyancy as needed.
The graphic says "hydrogen", but helium would make a lot more sense.
Overall, I think it's a cool idea and once established I could see a possibility for passenger use - mainly in a sort of low-ish altitude, cross-country "cruise ship" way. Imagine a relaxed, week-long trip from NY to LA with ocean-liner-like accomodations and glorious views of the landscape below.
Well, hydrogen is lighter, and a lot easier to get.
"Nice balloon you have here Heir Hindenburg"
"It's NOT a balloon, it's an AIRSHIP!!"
Ian F wrote: Overall, I think it's a cool idea and once established I could see a possibility for passenger use - mainly in a sort of low-ish altitude, cross-country "cruise ship" way. Imagine a relaxed, week-long trip from NY to LA with ocean-liner-like accomodations and glorious views of the landscape below.
yeah, I did a version that was passenger based, including a restaurant up front with a large expanse of window so you could eat and watch the scenery cruise by. I'll have to see if I can find the render when I get home.
Ian F wrote:jeffmx5 wrote: Aeros' website says they move the helium between compressed and decompressed states to manage the buoyancy as needed.The graphic says "hydrogen", but helium would make a lot more sense.
Not really. It's less bouyant and absolutely non-renewable. We have whatever's stuck in the ground in one form or another, then it drifts into space and is lost forever. Hydrogen's more bouyant and it's the most abundant element in the universe, it's too bad people get so hung up on its flammability when mixed with air in a 15:1 ratio.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Yeah... if they can come up with a way to overcome that pesky flammability issue, hydrogen would be more economical... until the insurance companies start quoting rates...
is it any more flammable at the pressures that it would be at in a ship like that than the amount of Jet A used in an airliner?
Note that, as I recall, the Hindenburg burned on account of its paintjob, which was essentially thermite, the gas inside just made things a bit more dramatic. A hydrogen lifted airship of modern construction and materials at modern aviation levels of scrutiny would be no less safe than a typical kerosene powered jet airliner.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: A hydrogen lifted airship of modern construction and materials at modern aviation levels of scrutiny would be no less safe than a typical kerosene powered jet airliner.
Just like a modern nuclear power plant is extremely safe and radioactive-waste-efficient. However, the court of public opinion and politics will continue to judge them based on some dramatic mishaps that occurred to examples that were old, outmoded, or just badly-designed to begin with.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: Note that, as I recall, the Hindenburg burned on account of its paintjob, which was essentially thermite, the gas inside just made things a bit more dramatic.
Yes and no. According to Mythbusters, the primary source of fuel in the Hindenburg fire/explosion was probably the hydrogen, but the thermite was certainly an exacerbating factor.
alex wrote:Kenny_McCormic wrote: Note that, as I recall, the Hindenburg burned on account of its paintjob, which was essentially thermite, the gas inside just made things a bit more dramatic.Yes and no. According to Mythbusters, the primary source of fuel in the Hindenburg fire/explosion was probably the hydrogen, but the thermite was certainly an exacerbating factor.
Except that the actual Hindenburg burned from the outside in, and was still quite aloft when most of it was engulfed in flames. Kind of different from the Mythbusters episode.
Remember, hydrogen burns VERY fast with a clear flame. If most of it was hydrogen, it would have fallen out of the sky before it had a chance to be a huge visible fireball, due to the hydrogen burning first and not being bouyant anymore.
Well they ignited the thermite skin first, then pumped in hydrogen. So it was kinda outside-in, but granted not floating at the point of ignition.
You'll need to log in to post.
