Biplanes and Triplanes were the best !

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote:

Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
airship trait.

Why not commercial ground-effect vehicles (i.e: "Caspian Sea
Monsters") that theoretically could make transatlantic trips
at approximately .5 mach economically, safely and luxuriously?

http://www.att-nn.com/ENGL/MPE.htm

Those ae fine in low wave states but the notion of doing that
speed in the North Atlantic is not attractive, a large wave
could have serious effects on your health.

I could be wrong, but aren't these humongous vehicles capable of
climbing out of ground effect?

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...


Those ae fine in low wave states but the notion of doing that
speed in the North Atlantic is not attractive, a large wave
could have serious effects on your health.

I could be wrong, but aren't these humongous vehicles capable of
climbing out of ground effect?



Maybe but I doubt they could get up to the sort of level
you need to avoid the effects of a decent winter storm.

Bumbling along at a 1000 ft or so in a force 8 is apt to
produce a lot of unpleasantness back in the bay
for self loading cargo

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Bumbling along at a 1000 ft or so in a force 8 is apt to
produce a lot of unpleasantness back in the bay
for self loading cargo

Keith

I've been there a bunch...it ain't real fun after about 12 hours
(looking at another 8 or so)

(The top fronts of your thighs get sore from smashing up against
the lap belt so you put your shoulder harness on tight to give
them some relief) I'm sure happy to be retired...
--

-Gord.

Stephen Harding wrote:

snip

Will many be able to afford it, assuming they *want* it to begin with?
Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
airship trait. (Airships could get right into a city destination,
eliminating the drive from the airport, which can be attractive).

But just as there are ocean cruises that are the purpose all to
themselves, I suppose there could be airship "cruises" as well. It
would be neat if it isn't prohibitively expensive.

Such cruises have been mooted for travel over nature preserves (Africa, Amazon, etc.). The ability
to drift with motors off at low speed is a big advantage of LTA. In a way, that was one of the first
tourist uses of Zeppelins. The Graf Zeppelin's round the world flight was essentially a high cost
cruise, and well before then day excursions over the valley of the Rhine or the Alps were being done
(pre-WW1, IIRR). In the Graf's case, they went over a lot of unspoiled country. Given modern
technology, I imagine there'd be a market -- there's certainly never a shortage of people who want
rides on the various advertising blimps in the area. Who wouldn't want to breakfast or dine in the
rooftop (sic) restaurant of a modern zepp, drifting along with the wind while the sun rises or sets?
Modern materials and design should more than cancel out the lift disadvantage of using helium. And
with the rise of eco-resorts in places like the canopy of the Brazilian rainforest, there'd be no
need to provide overnight accomodations on board, allowing a larger number of pax.

Guy

The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
air vehicle.

Are there any for today's military mission and needs?

The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
bad it would be for airships!).

I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
as to what they could possibly have been.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
air vehicle.

Are there any for today's military mission and needs?

The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
bad it would be for airships!).

I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
as to what they could possibly have been.


Airship Industries were trying to sell their products
for the AEW role. The platform was based on their
Sentinel 5000 product fitted with the radar system
from the E2-C Hawkeye .

http://www.aht.ndirect.co.uk/airships/Sentinel_5000/

Keith

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
air vehicle.

Are there any for today's military mission and needs?

The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
bad it would be for airships!).

I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
as to what they could possibly have been.

As Keith has already noted, they have been proposed for the AEW role with no
success to date, at least as far as free-flying blimps go--unpowered
aerostats are however used for the air surveillance role (ISTR we recently
sold Pakistan some AEW aerostats to assuage their concerns over the recent
purscahse of the Il-76/Phalcon AWACS from Russia/Israel, and they have
served this role in the drug war along the southern US approaches for many
years). I wonder if there are not further roles for aerostats--such as their
use for area security surveillance in an environment like we now find in
Iraq. As to blimps, you really have to have air superiority (or outright air
dominance) in order to make them viable; in such conditions, I'd think they
might be a decent platform for battlefield surveillance using a MTI radar
(sort of a long duration mini-JSTARS, more comparable to the current ARL-M)
or in the SIGINT role, where they can conduct their missions from a position
a few klicks to the rear of the FLOT.

Brooks


SMH

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

As to blimps, you really have to have air superiority (or outright
air dominance) in order to make them viable; in such conditions, I'd
think they might be a decent platform for battlefield surveillance
using a MTI radar (sort of a long duration mini-JSTARS, more
comparable to the current ARL-M) or in the SIGINT role, where they
can conduct their missions from a position a few klicks to the rear
of the FLOT.

With modern construction techniques, a stealthy, ultra-lightweight blimp
with a sensor package should be able to perch up at 120,000 feet or
higher, be hard to find, harder to reach, and useful for direct ground
observation for hundreds of miles in any direction, reporting back with
a highly directional laser-based commlink.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Stephen Harding wrote:

The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
air vehicle.

Are there any for today's military mission and needs?

The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
bad it would be for airships!).

I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
as to what they could possibly have been.

SMH


It was only a few years ago that concerted efforts failed to destroy a
large ballon which managed to drift clear across the Atlantic despite
numerous holes being shot in it. I wonder if they really are all that
vulnerable?

Dave

"Dave Holford" wrote in message
...


Stephen Harding wrote:

The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
air vehicle.

Are there any for today's military mission and needs?

The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
bad it would be for airships!).

I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
as to what they could possibly have been.

SMH


It was only a few years ago that concerted efforts failed to destroy a
large ballon which managed to drift clear across the Atlantic despite
numerous holes being shot in it. I wonder if they really are all that
vulnerable?

Dave

They've changed the aerostats so they now have burn wires built into the
main gas bag. If one escapes, rather than scrambling a plane they just
press a button and it quarters the main gas bag. No more chasing it across
the gulf or countryside.

Mike