If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|