New Aircraft is Part Blimp and Part Airplane 484
An anonymous reader writes "Canton Rep has an interesting article on Ohio entrepreneurs who hope to get their business 'off the ground'. Brian Martin and Robert Rist think they are close to testing a prototype of their patented Dynalifter hybrid. They announced last week that their airship -- part blimp and part airplane -- has been completed, and they hope to conduct a test flight this spring. Martin and Rist hope the Dynalifter will help bring in a new transportation era. They see it as a way to move materials at a lower cost than jets and at a higher speed than ships. From the article: 'They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies. It might have military uses, such as delivering equipment and supplies to sites that might not be easily reachable.'"
I want to believe! (Score:2, Insightful)
Deforming body (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just a Blimp? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the concept summary notes that it is designed to take crosswinds of up to 30 knots when unloaded. I'm wondering if that's sufficient - wouldn't that potentially limit the operational use of these airships in poor weather conditions?
Re:Could it be used for passengers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Deforming body (Score:5, Insightful)
A rigid airframe is much simpler, cheaper, easier, and sturdier.
Hindenburg (Score:5, Insightful)
Blimp in a hurricane? (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, I wonder if they have run the numbers to determine whether this is more efficient than trucking. It doesn't seem impossible when you include the cost of roads, and real estate for roads.
Also, a steady stream of payload-moving craft overhead might even be a workable platform for broadband connectivity. There are already several companies [wired.com] working on using airships as wireless relay platforms, but perhaps the idea would be more economically feasible if the airships are making money in two different ways.
Re:Just a Blimp? (Score:3, Insightful)
The chief advantages over a blimp are operational. First, it can be landed without having to provide a ground crew, and doesn't require mooring against crosswinds. Second, since there is no danger of it floating away, it can offload massive cargos without having to take on ballast. Third, since the ship is heavier than air it never becomes too heavy to land becuase it has burned too much fuel. Finally , it can have a narrower cross section than a lighter than air ship of the same lifting capacity reducing drag and increasing speed (120 knot or almost 140MpH).
I expect such ships if ever built will also have a higher operational ceiling than airships of equivalent volume, and certainly would have a greater cargo capacity.
The advantages over planes are less clear. Probably greater endurance and shorter runways for the same cargo capacity.
Re:Deforming body (Score:2, Insightful)
But there's an important part of the analogy that you're forgetting: which one would be better to hold a treehouse? A flexible blimp might be resilient, but if it bends in half and dumps your cargo in a storm it's not so useful.
Re:Could it be used for passengers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame. All of the exciting footage showed lots of bright yellow flame from... the burning of the envelope.
It does give a little more lift, but as we all know, it burns.
Two points. First, hydrogen gives twice the lift of helium. A 100% bonus for the same sized envelope. Second, it only burns in the presence of oxygen (or another gaseous oxidizer). If the envelope is made from a nonflammable membrane impermeable to oxygen (any membrane decent at retaining hydrogen is completely impermeable to oxygen), explosions and dramatic flames become vanishingly unlikely.
The Hindenberg had problems, to be sure. IMHO, however, the use of hydrogen wasn't one of them.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Hindenburg (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want it there fast, or if it's really lightweight/small, you ship by truck or air.
If you can wait a long time, or if it's really heavy, you ship it by rail/sea/barge.
LTA craft offer the load capacity of air (poor), at the speed of oceanfreight (slow).
What, aside from some very narrow-range applications (heavy lift of non-urgent bulk cargo into rough undeveloped areas) would this be good for?
Re:SPECIFICATIONS (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, to put it differently, if the Dynalifter requires a long, wide and strong runway for takeoff and landing, much of the promised utility of airships goes out the window. In particular there will be no hovering over disaster areas (or military outposts) while dumping hundreds of tonnes of supplies.
Then you might as well buy a couple of Antonov AN-225's from the russians, no? They would be both faster and probably cheaper too.