Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

World's Longest Aircraft Gets Full-Production Go-Ahead (bbc.com) 100

Posted by BeauHD from the in-the-works dept.
The Airlander 10 -- the world's longest aircraft -- is set to go into full production with the model designed to take its first passengers. "It comes after the prototype Airlander 10 -- a combined plane and airship -- was formally retired following successful final testing," reports the BBC. "As a result, Bedford firm Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) has been given Production Organization Approval from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)." From the report: An eyewitness said the aircraft appeared to "break in two" after breaking its moorings and deflating, in November that year, less than 24 hours after completing its sixth successful test flight. The firm was given Design Organization Approval from the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) in October. Stephen McGlennan, HAV's chief executive, said 2018 had been very good, with Easa's backing a "huge highlight." He said the firm had changed its focus last year towards the production of Airlander 10 as a commercial aircraft for customers. "The prototype served its purpose as the world's first full-sized hybrid aircraft, providing us with the data we needed to move forward from prototype to production standard," he said. It is now hoped the full commercial model will take to the skies with its first paying passengers "in the early 2020s." Approval from the CAA and Easa now puts the firm in a "strong position to launch production."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Longest Aircraft Gets Full-Production Go-Ahead More

World's Longest Aircraft Gets Full-Production Go-Ahead

Comments Filter:

  • I prefer my aircraft never has (Score:5, Funny)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @05:21AM (#57957848)

    DOA approval. /s

  • Longest *current* aircraft (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14, 2019 @05:23AM (#57957850)

    It's 92m long, which may make it the longest currently [soon] in production, but the Zeppelins were 235m long back then.
    Also, would not have hurt to put the length in the summary, would it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sique ( 173459 )
      As none of the Zeppelins exist anymore, it is not just the longest current aircraft, it is indeed the longest aircraft in existance.

      • Re:Longest *current* aircraft (Score:5, Funny)

        by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @07:34AM (#57958170)
        Yeah, but the Airlander 10 is still the world's largest flying bum [traveller.com.au].

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        As none of the Zeppelins exist anymore,

        Zeppeliners exists and fly today. Made by the same company that made the old Zeppeliners too. Google "Zeppelin NT" for more data, and where you can book a flight with one of them. They are only 75 meters though, so not the longest aircraft around. Nice trips, although expensive.

        • Re:Longest *current* aircraft (Score:4, Informative)

          by Sique ( 173459 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @11:23AM (#57959376) Homepage
          The Zeppelin NT is not made by the same company, that made Zeppelins of the 1920ies and got the name from its founder Count Zeppelin. The company which made the Zeppelin NT was founded as Metallwerk Friedrichshafen GmbH in 1950, and only later renamed into Zeppelin-Metallwerke GmbH.

          As the Zeppelin NT is a semi-rigid airship, it is not even a Zeppelin airship from a technical point of view. Count Zeppelin's constructions were rigid airships, and of those, none has survived. The Zeppelin NT has just a famous name attached to it without living up to its legacy.

  • Helium (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I thought Helium was a finite supply on Earth. Is this a good use for it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rob Lister ( 4174831 )
      Contrary to certain media scare-mongering, helium is fairly abundant. Extracted natural gas contains as much as 7% helium.

      • Contrary to certain media scare-mongering, helium is fairly abundant. Extracted natural gas contains as much as 7% helium.

        Isn't Helium the second commonest element after Hydrogen?

        Storing it is kinda difficult (for the US Government apparently), but there seems to be a lot of it.

        • Re:Helium (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14, 2019 @06:44AM (#57958034)

          There's a lot of it in the universe, but not that much (relatively speaking) on earth. And we don't know how to produce more of it economically.

          There's a lot of it under our feet, not too easy to extract. We usually get it as a byproduct of natural gas extraction. Other than that, a lot of it naturally seeps from the rocks up into the atmosphere, but quickly goes up and gets lots into outer space.

          Known reserves will last some 50 to 100 years an current consumption rate (party baloons are not a major factor). After that we need to learn how to extract it from rocks, or perhaps by then we can just swoop it from Jupiter's atmosphere as He3.

        • Isn't Helium the second commonest element after Hydrogen?

          In the universe? Yes. On Earth? No. We're talking about helium accessible to us. I don't think we're about to go mining the Sun for helium. We're not going to run out this minute or anything but we have a finite supply [wikipedia.org] currently available to us. It doesn't help we waste a lot of it on party balloons and other frivolous uses.

      • Needing more of it would probably increase the supply That 7% is typically ignored, and allowed to escape, because its not economically viable to extract it.

      • Supply (Score:3)

        by sjbe ( 173966 )

        Contrary to certain media scare-mongering, helium is fairly abundant.

        We're not going to run out in the next few years if that is what you are talking about. But our supply of readily accessible and economically available helium is limited unless we find new ways to extract more. It's nothing to lose sleep over at the present but it is worth worrying about in the long term. There have been some shortages in recent years but these are more due to supply chain disruptions than anything else.

        Extracted natural gas contains as much as 7% helium.

        That number is only true for a few fields [geology.com] - most have less than that and not all have

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/africa/helium-discovery-tanzania/index.html

      And there's a finite supply of everything here on Earth. Some things are more finite than others.

  • Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dryriver ( 1010635 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @06:00AM (#57957924)
    Aviation has been 99% planes-with-wings and helicopters the last few decades. Blimps were used as advertising billboards and PR attractions mostly. So its nice to see an airplane-airship hybrid being tested. Maybe this design has some decent benefits, for air-cargo hauling, leisurely sight-seeing from the air and similar? (Not "putting all your eges in one basket" and so on...)
    • The reason planes supplanted dirigibles is because cargo capacity isn't how many tons you can carry at once. It's how many tons your vehicle can carry over how many miles in a given period of time. Yeah planes can't carry as much at once. But they're so much faster that a single small plane can haul more cargo further than a big dirigible during a year of operation.

      The variable operating costs of the dirigible would seem to make it cheaper (much less fuel per mile, probably less per ton-mile). But th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        The reason planes supplanted dirigibles is because cargo capacity isn't how many tons you can carry at once.

        That was one reason. Another was that the slightest wind made a takeoff or landing a near impossibility. Harnessing those huge sails (and that is what they basically are when they are fighting a wind), required a large contingent of humans. It also required that each one be stored in a hangar even for a short stay. Hangars of that size are a huge capital investment.

  • I think there could be a niche market (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @06:36AM (#57958008)
    I think there could be a niche market for this, a luxury cruise in the air. I'm not convinced anyone would want to use it for A to B transport though because it is so much slower than traditional aircraft.

    • Re: I think there could be a niche market (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Could be a viable alternative to trucking though.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Chrisq ( 894406 )

        Could be a viable alternative to trucking though.

        If the costs come down enough yes, especially in remote areas with bad roads

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        No, not in it's current incarnation. 10 ton payload. 92mph max speed, and that is with four 350Hp engines. With a ceiling of 20k ft, it can't be used in bad weather, and can't even be used if there is more than a slight breeze. 1/4 the payload of a truck. Likely slower than a truck, depending upon the prevailing winds (you only get a tailwind 25% of the time on average). The fuel requirements will be WAY higher than a typical 18 wheeler. I doubt even the racers have 1400Hp under the hood.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If I could do a long haul flight at half the speed but in relative luxury I might be interested.

  • Yes, it is the longest. I imagine its volume and body width are amongst the highest as well. But the cool thing about this plane is it combines a plane and an airship. It requires very little in the way of runway length, has an absolutely massive cargo bay, has a low carbon footprint, is reasonably fast (nowhere near as fast as an airliner but faster than most other means of transport), the ability to fly very slowly, and offers a flight endurance measured in weeks.
    • Given that weight is not as much an issue in these types of aircraft, I suspect that travel will be a whole lot more comfortable. People will be less crammed into a small space.
      • Weight is a huge issue. The buoyancy of the helium is really the only lifting source they have. It takes a LOT of helium to raise a ton; it's why this airship is rated for just 10 tons of cargo (sadly very little - less than the towing capacity of a Ford F450 pickup truck).

    • It requires very little in the way of runway length,

      Evidently not true. The LEMV required at least 300 m (1,000 ft) of runway (violating the runway-independent requirement), and a tether point with a 100 m (300 ft) clear flat area around on which to park, which prevented them from operating at most large bases and all small bases.

      has an absolutely massive cargo bay,

      Not true. It can carry 10 tons which might sound like a lot but it isn't. A 747 can carry up to 130 tons in certain configurations.

      has a low carbon footprint,

      Citation needed.

      is reasonably fast (nowhere near as fast as an airliner but faster than most other means of transport),

      It has a cruising speed of 70 knots. That's at best comparable to highways speeds

      • Evidently not true. The LEMV required at least 300 m (1,000 ft) of runway (violating the runway-independent requirement), and a tether point with a 100 m (300 ft) clear flat area around on which to park, which prevented them from operating at most large bases and all small bases.

        Lack of runway requirement is something talked about a lot in press releases, so presumably this does not have the same issues as the LEMV.

        Not true. It can carry 10 tons which might sound like a lot but it isn't. A 747 can carry up

        • Massive in terms of volume. 10 tonnes is, at least a usable

          Unless you are planning to ship a lot of air, that isn't especially impressive. Frankly it looks like a solution looking for a problem.

          It's what the company claims. Even if they're wrong it seems a more interesting thing to talk about than the sodding length, at least.

          Yeah I'm not really sure why I should care about how long the aircraft is. I care what it can do. In this case the answer seems to be not much if we care about economics.

          80 knots. Which is comparable to a perfectly straight traffic free highway. But most road transport is not on perfectly straight traffic free highways.

          I have news for you. This thing isn't going to get cargo to its destination in a straight line either. Recall that you still need special facilities to load, unload, and in most cases land this aircraft

          • I think you're being a little too negative.

            The landing area seems like it can be arranged fairly inexpensively. Essentially you need a small car park. As far as directness goes, in the US, there's a solid mass of land and large distances separating factories, but Europe and South West Asia are more densely populated and full of jagged islands and peninsulas, where this allows a direct route and a lot less loading and unloading.

            I do see what you're getting at with it being a solution looking for a probl

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        has a low carbon footprint,

        Citation needed.

        The Wikipedia article says it is powered by four 350Hp engines. I don't know what your definition of low is, but 1400Hp to get 80kts just CAN'T be covered by it.

  • Hope it goes better than the Piasecki PA97 Helistat - A helicopter-blimp hybrid heavy-lift vehicle https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • It is a little different; this solution uses aerodynamic lift during cruise, but you do have some of the same concerns on or close to the ground.

  • amazing! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    i'm selling all my bitcoins and gold bullian and putting it into inflatable aircraft!

  • Can someone calculate/guesstimate ?

  • of helium? How are they going to keep these things in the air?

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close