Flying Whales & Other Controversial Airborne Object

[Hurricane Annie]

This article poses important questions around the viability of airship transport and production for commercial use. This includes such topics and battery use for power storage, energy for propulsion and for flight  and efficiency for use as freight transport .

What are the considered opinions of the Brass Goggles boffins?

https://mentourpilot.com/flying-whales-a-hybrid-electric-airship/

[J. Wilhelm]

This article poses important questions around the viability of airship transport and production for commercial use. This includes such topics and battery use for power storage, energy for propulsion and for flight  and efficiency for use as freight transport .

What are the considered opinions of the Brass Goggles boffins?

https://mentourpilot.com/flying-whales-a-hybrid-electric-airship/

Well, the article is very general in nature. There's not much that hasn't been covered already on the design of airships. The article does mention, however a small turbojet which is used as an auxiliary power unit aboard passenger jets.  Then it makes a vague reference to the advantages and disadvantages of distributed engines around a craft.

This is for an airship a complete necessity, and has always been, because of the great separation between engines and the enormous bulk of an airship which obligates some sort of distributed propulsion. It's always been like that. Very seldom do you see a single engine on the tail of an airship. Aerodynamics around such large shape makes that impractical, but not impossible.

The new part about the topic is the use of multiple electric motors. While having multiple small rotors is always less efficient, thermodynamically, than a single large rotor (eg helicopters), smaller rotors give you control you can't have with larger motors. Computer controlled propellers can speed up and slow down nearly instantly, fine-tuning the amount of lift or thrust on that engine, so it allows any craft, be it a flying car or an airship to move much more nimbly than any combustion engine powered craft will ever be able to do. The extreme example of this technology is actually flying on Mars right now. The small rotors can rotate very quickly, change their angle of attack speed up or slow down in the order of 100(?) times per second. That level of control was simply not ever possible with combustion engines.

Additionally, whatever loss of thrust performance you get with small rotors, is more than compensated by the lightweight nature of the electric motors. The power source, such as a kerosene or jet fuel powerplant can be placed near the dynamic center of an airplane or the center of gravity of a slow moving craft like an airship, saving you further aerodynamic losses due to having to compensate for large moment forces created by the weight at each engine pod.

Does the system need to have a combustible as an energy storage method? The answer depends on the range you need to fly over.  Certainly the energy density of fuel is much higher than that of batteries, but unlike airplanes or VTOL craft, you don't nearly need as much energy to stay aloft, since buoyancy is lifting you already. The primary utility would be to extend the range of the craft.

The best and most creative use for an airship, actually has been the visions of blimps and vacuum rigid airships as planetary probes, on Mars for example, and I believe there's such a probe on the works around that concept right now at NASA. I think I posted precisely that not so long ago at The Guild of Icarus:

http://brassgoggles.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,46795.msg1018507.html#msg1018507

[Hurricane Annie]

Mr Wilhelm, I hadn't considered planetary exploration as a potential use for airship craft. Airship technology is largely being developed by military branches of government, rather than civilian commercial ventures. It's interesting that the original airship prototypes were in flight and being tested decades before aeroplane [as far as we know]. Then were used in tandem with planes for military purpose during WW1 and for a brief time used for commercial travel post bellum. After this, airship fell out of favour and over taken by  plane and helicopter.

It's intriguing that this mode of flight has stayed on the back burner and is returning to the drawing board. Technicians and engineers are determined to perfect the designs to make it a viable aviation transport form. Obviously the concept was never completely scrapped by international military forces and commercial interests. If the public are being provided with information now,  the concepts  have been in development for decades. They've never given up on it . It must be more than a flight of fancy .

Is the hold up in design and  manufacturer about the distribution of propulsion as well as the fuel for lift ?  Does shape and proportion  play a part in the problem?  Along with optimal  materials for construction?

[Sir Henry]

[snip]
It's intriguing that this mode of flight has stayed on the back burner and is returning to the drawing board. Technicians and engineers are determined to perfect the designs to make it a viable aviation transport form. Obviously the concept was never completely scrapped by international military forces and commercial interests. If the public are being provided with information now,  the concepts  have been in development for decades. They've never given up on it . It must be more than a flight of fancy .

I've been following the Airlander (https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/) development for the last 9 years and it followed this quite closely. The concept was first worked out for commercial purposes but was then bought up by the US military. After a round of budget cuts they stopped working on it and gave it back (with the research that they had done, I think) to the original developers who are once again working on it for commercial purposes. And it looks like it will actually come to fruition this time.

They are talking about using it for luxury use to start with - aerial safaris and cruises, basically. But my favourite idea is as emergency transport - it will be able to deliver a 40 ton, fully functional hospital with its own power source to disaster sites that have little or no access from the outside world. So places cut off by floods, avalanches, earthquakes, etc. can get the medical infrastructure that is needed in the immediate aftermath. It will also be able to bring in supplies, shelter, etc.

So I keep seeing it as Thunderbird 2.   

[J. Wilhelm]

Mr Wilhelm, I hadn't considered planetary exploration as a potential use for airship craft. Airship technology is largely being developed by military branches of government, rather than civilian commercial ventures. It's interesting that the original airship prototypes were in flight and being tested decades before aeroplane [as far as we know]. Then were used in tandem with planes for military purpose during WW1 and for a brief time used for commercial travel post bellum. After this, airship fell out of favour and over taken by  plane and helicopter.

It's intriguing that this mode of flight has stayed on the back burner and is returning to the drawing board. Technicians and engineers are determined to perfect the designs to make it a viable aviation transport form. Obviously the concept was never completely scrapped by international military forces and commercial interests. If the public are being provided with information now,  the concepts  have been in development for decades. They've never given up on it . It must be more than a flight of fancy .

Is the hold up in design and  manufacturer about the distribution of propulsion as well as the fuel for lift ?  Does shape and proportion  play a part in the problem?  Along with optimal  materials for construction?

From my perspective, there's no hold up on the propulsion side as far as I can tell, other than what I wrote about fuel driven engines in the past being heavy and relatively unresponsive, prior to the advent of small computer controlled electric rotors. Perhaps for the military, they did face a real technological obstacle. But that hurdle is gone, making room for hover vehicles as well as nimble airships.

Some present hurdles could be a practical lack of experience in airship design among aerospace engineering graduates regarding flight dynamics, materials engineering, structures, etc, and a lack of confidence on the part of military brass. But the biggest hurdle has always been that airships are perceived as slow, and so for public transportation other modes simply look more attractive. That translates into a lack of investment necessary to develop these vehicles. At the sight of the slightest failure during a project, money simply dries up and private airships are mothballed. The same happened to military programs.

The real push forward we're going to see will be either military or space program related at the moment. The private sector will likely be involved as contractors in those projects, which will lead to private ventures eventually.

On the military side, there's now serious discussion of pushing high altitude military airship development, since China has already started the practice of sending stratosphere-capable balloons to spy around the Americas and possibly elsewhere. Those balloons look pretty harmless to us, but it's not inconceivable to arm them with conventional, chemical or biological weapons, and even nuclear weapons, and if you saw them in the news, they've proven their spy and political worthiness already.

The other prong of development is happening right now at NASA. If the public sees an airship flying on Mars, I'm quite positive that will have a good effect on private funding for airship development back on Earth. Or at least I'm hoping this will be the case, because in the past NASA innovations have spread to many applications in the civilian world.

[Hurricane Annie]

[snip]
It's intriguing that this mode of flight has stayed on the back burner and is returning to the drawing board. Technicians and engineers are determined to perfect the designs to make it a viable aviation transport form. Obviously the concept was never completely scrapped by international military forces and commercial interests. If the public are being provided with information now,  the concepts  have been in development for decades. They've never given up on it . It must be more than a flight of fancy .

I've been following the Airlander (https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/) development for the last 9 years and it followed this quite closely. The concept was first worked out for commercial purposes but was then bought up by the US military. After a round of budget cuts they stopped working on it and gave it back (with the research that they had done, I think) to the original developers who are once again working on it for commercial purposes. And it looks like it will actually come to fruition this time.

They are talking about using it for luxury use to start with - aerial safaris and cruises, basically. But my favourite idea is as emergency transport - it will be able to deliver a 40 ton, fully functional hospital with its own power source to disaster sites that have little or no access from the outside world. So places cut off by floods, avalanches, earthquakes, etc. can get the medical infrastructure that is needed in the immediate aftermath. It will also be able to bring in supplies, shelter, etc.

So I keep seeing it as Thunderbird 2.   

Aerial Safari! Now you're talking Sir Henry ! That would be a grand expedition. That would work on any continent or landscape. Savannah, desert , jungle , rainforest, sounds, fjord, volcanic fields. Oh that would be marvelous. Large parts of NZ are inaccessible by vehicle or aeroplane. From a tourism perspective this mode of travel could be a boon. As a cargo transport for logging , agriculture and  construction in remote areas, it would ideal as an industrial development.

Being that we are  a remote isolated archipelago, fraught with natural events and disasters,  airship usage for rescues , recovery and emergency contingencies such as hospital and  civil defence base would be well utilised. Volcanic eruption, mega thrust earthquakes, flooding, slips,, drought, cyclone, hurricane, tsunami , tornado, bush fires . We get them all.

You've fueled my engine to keep up my public campaign for airship technology for NZ's burgeoning transport requirements .

Edit: Tracy Island, of Thunderbirds fame, is said to be located in the lower South Pacific. Which would make it in the vicinity of NZ territorial waters jurisdiction.

[Hurricane Annie]

Mr Wilhelm, I hadn't considered planetary exploration as a potential use for airship craft. Airship technology is largely being developed by military branches of government, rather than civilian commercial ventures. It's interesting that the original airship prototypes were in flight and being tested decades before aeroplane [as far as we know]. Then were used in tandem with planes for military purpose during WW1 and for a brief time used for commercial travel post bellum. After this, airship fell out of favour and over taken by  plane and helicopter.

It's intriguing that this mode of flight has stayed on the back burner and is returning to the drawing board. Technicians and engineers are determined to perfect the designs to make it a viable aviation transport form. Obviously the concept was never completely scrapped by international military forces and commercial interests. If the public are being provided with information now,  the concepts  have been in development for decades. They've never given up on it . It must be more than a flight of fancy .

Is the hold up in design and  manufacturer about the distribution of propulsion as well as the fuel for lift ?  Does shape and proportion  play a part in the problem?  Along with optimal  materials for construction?

From my perspective, there's no hold up on the propulsion side as far as I can tell, other than what I wrote about fuel driven engines in the past being heavy and relatively unresponsive, prior to the advent of small computer controlled electric rotors. Perhaps for the military, they did face a real technological obstacle. But that hurdle is gone, making room for hover vehicles as well as nimble airships.

Some present hurdles could be a practical lack of experience in airship design among aerospace engineering graduates regarding flight dynamics, materials engineering, structures, etc, and a lack of confidence on the part of military brass. But the biggest hurdle has always been that airships are perceived as slow, and so for public transportation other modes simply look more attractive. That translates into a lack of investment necessary to develop these vehicles. At the sight of the slightest failure during a project, money simply dries up and private airships are mothballed. The same happened to military programs.

The real push forward we're going to see will be either military or space program related at the moment. The private sector will likely be involved as contractors in those projects, which will lead to private ventures eventually.

On the military side, there's now serious discussion of pushing high altitude military airship development, since China has already started the practice of sending stratosphere-capable balloons to spy around the Americas and possibly elsewhere. Those balloons look pretty harmless to us, but it's not inconceivable to arm them with conventional, chemical or biological weapons, and even nuclear weapons, and if you saw them in the news, they've proven their spy and political worthiness already.

The other prong of development is happening right now at NASA. If the public sees an airship flying on Mars, I'm quite positive that will have a good effect on private funding for airship development back on Earth. Or at least I'm hoping this will be the case, because in the past NASA innovations have spread to many applications in the civilian world.

So many of our civilian and commercial developments started out as military research and found there way into everyday use. Hopefully the public imagination will be captured by news footage from Mars and bored billionaires will be wanting to compete over a new toy.

There does have to be professional incentive for the military brass and senior aviation engineers to maintain an interest in airship development, for it to fly. The Chinese incursions into foreign air space with their "weather balloons" may well be the ignition for research and innovation to reach actual implementation stage.