[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 18 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Now accepting credit card payment for 4chan Pass purchases and renewals. Click here for details.


File: 1044229698.jpg (1.12 MB, 3072x2046)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB JPG
who else loves ''small'' blimps over large rigid airships?

I am an LTA enthusiast and my interest is primarily with blimps, gas balloons and semi rigids.

I've never really believed in super large, massive, rigid, transatlantic, hybrid, cargo carrying pipedreams

pic related, beautiful small russian blimp
>>
File: ZET.png (2.42 MB, 1462x1388)
2.42 MB
2.42 MB PNG
Pic related, an idea of a modern, very efficient, 45 passenger semi-rigid airship.

It is what would be viable today, with the limitations of helium.

Large rigids and cargo airships, hybrid or regular are pipedreams. They cannot be deflated/transported. They have to be extremely large to work and even then they are not efficient enough, plus the hangars would be too expensive. Even the hindenburg class could not efficiently fly without hydrogen. Which is simply too dangerous.

So I am of the opinion that the future of airships is in semi rigids and blimps.
>>
File: Parseval PL 19.jpg (2.19 MB, 4056x2280)
2.19 MB
2.19 MB JPG
Parseval thought exactly the same. He build many blimps and semi rigids for germany during ww1 and afterwards but barely no one knows his name. His company competed against the Zeppelin company. Pic is a model of an 1914 blimp prototype
>>
File: AKG158507.jpg (117 KB, 934x728)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
>>1283238
Parseval 1929 German Blimp
>>
File: Reklame.jpg (13 KB, 522x295)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>1283240
Another interwar German blimp
>>
File: 61isfI6w5QL._SL1500_.jpg (96 KB, 1500x452)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>1283242
Parseval semi rigid.
>>
File: a4-.jpg (95 KB, 1020x579)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
I wish I could live on a Zeppelin, like on a flying yacht.
>>
>>
File: blimptrain.jpg (106 KB, 1280x720)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>1283231
obligatory
>>
>>1283646
>the magnets
truly the golden age of /n/
>>
>>1283646
Why not just bus on bridge? Friend asking
>>
File: LosAngeles_Panama_1929_1.jpg (397 KB, 2348x1425)
397 KB
397 KB JPG
One of the most successful airships. Helium filled,
crew of 45. Build in the early twenties, scrapped in 1940.

It would have been amazing if they had kept this one as a museum piece. If would have attracted many visitors for sure. A real classic rigid airship with bow, keel and all.
>>
>>1284562
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pynINuESJLI
>>
File: Airships.png (1.23 MB, 3296x5800)
1.23 MB
1.23 MB PNG
>>
>>1283231
what would happen if me and my buds went outback and shot one of these shits in the sky with our high powered bolt action rifles? would it pop?
>>
>>1284586
No, they're underpressurized. It would just slowly leak.
>>
File: Skyship 600.jpg (2.01 MB, 3072x2304)
2.01 MB
2.01 MB JPG
>>1284586
The most commonly used lifting gas, helium, is inert and therefore presents no fire risk.[143] A series of vulnerability tests were done by the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency DERA on a Skyship 600. Since the internal gas pressure was maintained at only 1–2% above the surrounding air pressure, the vehicle proved highly tolerant to physical damage or to attack by small-arms fire or missiles. Several hundred high-velocity bullets were fired through the hull, and even two hours later the vehicle would have been able to return to base. Ordnance passed through the envelope without causing critical helium loss. In all instances of light armament fire evaluated under both test and live conditions, the airship was able to complete its mission and return to base

Also, it's not hard for them to spot where the fire is coming from. You'll get your ass busted and go to jail for a long time.
>>
These would be a lot more popular at hot air balloon fests if helium was a lot cheaper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbGYRsDgJxs

once we can make helium out of hydrogen cheaply, airships will definitely come back enmasse.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol0s3w2ohLk
>>
I miss the days when airship threads were full of pterodactyls desu
>>
File: 1544927763267.png (282 KB, 800x447)
282 KB
282 KB PNG
ITS NOTHING BUT A TUBE
>>
>>1283242
Orange blimp bad
>>
>>1284821
Surely Orange blimp not as bad as you purport him to be?
>>
Fuck blips, I want my Concorde.
Or at least long range Ty144, because speed is everything.
>>
>>1284616
>once we can make helium out of hydrogen cheaply
Only possible through nuclear fusion. Even then fusion plants would reuse their helium byproduct to use as coolant.
>>
>>1284873
Alright, once we can mine helium from outer space
>>
>>1283240
Man that is a cool little blimp
Using hydrogen too.

Imo hydrogen should be allowed for blimps that are smaller than 35 meters.

Helium is only really viable for large airships.

The benefits of small hydrogen blimps is huge.
Hydrogen is cheap, can be manufactured on site, can be vented off. Helium is like gold compared to it.

Today where I live it's such a beautiful day. Light breeze, wide open fields, total clear sky.
As I was walking my dog I was just imagining one of these small blimps cruising along.

Certainly blimps are prone to bad weather.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't any days you can't fly.

If I had many millions I would see if I could get my own small hydrogen blimp. Just for cruising over my estate when it's beautiful weather

There is really nothing else that can offer the same experience

It's like a big step up from a hot air balloon
>>
File: 292315675310.jpg (215 KB, 1533x988)
215 KB
215 KB JPG
>>
File: Goodyear_M_class.jpg (948 KB, 3000x2413)
948 KB
948 KB JPG
The Goodyear M Class. My personal favorite airship, because of its massive control car, and relatively small sized envelope.
>>
File: M_class_blimp.jpg (391 KB, 2157x1373)
391 KB
391 KB JPG
>>1285694
>>
>>1285696
>>1285694
These carried a .50 call and 8 anti sub bombs
>>
this shit is intersting
>>
File: 1509466152105.jpg (78 KB, 1242x1392)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
>>1283240
>trumpf
>>
>>1283231
how do they keep these things from being blown off course by winds?
>>
>>1285756
>>1285756
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAN73N6-hKc

Usually they only fly up to a certain wind speed. If the weather forecast is bad for that day they don't go up.

In the past they had no choice The Graf Zeppelin that went transatlantic never travelled in a straight line. It just kind of followed the optimal path just like a sail ship would do, but with the added benefit of trust.

Airships can handle quite a bit of wind while up in the air. The trouble comes when they need to land. They have to face into the wind. Most blimp crashes happened when they where being towed to and from the hangars.
>>
>>1285947
>>1285756

Here is a blimp in a storm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERI8_cprgMo
>>
File: IMG_1130.jpg (193 KB, 1757x1104)
193 KB
193 KB JPG
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4dT-_JS6dw
>>
https://youtu.be/gZVwijI1-nI
>>
File: ZRS-4_landing_h42156.jpg (85 KB, 740x571)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>1287680
>>1287682
The zeppelin NT carries roughly 8250 cubic metres of helium, it is 75 meters long and 14 meters in diameter

The USS Akron is 240 meters long and 40 meters in diameter. In comparison, it carried about 210000 cubic meters of helium.

So for an airship that's roughly triple in size, you get 25 times more lifting capacity

if it wasn't for damn helium scarcity on earth the skies would be full of airships.
>>
>>1287929
Now imagine an airship 500 meters long and a 100 meters in diameter

It would give us a total volume of 2,617,993 cubic meters.

Since the shape won't be an exact ellipsoid, we will remove roughly 8%, giving us roughly 2,4 million cubic meters of helium.

Now we have a ship that is just over twice as long as the USS Akron, and just over twice as fat, but it has over 10 times the amount of lifting capacity

The akron had a useful lift of about 70 tonnes, our airship would have a useful lift of 500+ tonnes, not even counting increased efficiency with modern materials. With my estimations you can carry roughly a 1000 people in relative comfort, with an airship that is 500 meters long and 100 meters in diameter. Speeds would be between 100 and 200 km/h,
endurance would pretty much be permanent, assuming we have extremely cheap and light weight solar film by then that can cover the structure.

Of course this will not happen until we have infinite resources of helium.
>>
>>1287935
>>
>>1287936
There are significant benefits to going large when building airships. The ability to lift cargo will increase rapidly as you increase the dimensions of the airship.

it ought to be safe to assume that we can grow the thickness proportional. By that I mean that if I double the dimensions of the airship, then I also double the thickness of the envelope. So an airship 30 m long, 10 m tall, should have an envelope with twice the thickness of an airship 15 m long, 5 m tall.
>>
>>1287941

One very important feature of lighter-than-air craft which confers upon them a superiority over heavier-than-air craft, namely, that an increase in the size of airships gives greatly improved efficiency. The reason why in an airship the efficiency ratio is improved with an increase in size, whereas in the airplane it remains at best stationary, is due to the fact that the airship derives its lift from volume, while the airplane derives its lift from area. Now, in either case what may be termed the unit of lift, cubic feet of volume or square feet of area, exerts only a definite lifting effect; in the airship this is determined by the specific gravity of hydrogen or helium, and is therefore immovable, whereas in the airplane it depends upon progress in design, and is thus still open to improvement.

This fact may, in a certain measure, work out in favor of the airplane, but there are other factors which actually limit the practicable size of heavier-than-air craft. One of these is that while the lift of an airplane theoretically varies with the square of linear dimensions, the weight of the wing structure per unit of area does not remain stationary with an increase of wing area, but increases, because the larger wing structure must be made proportionally strong. Consequently, a size is eventually reached where every additional square foot of surface weighs as much as it can lift, so that beyond this size there will occur a marked reduction in efficiency.

The best way to increase the speed of the Zeppelin is to increase its volume. The greater lifting power permits heavier motors. Air resistance does not increase in the same ratio, because it varies with the square of the balloon's dimensions, whereas the ascensional force varies with the cube. So when the length and width are doubled the resistance of the air is quadrupled, while the ascensional force is increased eight times.
>>
>>
>>1288112
>>
>>1288114
>>1288112
>>
“The world is estimated to have over 1.4 trillion cubic feet of helium reserves. At current rates of production, along with conservative growth rates, these reserves could produce helium for decades.”

“There is no shortage of helium on the planet; however, this helium will only be produced as a byproduct of natural gas or LNG production as these resources are exploited by energy companies.”

1.4 trillion / 10 million = 140 thousand


There is enough helium on earth to fill 140 thousand, 300 meter long airships. (The Hindenburg was 245 meters.)

>>1288112
>>1288112

So there is enough helium on earth for atleast a few large airships. The Hindenburg class airship was never intended as the final size for airships. In fact, the ideal size of airships is about double the size of the Hindenburg ( it would be able to carry 10 times the amount of passengers at this point ).

But only a large government would have the power to do this. Is it impossible to build a 500 meter airship? Of course not. The largest sea-ship currently is about 450 meters long.
A 500 meter airship could be equipped with immensely powerful engines. It would be able to go through thunder storms without problem.
>>
Why not just use hydrogen?
>>
File: hindenburg.jpg (245 KB, 1200x891)
245 KB
245 KB JPG
>>1288757
Because helium doesn't go bang
>>
>>1288757
>>1288766

I probably have most posts in this thread. I've been an avid airship enthusiast for a few years.

In my opinion, hydrogen could/should be used for unmanned blimp drones and weather balloons. I'd go as far as saying that manned gasballoons can be filled with hydrogen.

I am of the opinion that anything manned that flies over public areas should be filled with helium. However, if some crazy rich dude wants to build his own personal blimp to fly it in the desert and fill it with hydrogen, it shouldn't be an issue.

All airship experts agreed that hydrogen should simply not be used anymore for larger, public airships. If one explodes, it greatly harms the image of the airship. Hydrogen only needs a few percentage of oxygen mixed with it, to become highly explosive. The Hindenburg bang was massive, and its fireball reached almost almost a 800 meters high.

Could a safe hydrogen airship be made- possibly. Will it happen- no. The risk of sabotage is too great and PR would never allow it. Either way, there is a plenty of helium on earth for quite a few large rigid airships if a government or a really rich person really wanted it. But the interest is too low.

However, airships won't die out, because they rely on an universal principle of buoyancy. Airships will only become more and more tempting as material science increases further.
>>
>>1288863
>>1288766
>>1288757
Just imagine, as with any form of transport, there are some people that really hate it.
There will be some fringies, communists or terrorists that would blow the airship up with a small bomb, and no one would ever knew it was sabotage.
>>
HGZ 129M
>>
>>1289015
>>
File: 123123.png (66 KB, 485x870)
66 KB
66 KB PNG
>>1289016
>>1289015
>>
Sergey Brin is building a 200 meter airship
>>
I tried creating an airship forum once

An airship community doesn't work, trust me..
why? because 50% are devout hydrogen enthusiasts, while the other 50% are devout helium enthusiasts, and they always collide into very uncivil discussions. Aside from that there would be the occasional snake oil salesman with totally retarded airship designs.

Either way what I am trying to say is the LTA community is totally split on this topic.
>>
>tfw no ultralight airship kits

why live
>>
>>1289393
They do exist if you research well enough, but you're going to have to speak French as most are based in France. They're basically just balloons wit some electric motors strapped to it. With helium it'd cost about 1000 dollars to fill the balloon, with hydrogen roughly 50 to 100. You could vent the hydrogen once you're done, but you're gonna have to store the helium unless you want to go broke. But hydrogen is tightly regulated, so you likely need a permit. Either way, tiny airships are still very big, atleast 20 meters for one person (or just a spherical balloon, which would be smaller, and probably better suited for the purpose , and look more like this > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9jVS2AqD2I )

These could work well enough in hot air balloon conditions. But do you have the cash to use helium or the balls to fly with hydrogen?
In germany, they fly hydrogen balloons with a very good safety record- but they can because the launch pad for these balloons is near a factory which produces hydrogen as a byproduct. So through a few contacts they got access to very cheap disposable hydrogen. But if you want a ride you're going to have to be able to speak german and browse german LTA websites.

so it is far from as easy as it might look. The most practical solution would be a spherical hydrogen balloon, with a chair and a paramotor. Once you're done you can slowly vent the gas and go down. If you only fly in perfect conditions, there is virtually no chance of explosion. Take the same guidance as hot air balloons.

Another alternative might be hot airships. These are much bigger and cost around 30k-50k. They've increased in popularity. But you still need a crew of a few. No, the most efficient solution is a spherical hydrogen balloon adjusted to one person with an engine. If one truly desired it can be done. I think even with a back up parachute on the chair.
>>
>>1289500
if the balloon does catch flame, it's unlikely it will explode, rather burn in a few seconds, you won't die from that. A parachute chair could safe you if you are high enough. But if somehow it does explode, it would be a massive bang. But there would have to be something seriously wrong with your balloon for that much oxygen to mix with the hydrogen, and than to ignite it. This is why in all history of ballooning it has practically not exploded, rather burned up quickly, which is survivable if one has a parachute.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.