Posting mode: Reply
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • ????????? - ??

  • File : 1289163018.jpg-(69 KB, 1022x576, Andocken.jpg)
    69 KB Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)15:50 No.12715002  
    Hey gentlemen, i have a dream. I know this isn't traditional game like, but... the audience is one I've always found akin to. Good friends, all around.

    I want to bring back Zepplins. They're safe, I assure you. But nobody has the balls to try it. You could fly from Portland to Seattle in 2 hours. In a safe, calm, quiet zepplin ride and see all the beautiful sights of the bold pacific northwest. Or, a eight hour direct could get you to San Fransisco. Imagine it.. you and you're lady friend go downtown, take an elevator to the roof of a gleaming sky scrapper, and board my bold airship. Your served a tasty light lunch, maybe a london broil salad, and you enjoy a johnny walker black, as you sail over the hills, farms and through the clouds gently to your destination... for no more than $200. Pleasure trips too, pick you and your friend up, fly you out over the ocean to watch the sunset from the sky, a wonderful dinner, maybe a band.

    What do you think /tg/, would you take a ride with me, in my airship?
    >> dice2 11/07/10(Sun)15:52 No.12715037
    For transport of air cargo much cheaper than plane. Everything else is done better by train or planes if you need it prompt.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)15:57 No.12715080
         File1289163434.jpg-(10 KB, 480x360, Archer.jpg)
    10 KB
    My god man, are you mad? What if the hydrogen explodes?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)15:58 No.12715090
    A plane uses vastly more fuel. You need to get it up to speed to stay aloft. An airship just floats gently in the wind. Problem is that it's more suspectible to weather influences. You'd need to load it with ballast up to its maximum capacity, to create inertia, or make a dual system. Lifting gas up to a certain point, speed for the rest.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)15:59 No.12715106
         File1289163596.jpg-(55 KB, 800x600, trollforce.jpg)
    55 KB
    You mean, the helium?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:00 No.12715112
         File1289163641.jpg-(44 KB, 532x700, 1232686584174.jpg)
    44 KB
    Holds promise.

    Planes work best on an economy of scale + just-in-time delivery. As fuel prices start to -really- go up we'll have to reconsider a lot of this stuff and begin to restructure the way we run our economy and our personal travel.

    I think zeppelins would be a lot less energy-intensive than planes, and with modern technology we can solve a lot of the structural problems that led to their demise. Plus I like the longer journeys, so yes, I'll join you on your airship, provided my drink's a gin-tonic.
    >> Sgt. Varn !q8XtSW4.HY 11/07/10(Sun)16:00 No.12715113
         File1289163657.png-(100 KB, 541x486, 1280783669338.png)
    100 KB
    I would rather rob your skyship.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:01 No.12715114

    >What do you think /tg/, would you take a ride with me, in my airship?

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:04 No.12715147

    Not OP, but:

    Better design decisions and materials could result in a blimp where, even if one cell did ignite, it would not ignite every cell and could possibly vent the burning hydrogen in a non-explosive manner. Other considerations (inert gas blankets, etc.) could prevent most ignition scenarios save for lightning, which would need to be arrested through other means. Hybrid airships (rigid airships that have an airfoil shape) could glide into a fall and apply air brakes to recover from a loss of buoyancy safely.

    I have no doubt that we can do it, but after the Hindenburg nobody's going to give a hydrogen filled passenger airship a second chance unless the gondola is capable of independent flight somehow.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:04 No.12715148
    would have to be a luxury ride. the zep is outclassed in everything you want to do with it except for maybe fuel.

    It's the same reason almost every ship that isn't for personnel use is a luxury cruise liner. The airplane gets you there faster, and it's a fairly comfortable ride.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:04 No.12715152

    Yes, the fuel aspect is very key. The cost of planes is, probably going to become very awful. To fly my zepplin, should be very cheap. And of course we'll use helium. It'll be cheaper than flying a helicopter, thats for darn sure. I was thinking of basing out of Tillamook OR, out of an old Navy blimp basin.

    I appreciate your sense of adventure sir. Those prices of fuel will go up. By a lot. And short commuter trips are just going to become worse and worse. I think there will be a market, for these commuter trips, where passengers are treated well, and given a recognizable meal. Maybe delivered by a pretty lady.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:06 No.12715160
         File1289163966.jpg-(74 KB, 375x489, plague-doctor-in-color.jpg)
    74 KB
    Computer Scientist here.


    Any engineers here? Are there any really lighter-than-air gases that won't ignite?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:06 No.12715161

    Should also have explained, the lifting gas is divided into gas filled cells or bladders with protective barriers between each in many newer designs.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:06 No.12715162
    >Cargo Ships
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:07 No.12715167
    But is there a chance the bladder will bend?!
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:07 No.12715170
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:08 No.12715182

    Helium, and because The World Is Stupid (TM) we here in the United States were about the only ones saving it. Helium gas is running out. You can't just make more, you have to mine it (from irradiated natural gas deposits no less) and store it.

    Since Helium is only getting more scarce and expensive and leaks slowly anyway, just like Hydrogen, we might as well bite the bullet and go with the safest possible Hydrogen based design out there.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:08 No.12715183
    >For thousands of tons of CARGO, not people
    >people which OP made clear is his main purpose
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:09 No.12715191
    The Hindenburg only went up because the USA had all of the helium and wouldn't share with nazis, so they used hydrogen.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:09 No.12715194
    Helium. Now shut up.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:09 No.12715196
    No, OP, it's not going to work. The simple fact is that dirigibles of any type are significantly more susceptible to the wind and any other weather patterns. Trying to fly in all but the calmest weather is significantly more difficult (and often impossible) than attempting to do so in a heavier-than-air aircraft.

    The only reason they stayed around after the invention of airplanes was their cargo capacity and ability to linger over a an area. The former was solved when people invented engines large enough to get larger aircraft into the air, and the latter was solved by helicopters.

    There are actual applications of lighter-than-air aircraft these days, but it's almost entirely limited to scientific and military-intelligence data gathering.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:11 No.12715214
    Er, no. Hydrogen doesn't burn without oxygen, and the hull coating was made of something that not only attracted lightning, but was basically thermite. With a fire retardant hull, the Hindenburg wouldn't have caught fire. Also remember that it was the time before plastics.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:12 No.12715225
    I think it might actually make sense to transport extremely heavy freight.

    But for passenger and pleasure cruises. . don't know.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:12 No.12715228
    Not OP here but.
    Jet engine meet Airship.
    Airship, meet jet engine.

    I know it wouldn't work that well, but the image is nice...
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:12 No.12715229
    >Any engineers here? Are there any really lighter-than-air gases that won't ignite?

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:12 No.12715230
    Hindenburg went up because they were idiots who painted it with super-flammable shit. Otherwise, the ignited hydrogen would've leaked out in a spurt of flame but not burn the whole thing in minutes.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:13 No.12715234

    Well yeah, Helium. It's not nearly as buoyant as Hydrogen though, so it would be inefficient by comparison.

    Thing about hydrogen is, it's not really that dangerous, if properly contained and handled. Each tank carrying hydrogen would simply have to be outfitted with an emergency system that vents the gas if there were ever to be a problem with that particular tank. That way, the worst thing that happens is a flamethrower shooting out the side of the zeppelin, and the crowd going 'oooh, ahhh'.

    Of course, one could always muse at the notion of a jet-powered zeppelin that just uses the air around it for lift, in addition to some helium ballast for security. There would be intakes at the front, and each would lead to a chamber that heats the air and stores it, much like a hot air balloon. The air passes through the system as it is needed by pumps that funnel it into a jet turbine, propelling the craft forward. Probably 4-6 tanks, all leading to one or two engines would suffice.

    I sort of want to drawfag this now... but I don't have a tablet.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:14 No.12715239

    Jet engine mind.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:14 No.12715240
    or adverts above a populace.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:15 No.12715244
    No it doesn't. The main methods of transporting freight are by train, truck, ship, and airplane. A dirigible would be as slow or slower than trains, trucks, and ships and significantly more costly. In other words, it offers no advantages over airplanes.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:16 No.12715253
    Well, yes. They have a use in advertisement.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:18 No.12715275
    Wouldn't the materials needed to contain a vacuum be heavy enough to erase the gains from using it in the first place?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:19 No.12715282
    Basic advantage of a zep: You can carry huge loads (larger than anything a plane can manage) into regions that are otherwise cut off from civilization. Imagine 1,500 tons of supplies carried directly into a flooded area, or an earthquake region.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:20 No.12715290
         File1289164800.jpg-(934 KB, 932x750, zepplin.jpg)
    934 KB

    What kind of speed are we talking about?
    and how much more expensive would that be, than just dumping fuel into a propeller?

    Picture is a zepplin about to dock with the KOIN6 building in Portland, where 200 people are about to board and enjoy an evening of free range buffalo steak, coho salmon and the musical stylings of white tie big band.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:20 No.12715295
    I... Am not sure. But it is a distinct possibility.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:20 No.12715296
         File1289164829.jpg-(315 KB, 1236x1602, crimson skies.jpg)
    315 KB
    In b4 air pirates.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:20 No.12715299

    Isn't this why there are zeppelins in Watchmen? I heard that Doctor Manhattan creates it, which is a nice bit of setting flavour until you realise that he can teleport anything, create anything, and can divide his attention between many locations at the same time. It's like having an epic level Wizard in your setting; the implications of his power make everything else meaningless.

    Still, stars manufacture Helium from Hydrogen. Who says no one will ever make a fusion reactor that's cost-effective? We'll have clean electricity AND zeppelins!
    >> Sgt. Varn !q8XtSW4.HY 11/07/10(Sun)16:21 No.12715309
    Your a little late there buddy.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:22 No.12715312
    Exactly like a helicopter; The main issue would be volume, would it be stable carrying a mass equivalent to, say, a chinook's load?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:23 No.12715315
    I am with you, brother. To the skies!
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:23 No.12715316

    Your chart is missing the Defender and Coyote... which, I guess, is because there were no cardboard models for them in the game :(
    >> YourUncleBilly 11/07/10(Sun)16:23 No.12715320

    Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:23 No.12715321
    If you're dealing with emergency situations, then helicopters can perform the same function with existing infrastructure.

    If you're dealing with the middle of the amazon or some such, there is no need to develop a hyper-specialized payload system because there is almost no reason to go there on any mass scale.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:23 No.12715324
         File1289165012.jpg-(96 KB, 600x901, keanu2.jpg)
    96 KB

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:23 No.12715326
    We already have fusion, just not cost effective. We basically could make our helium with a Farnsworth Fusor or even a tokamak, but it takes huge amounts of power to keep it running.
    >> Urist 11/07/10(Sun)16:25 No.12715342
    Get. Out. Of. My. BRAIN.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:25 No.12715345
    A helicopter can't transport 1,500 tons at once, and it needs vast amounts of fuel - and why exactly do you pull that shit about "specialized infrastructure" out of your ass?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:26 No.12715352
         File1289165190.jpg-(12 KB, 200x181, farnsworth.jpg)
    12 KB
    >We basically could make our helium with a Farnsworth Fusor

    Good news, everyone!
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:27 No.12715357
    >specialized infrastructure
    I'm referring to the fact that there are helicopters around right now, dumbfuck. We don't have to develop entirely new systems to carry cargo and put them into production.

    Look, zeppelins and the like are great little fantasy devices. But in the real world, where economics and reality actually fucking matters, there are a whole host of reasons why this concept has been largely abandoned for the last seventy years.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:27 No.12715360

    I've just designed an airship that can fly indefinitely!
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:28 No.12715362

    The Hindenburg went down because it was an unsafe design. (Extremely unsafe, might I add.) Even if it were filled with Helium, the skin was also flammable.


    Pivoting propellers around the sides of the craft solve that problem handily, IIRC.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:28 No.12715363
    Why would you need to take 1500 tons in/out of an area totally cut off from civilization?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:31 No.12715398
    Because those areas won't conquer themselves.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:33 No.12715426
    Known fusor designs produce a minute trickle of Helium. Not nearly enough to serve as a primary source of the gas.

    As for arguments for or against practicality - lighter than air designs do use less energy overall to lift a load, and they require no fuel at all to remain aloft. This is important for high-endurance applications (of which there are many) but for every-day shipping and commuting it's a bust. Hybrid designs like the SkyCat might supplement existing helicopters (since they combine features of both) for heavy lift applications but I'm really not holding my breath. The biggest market for lighter than air craft besides UAVs would be luxury flights.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:33 No.12715427
    One of the few truly interesting things about the movie Stealth was the unmanned fueling airship floating out over the ocean. Practical?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:33 No.12715429

    Because a flooded city that is in need of help and crisis aid wouldn't need that much stuff, nope, lets just use over 9000 helicopters.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:34 No.12715431
    Why would you want to conquer such an area?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:34 No.12715433
         File1289165664.jpg-(6 KB, 191x234, 1271589953106.jpg)
    6 KB
    Is...is that a german airborne aircraft carrier?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:35 No.12715439

    Pick your flavour of newly discovered natural resource.

    You can fly in an entire base at once.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:35 No.12715440

    Those dirty stinking Na'vi wont kill themselves!
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:36 No.12715454
    Yes, that's what we do now, and it works.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:36 No.12715460
    If you start a sentence with "Why would you want to conquer", especially on /tg/, you're asking for trouble. Also, use your brain.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:37 No.12715462
    >luxury flights

    It doesn't have to be luxury... like prohibitive for everyone. It'd be extremely cheap. Cheaper than riding a train. Another idea, is to fly out over the sea, and run a flying casino. then return.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:37 No.12715467
    If there is some magical fucking resource out in Antarctica, the only way you are going to be able to exploit it is by developing much cheaper infrastructure in the area - roads, railways, docks and the like.

    It's alright to just say "RULE OF COOL," you know. Just don't pretend that it works in the real world.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:38 No.12715478

    Wouldn't it be more efficient to use 20 Airships instead of 9000 helicopters?
    When they both can do the same thing, one costs extremely less?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:40 No.12715487
    Not when they have a development cost. The helicopters will be used for other things. If the dirigibles' only cost-effective use are these two rare things, then the cost of developing them, producing them, training crews, etc. simply makes it unfeasible.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:41 No.12715502
    Because ariships are really fucking slow.

    It's quicker to draft in hundreds of Helicopters from all over the place making multiple trips than it is to try and get a couple of Ariships to make one trip.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:41 No.12715503
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:43 No.12715527

    Lets go with the hypothetical thing then.
    1 airship = 9000 helicopter rides.
    20 airships =180000 helicopters.

    It takes 9000 'copters to do the job of 1 'ship.
    20 airships would be more feasible than 180k helicopters.
    Considering 20 airships could probably keep an entire city running for enough time for land or water based aid to get things set up.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:45 No.12715541
    Add fuel shortage to the mix, and airships suddenly become the only viable way.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:45 No.12715542
    The solution to this is to put rockets on the airships.
    >> Ted, Bard of the River 11/07/10(Sun)16:45 No.12715545
    rolled 12 = 12

    Your not factoring in time. How many times would a helicopter make the same trip a airship can?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:45 No.12715547
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:46 No.12715553
    Where I can get myself a ticket? Or better what qualifications must I have to be a captain of airship?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:46 No.12715560
    Isn't OP suggesting this as pleasure trips?
    I mean sure I could take a plane ride to the dominican republic or travel around the countrys mediterranean with aircrafts in a hurry but with pleasure cruises it's supposed to take longer and you are supposed to have a good time, instead of just sitting in a cramped seat for a few hours.
    I know I'd rather take a classy zeppelin ride over to finland with my lady then going on the awful cruise ships full of plebes.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:48 No.12715573
    Nobody classy is going to Finland. Thus, no classy service will include Finland on its itinerary.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:50 No.12715586
    Specialized pilot's license. You need to actually train on an airship. Sign up with Goodyear or Luftschiffbau Zeppelin in Germany.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:50 No.12715587
    Well England or Germany then.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:50 No.12715588

    Lets go with Soviet America then and Hurricane Katrina.
    It took how long for any aid to arrive?
    If you had Airships that could be based at least every 2 stats away and take off immediately to deliver 30k tons of supplies, and aid.
    Would this not be more viable than gathering 180 THOUSAND helicopters?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:51 No.12715590

    Jet engines are almost always less efficient than a propeller. Almost. It really depends on the type of craft you're talking about.

    In the case of a Zeppelin, the fact that you could drive the entire craft at about the same speed as 6-8 props could push it with one jet engine, that's pretty efficient. Only issue is maneuverability.

    But, I've thought of that . Harrier Zeppelins!

    Speed would be pretty good too; could probably get going at around 150mph or so. It'd take a while, though.

    Jesus I want a goddamn tablet right now.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:53 No.12715602
    with modern carbon science we should be able to carry a lot more weight, thus having a much more pleasurable flight than the relative spartan means of the hindenburg.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:55 No.12715620
    A bump with wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

    There are some very nice comparisons there, so read it.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:55 No.12715624
    do you think it'd be a poor idea to serve the LZ-129 hindenburg as a drink on board?

    2oz orange juice
    2oz gin
    >> Ted, Bard of the River 11/07/10(Sun)16:56 No.12715625
    rolled 11 = 11

    Expanding on this idea. A single helicopter could make the same journey around 4-6 times.

    While a cargo plane could make it 18-20 times.

    In a flooded city, in desperate need for relief, or a isolated area needing help, a plane or helicopter would probably be your better option.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:57 No.12715635

    Oh fuck yes, carbon fiber zeppelins with VTOL jets engines.

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:58 No.12715645
    Actually, aid arrived relatively quickly. The problem was in rescuing people from their homes and moving them out of the area. The organization that was most free with its use of helicopters - the Coast Guard - was most able to get people out of the flooded parts of the city.

    See, in operations in urban areas, the helicopters' small size and maneuverability gives them significantly more operational ability than dirigibles.

    The problems of Katrina were largely organizational and governmental in nature.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)16:59 No.12715648

    Because a flooded city is going to have runways. A helicopter also needs a small landing pad. Which I digress does make it healthy. But it does not deliver in bulk.
    An airship could do exactly what a helicopter could do, except better. But just slower.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:00 No.12715659
    Kevlar skin, composite frame.
    Capacity to carry massive amounts of defensive countermeasures, powerful radar systems, and HUEG numbers of AMRAAM missiles.

    > Park modernized Zeppelin in contested airspace
    > Floating Anti-Air fortress complete, captain
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:00 No.12715665
    Just did some calculations, a normal trip with a cruiseship from Stockholm to Helsinki takes about 12 hours and the distance is 400 km.
    The Graf Zeppelin could cover 2800 km in 28 hours, so a Zeppelin could make that trip in 4 hours.
    Basically you could travel anywhere in Europe in about 24 hours, pleasure cruise style instead of cramped aircraft style, I think it could work.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:00 No.12715667

    My bad.
    Not healthy. *Helpful*
    Don't "wat" at me yet.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:02 No.12715678
    Chinook, top speed 315km/h.
    Modern Zeppelin NT, 125km/h.

    So the helicopters can make two and a half trips in the same time the zeppelin makes one.

    What makes things really interesting is their carrying capacities. Zeppelins can carry a load of 9000kg, while the Chinook's max load is 12700kg.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:02 No.12715681

    it beats the dick off a cruise ship. The views of flying over, correction, flying through the alps, would be a much nicer treat than a boat by some ice.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:02 No.12715687

    Why not just Anti air?
    Add some muntions for sieging gound forces as well.
    >> Ted, Bard of the River 11/07/10(Sun)17:03 No.12715698
    rolled 15 = 15

    ...Yes? It would. In that same logic, you could say that a flooded city won't have a docking area for a blimp. Heavens forbid, you would be looking for an immense section of flat level land in a city, so you can actually land with a airship. Helicopters are the only exception to that ruling, as they would land in an flat area with enough room to unload it's cargo. As for your stipulations. I say it would be mighty unfavorable to anything but airships in your ideal airship ready society.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:04 No.12715701

    I... you... wat?
    Welp there goes my argument.
    Though I would like a source.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:04 No.12715704
    Sure, you could thrown on some AC-130 level armament and some longer range stuff too; get some AGMs on there.

    The whole thing could be remotely operated, with several onboard CIWS guns to shoot down inbound missiles.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:05 No.12715711

    Because in today's modern society we couldnt use a lift of some sorts to unload cargo without the blimp actually landing?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:06 No.12715716
    Just how large could a gondol be made exactly?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:06 No.12715717

    I'm curious where you got your speed for the Zeppelin. Is that for the WW2-era craft? Or a modern blimp?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:07 No.12715730
    Wikipedia articles for CH-47 Chinook, Zeppelin, and Zeppelin NT. Nothing fancier nor more reliable than that, I'm afraid.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:08 No.12715733
    >implying that the Zeppelin NT is anything more than a glorified scale model for test purposes
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:09 No.12715749

    Where is /k/ when you need them.
    I think they would orgasm over a mobile weapons platform like that.
    Couldnt it also be used a psychological device as well.
    Seeing something that is a mobile fortress floating over your head.
    But I would think it would vunerable to small arms fire and Missles yo.
    Or a tank just aiming up and shooting it.
    Unless you know its somehow impervious to that.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:09 No.12715756
    Doesn't matter, because larger airships use it only for the cockpit. The main hold is actually inside the hull.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:11 No.12715764
    Since I see people talking about airships being slow, do we have any actual data on that?
    A know that Mi-26 can lift up to 20000kg of cargo and that its top speed is about 290km/h.

    On the other hand top speed for airships is about 160-170km/h.

    For example LZ-127 could lift up to 60,000 kg and move at top speed of 128km/h.

    I can't find any stats at the moment, but I doubt that modern cargo ships could move at greater speed than 100km/h. I'd be surprised if cargo ships with comparable carrying capacity could pull more that 60km/h.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:11 No.12715766

    One of the books in the Sprawl trilogy talks about the aftermath of a railgun attack on a megacorp compout from a stealth blimp.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:11 No.12715768
    True, I don't know how resilient you could make the skin for things like small arms / cannon hits. I was thinking more of a "park several km away" approach, and use the zep's ability to hold a big load of cruise missiles / BVR AA missiles to provide supporting fire with a long on station time and which isn't hindered by rough terrain.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:12 No.12715772
    Imagine going downtown, taking the elevator to the roof, where you're greeted by an amiable uniformed gentelmen.... around you are the gleaming lights of a busy city. Traffic below sputters by, and the chilly wind makes your lady clutch her coat. You step aboard the the warm airship where golden floorway lights guide you to your seat. You hand your coats to a cute girl in a noir outfit and short skirt with cute silver modern wings on her jacket, and take your place. The band starts up and drinks are brought to you. The ship lifts up, and the city falls away, unrivaled views entrance you as the alcohol, band and delicious steak dinner take affect. You sail out of the city and away into the night. You awake in your room, with a gorgeous vista of snow capped peaks and blue ribbon rivers for a hundred miles. A nice breakfast is brought to you and the airship circles your destination. It comes around and you see your arrival port, the empire state building. You are handed your coat, and you step off into the new rome, marveling at the busy streets below and an elevator ride to the bottom brings you safely and enjoyably to new york city. A glance up, before you climb into a cab shows a beautiful blue sky and three colossal airships floating like clouds...
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:12 No.12715777
    That number was for a modern Zeppelin NT. There's one doing sightseeing tour flight things in San Francisco.
    If we're talking about historical ships only, wikipedo places the Hinderburg's top speed at 135km/h.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:13 No.12715786
    >The design currently has a range of some 900 km (500 nautical miles) and reaches top speeds of 125 km/h (70 knots or 78 mph). The standard cruising speed of 70 km/h for tourist flights can be attained using the rear propeller only. Standard operational altitude is 300 m (1000 ft), but up to 2,600 m (8,500 ft) is possible. Their maximum permitted takeoff weight is 10,690 kg, with a payload of 1,900 kg.

    In contrast, most versions of the Chinook have a payload capacity of about 9000 kg.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:14 No.12715799
    So basically you could fit hundreds of passengers in it?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:14 No.12715801

    hhaha. I forgot there are no mountains like that near new york. substitude all new york jazz for Vancouver BC. hahah.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:14 No.12715805

    It would sure as hell be useful to have a mobile weapons platform/HQ/Radio tower in warzones like Iraq or Afganistan where there are bumfuck tons of mountains and no signal.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:16 No.12715818
         File1289168164.jpg-(57 KB, 284x154, 1253264214599.jpg)
    57 KB
    >Stealth blimp
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:17 No.12715829
         File1289168238.jpg-(44 KB, 1280x720, 1253326533784.jpg)
    44 KB
    >Mfw I will never experience this
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:17 No.12715836

    Ya see boyz, we painted it black so its more killy and sneaky like.
    Dem 'umies 'ad no idea wat hit them.

    And now im imagining Orcs trying to outfit a blimp with Dakaa.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:21 No.12715876
    Blimps couldn't go anywhere near a skyscraper.

    Tall buildings and lots of people = crazy stong wind.

    Blimps would be blown all over the place, the only feasible location for a blimp to tether is to a custom built mast in an open flat field.

    Which pretty much ruins any attempts to make them 'convenient'.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:23 No.12715894
    In December 1941 and the first months of 1942, the Goodyear blimp Resolute was operated as an anti-submarine privateer based out of Los Angeles. As the only US craft to operate under a Letter of Marque since the War of 1812, the Resolute, armed with a rifle and flown by its civilian crew, patrolled the seas for submarines
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:26 No.12715924
         File1289168771.jpg-(45 KB, 640x352, mother of god.jpg)
    45 KB
    >armed with a rifle
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:28 No.12715945

    So you just have airstrips everywhere with crewed airship willed with FUCKTONS of supplies at all times.

    Dude this shit just isn't efficient. It's a very cool idea, but not a real life effective one.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:30 No.12715964
         File1289169040.jpg-(33 KB, 295x400, airship01.jpg)
    33 KB

    what is happening here then?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:32 No.12715984
    Experimental, small scale attempts to dock at a skyscraper. Yes, they tried it several times. And then they stopped. Gee, I wonder why.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:32 No.12715987
    Notice how there are no other skyscrapers around?

    Try doing that in modern day New York.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:34 No.12715998
    There's as piece of fluff writing in Titan Legions, about an ork whose land fortress had broken a track and was running in cycles. In comes Klokwurk, the ticking mekboy, on his steam powered dirigible. He sees the lone ork sitting on the broken juggernaut, sticking out a lone thumb, and uncharacteristically doesn't carpetbomb him. He takes him aboard and flies on to Orktown, to help building the Mega-Gargant. Yep, the waaagh makes orks weird.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:34 No.12715999
    >made of kevlar material 10 times stronger than steel
    >biggest airship ever made
    >planned to be used for recon by the military

    Fuck yeah
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:40 No.12716053
    Biggest EXISTING, not biggest ever made. Noticew the tiny difference.

    >mootings dephas
    Seriously, captcha?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:45 No.12716093
         File1289169903.jpg-(152 KB, 1023x685, serenade gågata.jpg)
    152 KB
    Could the space for passengers be made to resemble this? In that case fund it, fund the shit out of it.

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:48 No.12716115
    what is that?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:51 No.12716143

    Since the destruction of the Twin Towers, the Empire State building has reclaimed its old position as the tallest building in Manhattan.

    I was just in NYC a month ago, staying at the New Yorker Hotel in a room with a great view of it. I couldn't help myself but imagine what it would have been like to see Zeppelins docking at it.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:53 No.12716162
    Well, there's one way I can think of to make airships work again in a modern economy.

    Super very rich people.

    If there was one thing that the old zeppelin corporation tried to push back in the day was that traveling in an airship was traveling in STYLE. If you got on a direct flight from Berlin to Rio you knew you would get every possible comfort that the 1930s could provide. When the Graf Zeppelin circumnavigated the world they hit up at least a dozen major cities and never ran out of wine and cheese for the dignitaries to feel classy with. Something capitalizing on catering to the ultra-luxurious desires of the mindbogglingly wealthy might not be the easiest sell in this economy, but at least it makes more sense than supercopter bulk cargo adventures
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:55 No.12716176
    It's the interior of a Silja line cruiser called Serenade, it and it's sistership Symphony are built with those boardwalks, resturants, bar, shops and other stuff at "ground level" including a large panoramic window and cabins on the levels above.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:55 No.12716178
    Interior of a baltic ferry
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:58 No.12716205
    Is that a copypasta? I swear I've already read exactly same thing before.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)17:59 No.12716215

    OP here. No, its not copypasta. Just me wishing and day dreaming. Haven't brought the idea up on /tg/ before.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)18:35 No.12716620
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)18:39 No.12716658
    OP still here.

    any new perspectives from either business men or engineers?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)18:43 No.12716698
         File1289173390.jpg-(19 KB, 320x180, archer-fx-320.jpg)
    19 KB
    Sure for people who have the money for that stuff it is alright, but airships aren't exactly fast and that's what a lot of people want. Sure selling it as an airborne hotel of some sort that is mobile is alright. Like say dinner a movie and an overnight trip to wherever in hippie land northwest is pretty romantic I guess. You would have to have good accommodation though. Essentially this would be for a higher class of transportation and this economy that aint exactly flying high. Sure you would get a fuck ton of steam punk people who would want to flight (Like make a steam punk murder mystery or some shit on it if you want to cash in on it.) The thing is, with something like this your going to have to sell the romance, not the fact that it's slow or the fact that it is crowded
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)18:45 No.12716716
    also OP airships are not cheap and only a few facilities could make the one you are looking for. The good news is most of those facilities are abandoned and could be rented for dirt cheap, though you might have to compete with the mythbusters and others for using them. Additionally weather for airships is another issue you are going to have to look into.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)18:46 No.12716720

    GET OFF OF /tg/

    >>political ramous

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)18:52 No.12716802
         File1289173962.png-(595 KB, 1475x1200, !Europe_capitals.png)
    595 KB
    Im telling you, why america? This shit would be perfect for europe, pleasure cruising on a route that starts in London, route goes to Oslo, Berlin, Prauge, Wien, Rome, Monaco, Madrid, Paris and back to London.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)18:55 No.12716826

    Europe also has better weather for this sort of thing. The US has much more hostile weather.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:04 No.12716928
    parachutes everywhere.

    I'm not sure if there are even any blimps that you can ride around in, but I'd be interested in it. But what about the size? for their speed, planes just jam-pack everyone in there because it's a short trip. how long would a 2 hour plane ride take by blimp, and how many people could one carry, in relation to the normal long-distance travel airplane, such as the 747?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:09 No.12716981
    > Each Bullet 580 costs US$8M (€6.3M)
    > the company plans to build eight airships to rent at US$290,000-800,000 (€230,000-630,000) a month.
    >rent at US$290,000-800,000 (€230,000-630,000) a month
    at first I thought this was in the millions, but now it looks much more reasonable.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:10 No.12716988
    Cruising speed of the Boeing 747-8, the most recent model, is 570 mph. Cruising speed of the Hindenburg class airships was around 70 mph. That means that a two hour trip with the Boeing 747-8 would take around sixteen and a half hours with an old style cruise airship.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:15 No.12717035
    I think you'd be able to get away with not having a luxury cruise liner. I'm not sure how long a zepplin ride would take, but If you had one that serviced trips between NYC, Philladelphia, Pitsburgh, Boston, Baltimore, I don't think that it would take very long, and the cost of such a (relatively) short distance should be low.

    But I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Anyway, HELL YEAH I'm interested in flying in your airship!
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:24 No.12717138
         File1289175896.jpg-(398 KB, 1057x493, classymarines.jpg)
    398 KB
    Quicker? no.

    Classier? yes.

    Stay classy /tg/
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:30 No.12717203
    thanks. looking around, one of the new ones, maybe the Bullet 580, I can't really remember, had a cruising speed of 35mph and a top speed of 80 mph. So, I think it would only really be practical if you're flying a short distance, like in one region of the US, provided tickets are about the same price as gas.

    >The Bullet 580, a helium-filled tanker, can carry 1,000 pounds of payloads up to 20,000 feet above Earth.
    > can carry 1,000 pounds of payloads
    >ONLY 1,000 POUNDS
    THAT'S. NOT. PRACTICAL. You've got to at LEAST carry a bus worth of people. Shit, 3 hot air balloons could carry that.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:33 No.12717254
    dude, heavy lift blimps can haul 80k pounds, thats twice as much as 40k.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:36 No.12717300
    I still think it would work very well as a substitute for normal seagoing cruiseships.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:38 No.12717326
    yeah, for some reason that was in the title, then reading more,
    >The ships are designed to haul payloads as heavy as 15,000 pounds up to 2,500 feet
    what the hell. but if it could carry up to 80K, that would be amazing.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:41 No.12717366
    What about using ion drives to replace propellers? You could run the thing off straight electricity from a photovoltaic array spread over the main body. It'd be greener than most trees.

    Plus you'd have the advantage of giving it a more futuristic look, which would prevent unpleasant associations (Hindenburg) in the minds of customers and investors.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:44 No.12717413
    google JHL-40
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:45 No.12717431
    I'm currently in university learning HVAC.
    I would gladly service your airship, OP
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:47 No.12717460
    >I would gladly service your airship, OP

    so that's what they are calling it now.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:48 No.12717466
         File1289177291.jpg-(4 KB, 126x126, ohgod.jpg)
    4 KB

    >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. The airship is virtually impervious to automatic rifle and mortar fire: ordnance passes through the envelope without causing critical helium loss. In all instances of light armament fire evaluated under both test and live conditions, the vehicle was able to complete its mission and return to base

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:50 No.12717514

    Airships confirmed for the big brother of A-10 Thunderbirds
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:52 No.12717546
         File1289177578.jpg-(180 KB, 804x645, skyhook.jpg)
    180 KB
    that could easily be configured to transport people
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:54 No.12717578
    That's why we should be using Hydrogen instead.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)19:59 No.12717660
    hydrogen's more bouyant?
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)20:02 No.12717699
    Time for some thought and perspective.

    Sure a Chinook can carry 9000 pounds. Things a Chinook cannot carry? Up-armored Strykers, Bradley IFVs, and other large vehicles that will fit into either a C-17 or a C-5. Most of the vehicles that we put overseas are put there via ship or C-5. Ship is much, much more economical, but you're limited to transportation by sea. Airships would have no such limitation and truly massive ones - the ones with manufacturing mass and size similar to large cargo ships - could transport those vehicles and other massive supply crates and supplies directly inland. The transfer time would be similar and the reduction in costs for transportation overhead due to "base to port, port to port, port to base" different methods of transfer could be significant.

    Airships are not fast enough to make effective close air support. They have incredible loiter times, but fast response?

    What a combat airship could do that no other vehicle really could is airborne UCAV carrier.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)20:04 No.12717735
    apparently, google says there aren't many zepplins flying passengers now. there were 3 back in 2008 (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6473153) but nothing more recent than that.

    damn. I want to fly on a zepplin
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)20:10 No.12717837
    You are now imagining a zeppelin dropping scores of Predator drones onto a hot zone, the whole swarm twisting and shifting like a flock of birds, before straightening onto a unified attack vector and raining bombs and bullets sufficient to level the pissant town the foolish enemy thought it could hide in...

    ...and up in the zeppelin, there's just one guy, sipping a rum and cola and laughing his ass off.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)20:14 No.12717869
    The space shuttle has door gunners, airships need them too.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)20:19 No.12717922
         File1289179175.jpg-(18 KB, 229x334, 1278171797170.jpg)
    18 KB
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)20:22 No.12717955
    Scariest thing: That was a military use of airships in Shadowrun since 2e, around 1992. Stay high up, drop a metric fuckton of semi-automatic drones in swarms controlled by riggers, kill all hostiles, collect drones, fly off.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)21:37 No.12718827
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)22:00 No.12719121

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)22:02 No.12719144
    "What is it?"

    "This radar... it must have a fault of some kind. Look at this, the cross-section. It is bigger than a cruise ship."

    "You checked the others?"

    "I did. Same thing happens. There must be a problem with the computer system."

    "Not good. We will have to pull the- Wait. The lookout is calling." *click*

    "Target approaching! It is an American carrier blimp!" *click*

    "Allah preserve me."
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)22:14 No.12719320

    So far? Yes. That's why the vacuum dirigible remains the holy grail of airship design.

    But if we can build a light enough airframe, it's the obvious choice. It has more lifting power than hydrogen, it doesn't catch fire, and all you need to obtain it is the energy required to pump the air out of the envelope.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)22:18 No.12719365
         File1289186299.jpg-(160 KB, 659x1024, xlg_gassless_dirigible_0.jpg)
    160 KB
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)22:19 No.12719398
         File1289186399.jpg-(203 KB, 667x1024, xlg_gassless_dirigible_1.jpg)
    203 KB
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)22:44 No.12719659

    such a sweet idea
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)22:52 No.12719720
    continuing with the vacuum idea what if we capsuled low pressure helium/hydrogen for lighter then normal version of hydrogen/helium with less pressure on the shell kinda a halfway idea.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)23:19 No.12719986
    Lighter-than-air flying machines built around the use of nanotech constructed materials. Vacuum dirigibles use the ability of nanotechnology to create lightweight fabric-like materials that are strong enough to hold their shape and contain a low-pressure or even vacuum-equivalent region against the pressure of an external atmosphere. Using this technology it is possible to create a lighter- than-air lifting body without the necessity of gases such as hydrogen or helium, or a heating element.

    The structure containing the vacuum must be strong in compression, as the surface is subjected to the ambient atmospheric pressure. Suitable structures include most regular solids, and geodesic spheres of various kinds; however the closer the structure is to a spherical shape, the more likely it is to buckle. The strongest vacuum balloon is in fact a tetrahedron. Other shapes benefit from lightweight internal bracing, either arranged radially or using a regular framework, often tetrahedral or cubical in arrangement. Nano-assembled, effectively flawless diamondoid material is very strong in compression so can be used for very lightweight, strong internal bracing. One very strong allotrope of carbon is ACN, aggregated carbon nanorod material, which can be stronger in compression than any other conventional material if nanofactured correctly.

    Rather than a hard vacuum, some designs of balloon use low pressure gas (generally helium) to reduce the required strength of the balloon structure. Of course the use of helium gas at normal pressure (that is to say in regular high pressure helium balloons in tension) is widespread in Earth-like atmospheres containing mostly nitrogen and oxygen.
    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)23:19 No.12719993
    The difference between the lift available from helium and the maximum possible lift from a vacuum balloon is very small. If the lift from pure vacuum (disregarding the weight of the balloon structure) is considered to be 1 unit in an Earth-like atmosphere, then the lift from hydrogen is 0.93 units and from helium 0.86 units. This obviously constrains the weight of the balloon structure to be very small indeed, if the total lift is to be greater than that afforded by helium or hydrogen.

    In the atmosphere of a gas giant this tiny advantage is useful, as a typical gas giant's atmosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium, and has a very low density. Only vacuum balloons, or heated hydrogen or helium can be used. In fact the same designs which are used for vac-balloons are also useful for certain kinds of hot helium balloons, as diamondoid is not only strong in compression but also has a high melting point.

    Vacuum dirigibles are ubiquitous in many nanotech capable areas. They range in size from insect-sized units supporting small sensor or effector platforms, to huge, multi-volume arrays carrying entire communities above the ground.

    >> Anonymous 11/07/10(Sun)23:28 No.12720112

    It can haul 15,000lbs up to 2,500ft and 1000lbs up to 20,000ft.

    Air gets thinner the higher up you go.
    >> Anonymous 11/08/10(Mon)02:53 No.12722314
    >Composite Hull High Altitude Powered Platform (CHHAPP)




    Delete Post [File Only]
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]