Could They Ever Return?

[miles]

If you have a system of pumps, and condensers you can change altitude without losing consumables, but don't you need to store heat?

When you compress your lifting gas, you end up with excess heat. When you expand the lift gas back out, you need to warm the gas back up to get the full effect.

Would it be possible to use water ballast as a heat buffer? Don't you carry a lot more mass of water than lifting gas?

Or is this not a problem?

Miles

[miles]

Another stupid question. With the size and shape of these airships, don't you generate significant outwards pressure just by moving through the air?

When the R505 was going 72MPH, I was wondering, what keeps the skin on? Shouldn't the difference in air pressure between the still air inside and the rapidly moving air going over the surface blow the R505 up like a blowfish?

Nudder dumb question. Isn't the stream of air from the props going much faster than the airship? Does anybody try to put props both above and below the body to manage lift by altering the proportions of fast moving air above and below?

Miles

[miles]

Final dumb question for today..

Could a sufficiently large airship carry an electrolysis system that could make it's own hydrogen as needed?

If you are using a condenser to recapture water from the exhaust of your diesel fuel, then diesel is your ships main consumable. If you had a diesel engine optimized to generate electric power, and efficient electric fans for propulsion, couldn't you run a big airship for weeks/months without refueling? And this is with fairly modest technology. I'm just trying to guess how that big cruiser from the R505 storyline can possibly stay out of sight.

Miles

[PaulGazis]

Hi Miles,

Those are all good questions! And the answers are highly dependent on technology. Even with today's materials, we can do things that were unimaginable on the 20s and 30s, and with carbon nano-tubes and the like, the... uh... err... sky's the limit? Sorry about that

With 1920s-30s technology, the answers would be as follows:

1) Pumps and storage tanks to conserve hydrogen: It's an attractive idea, but even today, with high-strength composites, there's no way these could be made light enough to be of any use. And the dangers are alarming. Even an ordinary welding tank, pressurized to 2000 PSI, is a potential rocket engine/bomb. Lightweight ultra-high-pressure tanks frighten me. Which is why I don't use a high-pressure tank for the oxygen system on my hang glider.

2) Aerodynamic forces: You're right, these are quite significant. At cruising speed, even a small airship could easily generate several tons of lift and drag. This limits the speed of something like the Goodyear blimp to less than 40-50- MPH. At higher speeds, the nose caves in, to the consternation of company executives and the amusement of competing tire manufacturers. But the R-505 and its contemporaries are rigid airships, with rigid frames, to which the envelope is laced just as it would be on an old-style airplane. This is good for amazingly high speeds -- well above 400 MPH on the control surfaces of some WW-II aircraft. In our world, the R-100 did have a problem with ripples in the envelope at speeds above 70 MPH our so, but I've assume that with a smaller ship and the benefit of experience, the designers of the R-505 were able to solve this problem. In our world, the fastest ships were the big American flying aircraft carriers, the Akron and the Macon, which had top speeds around 86 MPH. The R-505, smaller but with better engine and propeller technology, seems about that fast.

3) Hydrogen generation: This is way complicated. Electrolysis was prohibitively expensive in the early 20th century so most industrial plants used schemes that involved acids and/or iron and steam. I've been slipping details into the story bit by bit, but there's a limit to how much I can say at any one time lest I alienate everyone but the chemical engineers. With the technology of the day, a plant would weigh more than the lift of the hydrogen it could generate. Could advanced technology provide ways around this? Perhaps, but this is a matter for an entirely different story that has yet to see the light of day

4) Diesel-electric ships. This is a way neat idea! And if technology took the right path, it could be a practical alternative to the weight and complexity of variable-pitch propellers. But the fuel still gets consumed, whether diesels drive propellers directly or via a generator/motor combination, leaving the ship with a load of water in the place of what was once a load of hydrocarbons. The great passenger ships of the 30s routinely flew up to a week at cruising speed. With weather routing, taking advantage of storm systems, and shutting down all but one or two engines, they might in principle have stayed aloft for a month at a time and flown around the world without refueling. But there was no commercial or military reason for anyone to try this.

How has the Cruiser managed to stay out of sight? Everett has been wondering about this ever since the attack. In a world without radar and GPS, where bases could be hidden on remote islands and airships could also refuel and resupply at sea, the possibilities are many. But keep your eyes open, for there may be some clues in the near future!

[miles]

In a world without radar and GPS, where bases could be hidden on remote islands and airships could also refuel and resupply at sea, the possibilities are many.

It seems like that should be true. But, poetic constriction and the rigorous demands of this art (Form: Lovecraft homage; Type: Radio Drama; Subtype: South Seas; Variant: Milton Caniff) REQUIRE a slumbering volcano.

But, take your time. We all understand you can't rush the perfect magma.

Miles

[JHGordon]

Hello.

I'm new here but like all of you I am fascinated by airships. I lived within a few miles of the hangers in Sunnyvale Ca. for years. My first hot air balloon ride back in the 70s was a life changing experience for me. One long weekend of "Wamobass" and I was stuck on this kind of flight forever.

I've often wondered why airships couldn't be shaped differently. And why the hydrogen or helium couldn't be compressed into cylinders for descent instead of dumping it.

I've day dreamed of an airship with a saucer shape (think starship Enterprise). It seems to me that lift would be enhanced by more solar surface and better control in high wind conditions, There would be room for solar cells to help produce hydrogen on board, and fuel very powerful motors. New solar cell technology includes coatings so light and thin it's amazing.

Today's blimps are using articulating motors, why wouldn't the capability of "jump jet" technology be employed in a modern airship? A saucer shape would ram through the air much faster and control would be superior in my opinion if (tug boat as an example) bow thrusters and lift thrusters were employed to pitch or yaw the craft to take advantage of prevailing winds. Power would reduce the need for as much ballast as well in conjunction with the ability to compress the lift gas.

With the proper shape, aerodynamics would make higher altitudes more feasible. Engines today are capable of tremendous horse power and thrust. If the shape lends itself to forward motion and lift then speed could be increased substantially. The major cost of flying is getting off the ground. A 747 burns the majority of fuel running up to lift off and climbing to altitude. An airship will float to altitude for free.

Modern computer controls to manage power and attitude would make "sailing" the airship more feasible as well. It's all in the shape and controls in my opinion.

One more crazy idea: Why couldn't a mooring mast be dropped into the ground from the airship? Properly tipped, with spars the would deploy once lodged in the ground in a "bunker buster" tip and the balance of the mast in flexible polyurea of other semi rigid high impact material, wouldn't it be possible to stake out a reasonable anchor? Lines to other "anchors" could be controlled by computer-servos. And retrieving the mast would be a matter of rescinding ground biting spars and using air pressure to pop the mast back out of the ground. I imagine the mast would be best located in the center of a saucer shaped craft with perimeter lines constantly controlling the ships attitude against wind. As well, the ship could easily be brought in contact with the ground for further tie down. Loading and offloading then becomes a non-issue.

I've just re-read this fantasy and even I think I'm a little crazy. So go ahead and shoot the theory down. But I've wondered about it all for years. And I too would like to own a nice view condo on board my luxury cruise airship.

I'm enjoying the story of Flying Cloud immensely. It reminds me of adventure books for boys written in the 20s and 30s. I was lucky enough to have had them handed down to me by older brothers and a crazy uncle. It takes me back I'll tell you. Thanks for the ripping yarn.

[asgaard aardvaark]

My interest in airships was first fired when, as a child, I listened to my mother tell of seeing the "Graf Zeppelin" pass overhead on its round the world flight in 1929. From then on, I was attracted to the concept of the huge "ocean liner of the sky" crusing serenely through the clouds like some sailing ship of old. Like the old sailing ships, airship handling required a talent that modern pilots will never know. It was a skill of working with nature, rather than in spite of it.
Let's face it--in order to be commercialy viable, there are both physical and psycological hurdles to overcome, hurdles that seem neigh on to insermountable. Yet, the very novelty of the concept, in a time when many wish to be free of the urge for instant gratification, remains within us. As we look fondly back on the great clipper ships, we also look back on their airborn bretheren. Who, among us, wouldn't love to cruise sadately amongst the zephyrs while watching the less fortunate, land-bound mortals slowly pass beneath while gazing up at our passage with envy. Perhaps the best eulogy for those gentle giants can be found in a line from Kippling about the last of the clipper ships: "They marked our passing as a race of men, never shall we see such ships again."

[Kona]

Welcome, JH Gordon! It’s fun to remember when we first got interested in airships, and to speculate on where they might go from here. Living in the LA area, I became familiar with the regular passage of the Goodyear Blimp operating out of its base in Long Beach. My kids loved to run outside when we heard it approaching, yelling “The bimp! The bimp!” I was impressed with the advertising blimp’s use in “Blade Runner”; it certainly added to the eerie/oppressive/bizarre atmosphere of the movie.

Lightweight, articulating motors do sound like they would make airships more maneuverable. I’m not sure a ship-borne ground mast would be practical, but I like the idea of dropping anchors around a mooring spot, at least in non-urban areas. There’s no reason nautical anchors wouldn’t work as well in dry ground as they do underwater.

One big drawback to the resurgence of airships is storms. Airships are large and light, making them good targets for damaging winds. They can’t fly fast enough or far enough to outrun severe weather, and they require truly enormous hangars to protect them. Even on the ground, they can be smashed by storms, as many have.

[Falcon01]

Hello everyone, I'm new here so if this has been covered forgive me. I seem to recall a study done with a fairly modern high speed Helium filled ridged/semi ridged airship with the engine(s) embedded in the ariframe and only very thin prop necelles run by extention shafts externally, which were gimbled somewhat to direct thrust. It was a US design, (I think) This was done to minimize drag I also recall the shape was very long and narrow, more like a cilinder with a cone on each end rather than the graceful curves of conventional airships. the supposed calculations put the speed at somewhere around 200+ mph (or about 322+ kmh). If that was correct it would open up Airships as a decent competitor to rail/highway transport at least here in the USA. I for one would love to see the older style designs in the air once again, I can only imagine what they must have looked like back then!

[Kona]

Welcome, Falcon01. I don't recall that design being discussed here before, but it does sound interesting. There always seems to be a tradeoff between lifting capacity and speed, but that's been the case with every mode of transport. Efficiency in design, manufacture and operation would certainly enhance both payload and speed. All that would be left is the will and the capital.

As for what it must have been like; I imagine "imposing", "awe-inspiring" and "breathtaking" came to mind. Just seeing the sky darken and hearing the air fill with the drumming of motors as the Goodyear Blimp ground overhead was awesome. To see something like the Hindenburg or Graf Zee docking must have been akin to launching a great ship or a shuttle liftoff.