Will Airships ever be a mainstream reality?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The largest sizes which could be reached by these airships would be on the order of 2,000 feet long. We're talking about truly massive constructs. I don't much like the idea of hybrids, however. A lot of advantage to the airship is in the ability to maintain neutral bouyancy so that they can be used for sundry work which requires you to maintain position for extended periods of time without fuel expenditure, and they seem too complex, with the Osprey as an example of what happens when go into that world.

Remember that the external skin only needs to be aerodynamic--it is not filled with gas at all. Only the internal gas bags are, and they're not integrated in any way with the external skin of a dirigible.

One way to deal with the control problems that doomed some of the early airships is to put on bow planes for additional control in climbing and diving, and we could imitate very large ships and use micro-thrusters around the hull for point control. Computer interfaces would add in stability response.

[Broomstick]

How about safety from natural effects? I'm thinking stuff like storm, rain, strong winds, etc.

Zepps, as mentioned, are vulnerable to high winds. Historically, water accumulation during storms have resulted in added weight and the problems associated with it. Ditto for snow and ice accumulations. But that can be dealt with - the Graf Zepplin cirumnavigated the planet and also visited the north pole.

Strong winds can make take-offs and landing hazardous, driving the airship into things like the ground or buildings that can cause severe damage. Zepp captains have ridden out storms at altitude, much as large ships might ride out a hurricaine on the open ocean. However, zepps have gone down in such conditions with all aboard lost so it's no guarantee. One of the big problems - and it's a problem that all aircraft experience, but is progressively more hazardous as aircraft size increases, is strong windshear. Windshear is when two masses of air are moving in two different directions. A small aircraft will quickly pass from one zone of air to another and will be minimally affected. A large aircraft may find itself straddling the two air masses long enough for different parts of the aircraft to be pushed in non-compatible directions. It's rare, but in major thunderstorms these conditions can literally rip apart an aircraft - airship, rotorcraft, fixed wing... doesn't matter. But this is a known danger, and aircraft are routinely routed around such hazard areas these days. (That is, in fact, why the space shuttle landed in California today instead of Florida - NASA doesn't want the shuttle any closer than 34 miles from a thunderstorm due to hazardous conditions, including air currents.)

Another hazard is lightning. Aircraft do get hit by lightning every year. It can screw up the electronics. It can, potentially, set something on fire. Aircraft can also pick up pretty impressive static charges - but this was known even back in the 1920's and means of grounding airships were used routinely. An airship full of hydrogen IS potentially more likely to catch fire than one full of helium, and electrical discharge is a risk. But my feeling is that it would probably be managable, particularly for cargo where (for better or worse) the public is more tolerant of loss of property and crew.

Fact is, all airship bouancy cells leak, and they always have. Baron Zepplin utilized vent systems to route leaked hydrogen away from engine, fuel, cargo, and crew areas. Helium, of course, will not support combustion but rather will smother it, if dense enough to displace oxygen. Hydrogen does, of course, burn, but it's so light and it burns hot so burning hydrogen rises rapidly, whereas people tend to fall downwards. That's one reason so many people did survive the Hindenburg - the fire rose above where they were located, even as the zepp burned quite fiercely.

Zepps also used cells for bouancy, and could lose substantial numbers of them without a crash being inevitable. You would have to put holes in a LOT of them to bring down a zepp - even complete deflation of a single cell will have little effect. Of course, if a hydrogen filled cell DID ignite, that could be a major, major problem. I doubt it would be practical to truly put fireproof walls between the cells. One solution would be to develop a composite skeleton that could, at least briefly, withstand the temperture of burning hydrogen - long enough for the burning gas to vent itself upward and away from the rest of the zepp - along with non-flammable ballonet chambers and outer hull.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How about safety from natural effects? I'm thinking stuff like storm, rain, strong winds, etc.

Zepps, as mentioned, are vulnerable to high winds. Historically, water accumulation during storms have resulted in added weight and the problems associated with it. Ditto for snow and ice accumulations. But that can be dealt with - the Graf Zepplin cirumnavigated the planet and also visited the north pole.

Strong winds can make take-offs and landing hazardous, driving the airship into things like the ground or buildings that can cause severe damage. Zepp captains have ridden out storms at altitude, much as large ships might ride out a hurricaine on the open ocean. However, zepps have gone down in such conditions with all aboard lost so it's no guarantee. One of the big problems - and it's a problem that all aircraft experience, but is progressively more hazardous as aircraft size increases, is strong windshear. Windshear is when two masses of air are moving in two different directions. A small aircraft will quickly pass from one zone of air to another and will be minimally affected. A large aircraft may find itself straddling the two air masses long enough for different parts of the aircraft to be pushed in non-compatible directions. It's rare, but in major thunderstorms these conditions can literally rip apart an aircraft - airship, rotorcraft, fixed wing... doesn't matter. But this is a known danger, and aircraft are routinely routed around such hazard areas these days. (That is, in fact, why the space shuttle landed in California today instead of Florida - NASA doesn't want the shuttle any closer than 34 miles from a thunderstorm due to hazardous conditions, including air currents.)

Another hazard is lightning. Aircraft do get hit by lightning every year. It can screw up the electronics. It can, potentially, set something on fire. Aircraft can also pick up pretty impressive static charges - but this was known even back in the 1920's and means of grounding airships were used routinely. An airship full of hydrogen IS potentially more likely to catch fire than one full of helium, and electrical discharge is a risk. But my feeling is that it would probably be managable, particularly for cargo where (for better or worse) the public is more tolerant of loss of property and crew.

Fact is, all airship bouancy cells leak, and they always have. Baron Zepplin utilized vent systems to route leaked hydrogen away from engine, fuel, cargo, and crew areas. Helium, of course, will not support combustion but rather will smother it, if dense enough to displace oxygen. Hydrogen does, of course, burn, but it's so light and it burns hot so burning hydrogen rises rapidly, whereas people tend to fall downwards. That's one reason so many people did survive the Hindenburg - the fire rose above where they were located, even as the zepp burned quite fiercely.

Zepps also used cells for bouancy, and could lose substantial numbers of them without a crash being inevitable. You would have to put holes in a LOT of them to bring down a zepp - even complete deflation of a single cell will have little effect. Of course, if a hydrogen filled cell DID ignite, that could be a major, major problem. I doubt it would be practical to truly put fireproof walls between the cells. One solution would be to develop a composite skeleton that could, at least briefly, withstand the temperture of burning hydrogen - long enough for the burning gas to vent itself upward and away from the rest of the zepp - along with non-flammable ballonet chambers and outer hull.

If the ballonets were self-sealing and fireproof, it might be possible to immediately contain a fire. As soon as the ballonet reseals, the flood of oxygen into it would halt, and the fire would only consume as much of the hydrogen is it had oxygen to consume it with, before it was snuffed for the lack of oxygen, even in a space entirely packed with the most flammeable fuel imaginable.

[Broomstick]

How high can a dirigible fly? How high do they OFTEN fly?

The current limit for unmanned gas balloons is 53km, and for manned gas balloons, 35km. There is no reason that a dirigible could not reach 53km or so if the crew compartments were pressurized and the engines were not dependent on outside oxygen to function, though the ascent would be extremely slow.

Actually, the current record for manned ballon ascent is 103,000 feet. Not coincidently, that is also the record altitude for a skydive. This was achieved back in the 1960's by the USAF conducting high altitude research.

The problem, of course, is that the higher you go the thinner the air and the less efficient/bouyant your lifting system. Even so, it is entirely possible to engineer airships that fly at jet cruising altitudes, though payloads will be limited and the ships will have to be huge in volume. The technology for human life support is no different than that used by aircraft today, although jets use airflow from their engines to pressuize the hull and airships might need an alternative sort of device to suck in the thin air and thicken it up. Still, it's basically air compressor technology wrote large.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd suggest something of the consistency of that rapid-hardening crowd control glue that's been proposed to be used in spray guns as a non-violent weapon, suspended between two layers of mylar. If the ballonet is penetrated the stuff will burst outward and rapidly harden when it is exposed to air, creating an instant patch over the hole.

[Broomstick]

Duraluminium plating is more useful as a measure against attack in military variations where it could at least provide some defence against small-arms fire.

Oh, really?

It would have to be thicker than what's on a Cessna 172, which are easily punctured by "small arms fire" through multiple surfaces per bullet.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, the current record for manned ballon ascent is 103,000 feet. Not coincidently, that is also the record altitude for a skydive. This was achieved back in the 1960's by the USAF conducting high altitude research.

The problem, of course, is that the higher you go the thinner the air and the less efficient/bouyant your lifting system. Even so, it is entirely possible to engineer airships that fly at jet cruising altitudes, though payloads will be limited and the ships will have to be huge in volume. The technology for human life support is no different than that used by aircraft today, although jets use airflow from their engines to pressuize the hull and airships might need an alternative sort of device to suck in the thin air and thicken it up. Still, it's basically air compressor technology wrote large.

No, it's 113,740 feet, or slightly less than 35km, attained by Commander Malcolm D. Ross and Lieutenant Commander Victor A. Prather, Jr., USN, on May 4th, 1961. It's much less publicized because Lt. Cmdr Prather died in a bizarre accident during the descent, but Commander Ross survived the whole trip and so it is a legitimate record.

[Broomstick]

..Why is every single non-military pilot here a girl?

Um... because men like to play with guns and weapons, whereas girls are more likely to engage in peaceful pursuits?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duraluminium plating is more useful as a measure against attack in military variations where it could at least provide some defence against small-arms fire.

Oh, really?

It would have to be thicker than what's on a Cessna 172, which are easily punctured by "small arms fire" through multiple surfaces per bullet.

I'm assuming a loss of significant amounts of cargo weight in favour of armour, so, a lot thicker than that.

Though it occurs to me that an alternative might be to make the whole outer fabric out of kevlar.

[Broomstick]

Even if it does explode, again, we have a relatively slow, gentle crash vs. a high-speed plummet of a plane

If enough of your zepp burns you will be experiencing a fast free-fall rather than a slow crash.

it is possible that a Zepp could have its internal space compartmentalized somewhat to contain damage (although that would add weight).

It's been done since at least the early 20th Century. It may add weight, but it is also a functional part of the skeleton and provides support and stability as well so it's a fair trade-off.

[Broomstick]

No, it's 113,740 feet, or slightly less than 35km, attained by Commander Malcolm D. Ross and Lieutenant Commander Victor A. Prather, Jr., USN, on May 4th, 1961. It's much less publicized because Lt. Cmdr Prather died in a bizarre accident during the descent, but Commander Ross survived the whole trip and so it is a legitimate record.

Really?

Huh. Learn something new every day....

[Broomstick]

Though it occurs to me that an alternative might be to make the whole outer fabric out of kevlar.

Kevlar is already used in today's composite aircraft for it's structural properties (not for bulletproofing) - I see no reason it couldn't be used for airships.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Obviously we won't be using a cruise liner for military uses unless as an emergency troop carrier like the QE2 was at one point. Military ships would likely have all the armour, weapons and sensor modifications as well as using space for a fighter escort, for instance, some light multi-purpose VTOL aircraft in a small hangar or a canard rotor-wing shuttle.

For cruise liners, you can easily have ones carrying 500 passengers and another hundred or so crew, and that was with '50s era technology. Today, you could make larger ships, perhaps even twin bodies like massive floating catamarans for added stability and a central lifting surface for accommodation and a heliport too. Hybrid ships would be used for specialist applications, since, as they say, they typically rely on STOL for take-off with heavier loads and added power for hovers, which normal airships don't need.

[Coyote]

...Military ships would likely have all the armour, weapons and sensor modifications as well as using space for a fighter escort, for instance, some light multi-purpose VTOL aircraft in a small hangar or a canard rotor-wing shuttle....

Self-launched drone fighters/UAVs, that in a pinch, can be disposable. Or the airborne laser thingy for ASAT purposes. Hmm.

The ideas never stop. I like the catamaran idea too. Wicked.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I was thinking having smaller drone airships that simply carry CIWS mounts, preferably solid-state laser, with maybe a few missile launch cells for heavier hitting. They could act as an airborne battlegroup, flying several klicks away from the main ships in a perimeter, acting as pickets and AWACS/JSTARS.

[Starglider]

I was thinking having smaller drone airships that simply carry CIWS mounts, preferably solid-state laser, with maybe a few missile launch cells for heavier hitting. They could act as an airborne battlegroup, flying several klicks away from the main ships in a perimeter, acting as pickets and AWACS/JSTARS.

Argh. Loading all that expensive (and heavy) equipment onto such an inherently and ridiculously fragile and non-evasive platform is a non-starter. Any kind of modern AA fire at all and they're all coming down. Even if the CIWS manages to take out missiles, the shrapnel coming on a ballistic trajectory is going to punch big holes in the envelope. You did see that thread mocking this very concept (nuclear airship carrier with invincible anti-missile defence rar) in the HAB right?

Military airships could be a very slow but efficient replacement for the C-5 Galaxy. They could also act as comm relays in an environment where air superiority is assured. That's about it as far as military use goes. AWACS is marginal; the fact that it can stay on station longer may not compensate for the fact it takes longer to deploy and is even harder to defend.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Argh. Loading all that expensive (and heavy) equipment onto such an inherently and ridiculously fragile and non-evasive platform is a non-starter. Any kind of modern AA fire at all and they're all coming down. Even if the CIWS manages to take out missiles, the shrapnel coming on a ballistic trajectory is going to punch big holes in the envelope. You did see that thread mocking this very concept (nuclear airship carrier with invincible anti-missile defence rar) in the HAB right?

Military airships could be a very slow but efficient replacement for the C-5 Galaxy. They could also act as comm relays in an environment where air superiority is assured. That's about it as far as military use goes. AWACS is marginal; the fact that it can stay on station longer may not compensate for the fact it takes longer to deploy and is even harder to defend.

Who was talking frontline fighting force here? Not I, sir. I was talking about a cargo vessel or cruise liner. Any mention of defence countermeasures are for, surprisingly, defence. It's not going to break the bank putting a few small CIWS systems on a ship that is going to need such defence if it does have the misfortune or coming across MANPADS or the like. Besides, on the sensing side of things, the USAF has definitely looked at the use of AWACS airships precisely because they have such great loiter and over-the-horizon capability. That they are slow to deploy is meaningless when you're running routine patrols. I'd also like to know how a blimp is harder to defend than an E-3. Besides, the design optimal for this would be a smaller drone system, high-altitude and preferably solar/diesel powered. Besides, they could be cheaper and have tiny RCS, while the E-3s or Hawkeyes are deployed to more critical areas. I also like the idea of drone blimps for police work, rather than choppers that require a lot of refuelling (obviously they'd be better suited to high speed pursuit, leaving the airships for surveillance).

I certainly don't see anyone proposing we fly these things anywhere near someone with a dozen ZSU-23s or S-300s.

And cruise liners don't have to worry about any of that anyway.

[Wicked Pilot]

..Why is every single non-military pilot here a girl?

According to my last count, not including posers, there are now only five known pilots who've posted here. The breakdown is three males, two females, and only one military type.

[Coyote]

As far as military applications, the mil-Zepp would not be flown into an advanced air defense net. However, in situations like guerrilla insurgencies, a JSTARS Zepp could park over a battlefield where, at worst, a few RPG-7 will be dumbfired upwards, or perhaps a couple old SA-7s or Stingers-- and again, if a TROPHY system can't deal with it, then the puncture will require the wounded Zepp to pick its way slowly back to a repair facility.

As for mounting airborne lasers... something like that could be parked outside territorial waters as a temporary means of intercepting missiles on boost-phase around, like North Korea. Or provide a sort of SSBN type ability with a couple dozen cruise missile sready to go.

This is getting a bit more of a stretch, but immediately practical ideas have been fielded, now we're getting a bit more into the stretch o' imagination stuff.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

..Why is every single non-military pilot here a girl?

According to my last count, not including posers, there are now only five known pilots who've posted here. The breakdown is three males, two females, and only one military type.

Spin Echo is a girl. Though I'll be the first to admit that my experience is tenuous (as in, not so much) compared to Broomstick's, let alone your's, so if you don't want to count me I won't be too offended. Until I have you helpless sometime. *smirk*

[Frank Hipper]

Since we're talking Zeppelin talk, this isn't entirely off-topic and it's a pet alt-history idea of mine spawned by published WWI author and historian Dan-San Abbott at aerodrome forums:

Late-model WWI German Zeppelins had greater range and much greater load carrying capacity than SDN favorite, the B-36 Peacemaker.

Park a couple height-climbers over totally undefended 1918 New York to disgorge their 112,000 pound payloads, and you'd get hysteria that would make the reaction to September 11th look casual.
No matter if you cause any significant damage or not.

That's with 1918 levels of metallurgy and engine development.

Anyyway...
You may not be able today to produce a military application airship that is combat capable due to modern combat enviroments, but there's a place for the rigid airship in modern skies.
I'm envisioning a graphite composite skeleton, with an epoxy impregnated graphite cloth skin, powered by fan-jets on swiveling gimbol mounts, myself.

[Admiral Valdemar]

As I already pointed out, the mil-spec ships would simply replace what a C-130 or C-5 would do today, not fly into the front-line as a scout party. The armaments would be light, though I'd prefer unmanned drone blimps acting as pickets for any aerial or ground threat that may have otherwise been missed or tried to take advantage of the fleet moving in. They can have practically no RCS and be many klicks ahead, so if anyone is there, they are picked up. A carbon composite or aluminium alloy skin would be more than enough along with self-sealing, fire-retardant foam defended gas cells. Anything like a MANPADS or light plane can be dealt with simply by diode laser or IR AAM.

It would be better if the ship could reach the stratosphere and ride the slipstreams to boost speed, assuming the skeleton could take it. A catamaran airship would offer stability and a better area for loading and off-loading or acting as a landing pad, but it'd need to be tested to make sure it didn't overstress, otherwise standard altitude and more powerful engines would be better. Most large craft like the R101 and Hindenburg could easily do 160 kph, with modern engines and materials, that would be a minimum speed.

Really, I want a kilometre + long craft for use as a mobile home. When the world goes to shit from energy crises or climate change, I want somewhere that won't be raided by roaming mobs and is entirely self-sufficient.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Really, I want a kilometre + long craft for use as a mobile home. When the world goes to shit from energy crises or climate change, I want somewhere that won't be raided by roaming mobs and is entirely self-sufficient.

Well, since that's unlikely, come live with me, and we'll avoid the problem by commanding the roaming mobs ourselves.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Can we drive souped up Australian V8 muscle cars with turbos at least? If so, I'm game. I want my sky fortress someday though...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Can we drive souped up Australian V8 muscle cars with turbos at least? If so, I'm game. I want my sky fortress someday though...

I was honestly thinking of an armoured train like Strelnikov's from Dr. Zhivago, but that's just me.