Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 19
By neaton
#1556378
Sorry to hear you're leaving Cardington. I await news of the new location with interest. Wonder if it also starts with "C"? :wink:
User avatar
By rats404
#1556488
Sad to read that the team are relocating. I often point the Airlander out to passengers on departure from Old Warden, and the Boss and I drove some friends down to Cardington a couple of weeks ago just to see her.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1556497
I await news of the new base with interest

In passing (and I haven't scrolled back through the entire thread) where did the name Airlander derive from?

Rob P
By Bobcro
#1556767
Whilst I have always wished them well in their venture and unbridled optimism and attended several events at Shed 1. I have always thought that their enthusiasm for the potential sales were not based on real world reality.

It will not do all things for all people. Surveillance entails much more than endurance of several days, heavy lifting to remote regions needs trained ground support. It's strictly VFR until proven otherwise. Engine and systems maintenance in off airport sites. All of this needs to be proven before sales can be achieved, sales require finance/leasing and who will invest when there is no proven residual value. Who is going to fund the cost of building them.

When the prospectus for funding was issued did HAV declare that they had in effect a tenancy that could be terminated at 3 months notice? If not that is a material omission.

All of the talk of it being a successful test flight to date and building 12 Airlander 10s a year is very wishful thinking indeed.

There is now competition from the US builders and they have the sheds now and the backing of major aerospace companies and backers. HAV have sold their hopes and aspirations to a few investors but so far no retail sales and evidence of long term positive cash flow or funding to cover what appears to be and unscheduled and forced move from Cardington.

I hope that I am quickly proven to be wrong.
User avatar
By Korenwolf
#1556782
A little piece on the local telly tonight; talking to a spokesman for HAV he said that the long-term plan had always been to leave Cardington at some point. Warner Bros use 3/4 of the hangar space available for prop storage and a film set, so to move on to bigger things they must move out. He stated that it would still be in Bedfordshire, Henlow would be good but I understand that is set to become a site for little boxes all made out of ticky-tacky....
By Nomad63
#1556844
I am sure its explained somewhere, but can't find the explanation of the advantages of being slightly heavier than air compared to slightly lighter or ideally neutral, I guess that it becomes slightly more manouverable, but given the ability to dump gas and/or ballast out out of a conventional airship then there must be more to it?
User avatar
By joe-fbs
#1556850
Ah, a technical question, I'm competent to answer those. Operating with positive heaviness and a wide range of positive heaviness, both of which Airlander will do gives advantages in ground handling and in handling the aircraft as disposable load is added or removed. You are correct that traditional cylindrical LTA ships add and remove heaviness to keep themselves at around equilibrium. Those processes require people and equipment. Helium is not free, neither was hydrogen but it could at least be made easily on-site. Operating heavy rather than at EQ or light makes the ground handling task easier, Airlander will need only a handful of ground handling people.

We have demonstrated over recent months that a lot of maintenance work can be done outside using ascender equipment.

All that commercial stuff is outside the competence of this 'umble hengineer.
User avatar
By mmcp42
#1556882
Russ_H wrote:Interesting thanks for the reply, curious to know what are it's empty and operational weights?

I guess "whatever you want them to be"!
By Nomad63
#1556893
Cheers Joe, though tbh reading the webpage brings at least one more question,....the lift/thrust/buoyency ratios puzzle me, how can typical vertical thrust represent 25% and Buoyancy lift 40% ? (assuming vertical take off)
What am I missing?
User avatar
By joe-fbs
#1556965
Aerodynamic lift. It's a lifting body. This particular aircraft is not VTOL. Although viewing the videos on our website and on YouTube will show that it is pretty STOL.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 19