Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
User avatar
By joe-fbs
#1643908
We have long-term plans for a much larger Airlander 50. What we are designing now is Airlander 10 which is the size we flew as aircraft 001 (G-PHRG).
By Boxkite
#1643929
joe-fbs wrote:Airfield TBD. Anything you hear at the moment is speculation.
But may be true....... :D
I received a job notification recently : "based in Paris for a company that are in the conceptual stage of a cargo airship dedicated to the heavylift and outsize cargo market"
Any connection?
User avatar
By joe-fbs
#1643942
The French one is probably Flying Whales.

As Dave W says, HAV already knows how to build and fly a hybrid aircraft because we have done it, no-one else has (unless we count the Lockheed 1/3 scale remote controlled one in 2006).
User avatar
By Dave W
#1643994
Dave W said nothing of the sort. :evil:

(He agrees with joe-fbs' quote, but it is very much his quote, not mine).

Actually, @cockney steve, you are being deliberately unpleasant to a professional doing a complex job. So I've deleted your post.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1644053
I still don’t get why this concept is being pursued. The latest is a use for luxury passenger transport for up to 19 folks with this interior:

Image

But it doesn’t look that much bigger than this:

Image

Except the second picture has up to 500 passengers and flies 5-6 times the speed!

It also states on the HAV website:

Facts and Figures

- Three-day expedition with up to 19 passengers plus crew

- Can accommodate a variety of layouts including reception areas, on-board catering, and flexible seating options

- Current configuration includes en-suite cabins

- Full-height windows with horizon to horizon visibility

- 46m long cabin – larger than most single-aisle aircraft

- Ability to take off and land on virtually any flat surface without the need for infrastructure like runways or ports.


The last point is interesting as I thought that it did need infrastructure and it was the fact that it became untethered from that infrastructure that saw the first one written off? Also, a very large hangar is needed which is probably more expensive than a runway or a port?

I was genuinely sad to see the first one in a crumpled heap (twice) - more for the people emotionally connected to it than the project. But I still can’t see where there will be any significant sales return on the significant investment made already? If I recall correctly we first saw HAV’s plans in 2007 (for long endurance ISTAR) but the ISTAR endurance performance claims were not as good as planned and now 11 years later it is being presented as a flying tourist platform for 19 folks with a 3 day endurance. A kind of sky cruiser. I still can’t see how it will be worth the effort. Personally I would have rather seen the financial investment and skilled staffs’ efforts channelled into a future-proof electric or hydrogen powered GA aircraft for recreational and business use.

I apologise for being negative.
By cockney steve
#1644151
@Dave W
Sorry if I misquoted the quote, I'd actually been back and corrected the "quote of a quote"
no offence was intended.

However, It was merely a jocular comment on the Airlander saga, and as such , neither malicious nor an ad-hominem on the individual who is involved. I feel you are being overly precious about a vessel that had an extremely short working life ..... remind us all again, how many accident-free flights did it actually achieve?
I'd submit, that , like the Wright Flyer, the pilot had to "suck it and see" as this was a unique machine and therefore very little current piloting experience anywhere in the world, on anything comparable.
@gaznav has maybe expressed my views somewhat more delicately.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1644153
Rubbish.

I'm not concerned with anyone's opinions on the commercial viability; the market will reveal all idc I expect.

You were being gratuitously rude about a group of professionals undertaking a complex task. There was no need for that.
By Bobcro
#1644944
I entirely agree with most of your comments GAZNAV for it is not just the 19 passengers that need accommodation but the Operating crew including the pilots (3) purser, bar tender, head chief, stewards (m/f) and so many others. It's offered as a luxury tour and the paying passenger with expect the finest selection of food, beverages and service. The crew and staff are not going to hot bed and need suitable accommodation all of which adds weight.

I understand that a mockup of this cabin exists somewhere in Bedford. I hope whoever built it has been paid.

HAV gloss over their operational difficulties that are yet unproven.

As I have said before I believe that it is all smoke and mirrors and that though well meaning they are delusionalistic in their attitude if they consider that it will ever be a paying proposition. They are already operating in 'Cloud Cuckoo land'.

Their Company Accounts are now overdue, are they hiding something from their existing investors?
mick w, gaznav liked this
By Orac
#1645179
Bobcro wrote:I entirely agree with most of your comments GAZNAV for it is not just the 19 passengers that need accommodation but the Operating crew including the pilots (3) purser, bar tender, head chief, stewards (m/f) and so many others. It's offered as a luxury tour and the paying passenger with expect the finest selection of food, beverages and service. The crew and staff are not going to hot bed and need suitable accommodation all of which adds weight.

I understand that a mockup of this cabin exists somewhere in Bedford. I hope whoever built it has been paid.

HAV gloss over their operational difficulties that are yet unproven.

As I have said before I believe that it is all smoke and mirrors and that though well meaning they are delusionalistic in their attitude if they consider that it will ever be a paying proposition. They are already operating in 'Cloud Cuckoo land'.

Their Company Accounts are now overdue, are they hiding something from their existing investors?


:sleeping:
By AlanC
#1645181
cockney steve wrote: I'd submit, that , like the Wright Flyer, the pilot had to "suck it and see" as this was a unique machine and therefore very little current piloting experience anywhere in the world, on anything comparable.


The pilot in question has significant prior experience in "first of type/class" flight testing, and is a consummate aviator... He also has the experience to have researched previous airship flights and test programmes as part of an iterative approach to flight testing. He's also a pleasure to spend an afternoon listening to and learning from :D!
Dave W, Flyin'Dutch', kanga liked this
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19