Airships Again!

[nuuumannn]

I still hope we hear about Igor Pasternak again. He was out of public sight for years.

Sound plausible, but it sounds like early pressure ships, non-rigids that relied on air pressure in ballonets fed by forward air flow through ducts lowered into the air stream, providing low pressure air flow into the ballonet, which obviously changes in density etc based on various factors. Thing is, these still required pressure release valves because air temperature/pressure constantly changes, not only that, there is still a maximum volume of gas/fluid a container can carry, which limits its lifting capacity to a given amount. Exceeding that dispenses lifting gas because laws of physics etc. The next thing is crew oxygen, increasing pressure height means operating above 10,000 feet; better have some kinda oxygen supply or your crew flake out... Release valves are still required to mitigate temp/pressure changes in local conditions, which results in loss of lifting gas. The idea mitigates the issue of losing lifting gas, but doesn't do away with it altogether.

SSZ-59 approaching HMS Furious, note the tuby thing behind the propeller, that's the intake for the ballonet. Low pressure air flow directly into the ballonet to regulate the internal envelope pressure to maintain its shape. This obviously changes depending on operational conditions.

SSZ 59

 

[ThomasP]

re "That low pressure system... Did the inventor overestimate its efficiency?"

I do not think so. As far as I can tell, the delay in getting some modern airship design into service is mostly just due to inertia opposing the 'new' idea of the airship combined with a limited demand.

 

[GrauGeist]

There was a recent project, I'd have to go look for it, where the helium wasn't vented, but compressed back into it's storage tanks.
Don't recall exactly how the system worked, but sounded like a fairly reasonable solution to avoiding lifting gas loss.

It was an interesting design, too, that looked sort of like two airships side-by-side.

 

[nuuumannn]

As far as I can tell, the delay in getting some modern airship design into service is mostly just due to inertia opposing the 'new' idea of the airship combined with a limited demand.

Oh, and the lack of a sound workable business plan, and high cost, don't forget that... Combine limited demand, unproven business strategy, thus high risk and high initial cost layout and you can see why investors are not sprinting to the idea.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

Airships are coming. Spanish company Air Nostrum already ordered 10 for short-range routes.
It is well know that aircraft are specially inefficient for short routes. With increasing environmental concerns and galloping fuel costs, airships make a lot of sense.

This European airline just ordered a fleet of airships | CNN

Air Nostrum, a Spanish airline, has ordered 10 Airlander 10 aircraft to make regional journeys around Spain.

edition.cnn.com

HAV

Airlander 10 is a multi-function aircraft offering solutions for Logistics, Luxury Travel, Private Clients, Defence & Security and Maritime & Coast Guard. Find out more.

www.hybridairvehicles.com

 

[SaparotRob]

Finally, some good news.

 

[MIflyer]

I remember some chap of doubtful intelligence saying we missed a real opportunity when we did not use Blimps for CAS FACs at Normandy and Iwo Jima.

I recall reading where a PBY unit in North Africa was told to go intercept and escort an inbound US battleship at max range and to "Be sure you look sharp, too!" The PBY's purpose was to scout for any subs that might be laying in wait for the battleship. They found the ship Okay but the cloud ceiling was about 100 ft and there was a 45 kt headwind wind blowing on their return course. The battleship was making 30 kts and the PBY long range cruise speed was 75 kts. Do the Math. They flew as sharply as possible around the ship and got out in front of it a few miles, thinking there was very little chance of them spotting anything but the chances of a U-boat setting up an attack was even slimmer. The pilot said his main concern was not getting run over by the battleship, given that he was flying at about 50 ft MSL. Turned out the "Look Sharp!" order was because FDR was on board the ship.

In WWII the RN specified a four engined aircraft specifically designed to recon and shadow enemy ships. It had a cruise speed of about 42 MPH and I think it had Pobjoy engines. Two different companies responded with prototypes; they looked so much alike you'd probably need a copy of the maintenance manual to tell them apart.

Imagine flying one of those things in combat. "Observer to Pilot! Good Lord! We have a Piper J-3 Cub in our Six! Start jinking!"

If intercepted by an Ercoupe they'd better just hit the silk.

 

[nuuumannn]

With increasing environmental concerns and galloping fuel costs, airships make a lot of sense.

Yeah, I like the talk, but reality bites hard. Low fuel costs are directly countered by high operating costs of the airship through the supply of lifting gas and construction of facilities. The biggest producer of helium is the USA and its not cheap, or Air Nostrum could go to Russia, one of the biggest producers of helium, they need the revenue and could offer it at a cheaper rate, probably without export tariffs that a US product would inevitably have.

Seriously though, the airline industry doesn't suffer fools gladly and translating airship operations into a profit making venture for an airline is going to be the hard part of this, not building and buying the airship. It's worth remembering that an Airlander hasn't flown since the prototype's unfortunate accident in 2017 and it doesn't yet have CAA operation certification, so a few hurdles to overcome yet. Let's wait and see before we sound the triumphant bugles heralding the resurgence of the airship dream.

 

[nuuumannn]

I remember some chap of doubtful intelligence saying we missed a real opportunity when we did not use Blimps for CAS FACs at Normandy and Iwo Jima.

The British had an airship in the Dardanelles in 1915 which was used for artillery spotting and troop movement plotting, alongside aeroplanes. It worked to a degree, but the environment was conducive to using LTA aircraft as there was little to no opposition. Over the Western Front in mainland Europe, observation balloons came with enormous risk and balloon busting became a game with fighter pilots, it was a very hazardous undertaking. An airship over Iwo Jima would have made a rather juicy target for Japanese aircraft, perhaps not the best environment for them.

The US Navy remained the sole operator of maritime patrol airships until the early 1960s, when the last was deflated and in that role non-rigid airships proved to be effective for various reasons, one of which was that submarine technology was at a point of development that their underwater speed was low, between 4 and 6 knots and surface speed was high, which made them easier to track and target, since the airships themselves were not fast and they could come to a stand-still in the air.

They could also carry heavy loads, but the primary means of locating and tracking targets was still the Mark One Eyeball, although more sophisticated detection equipment became available, such as radar and MAD that was fitted to blimps in the last years of WW2. The other thing that made them an efficient patrol aircraft was crew comfort, they presented a far more comfortable environment for their crews, which enabled withstanding lengthy patrol durations much better than being stuck in a noisy vibrating PBY for several hours. During the Great war the airships were cold and draughty, but were far more comfortable in the North Sea Class ships thanks to enclosed cabins and patrols of up to 11 hours were conducted.

By far the biggest killer of airships however is adverse weather and predicting this has to be a major priority in maintaining airship operations today. This does limit things however; aeroplanes can operate in bad weather conditions that airships could not.

 

[nuuumannn]

Let's play a game, shall we? This is long, so read on only if you dare...

Air Nostrum has ordered Airlander 10s, a brave and bold move, which will certainly provide a difference in the carrier's operational strategy, so let's attempt to predict how that might look from an operational standpoint.

First, a bit about the complex world of airline business strategies (this could be teaching some of you how to suck eggs, so bear with only if you want to). There are three types of airline strategy and airlines today are any one of these strategies, but occasionally and very occasionally they might be more than one, but very rarely can an airline pull off more than one successfully. These are cost leadership, differentiation, and niche.

Examples of cost leadership are low cost carriers (LCC), such as Ryanair, Easyjet, Jetstar and Southwest. Their entire aim is to find the cheapest/most cost effective way of doing things and this permeates through every aspect of the business - never get into a price war with these guys, they have a lower cost floor than other airlines, meaning what they are prepared to compromise on cost will be greater than non LCCs.

Differentiation airlines are your legacy carriers, United, British Airways, Qantas and Emirates for example. They offer services that create good customer experiences, like airport lounges, the benefits of belonging to alliances like Star Alliance, One World and Sky Team, which offer through commonality service from departure to arrival anywhere in the world. Differentiation airlines rely on brand perception to retain and maintain customer base, a complex and often misunderstood element of why passengers choose one airline over another when they all look the same.

The third is the niche or focus strategy. This is where an airline has a unique operating strategy that differentiates itself within an existing market, for example, BA and Air France were the only airlines that offered supersonic services between Europe and the US because they had Concorde. All Business Class only airlines fall into the niche category, but they often fail because of established carriers and strategies encroaching into their markets where they hold a dominant niche. So, our airship operating Air Nostrum would be a niche carrier, offering a service unique within its established market, but at the risk of competition with established carriers.

Air Nostrum is a regional subsidiary of Iberia, Spain's national carrier, which is a differential strategy airline. Air Nostrum flies regional routes within Spain and international routes to several European and North African destinations. It is a member of the One World Alliance, which means it provides One World customers services to extraneous destinations once arriving in Spain, having flown One World services internationally. The spoke aspect of Iberia hub-and-spoke operations, essentially. Its primary competition in Europe are a mix of differentiation and cost leader carriers, such as Air Brussels, BA, Ryanair and Easyjet.

The domestic competition in Europe is big and LCCs dominate because of their low fares, although business pax do expect more than what these offer, so there is room for differentiation carriers. Putting airships into the mix offers a niche strategy, and would no doubt provide an element of curiosity to the mix. It does depend on how Air Nostrum incorporates airship services into its route structure and indeed where its departure and arrival airports will be.

Now for the practical problems. There's no way you can dock these things at conventional airport terminals. They'd have to dock on the tarmac, or a mooring mast which increases pax time at the airport, which might be a negative, particularly for business travellers. It's suspect that they can operate at conventional airports at all, so where does this position airship operations? Do they fly to a field near the airport and does this field have mass-transport connections? Do One World travellers have the ability to transit onto their final destination adequately if connecting with an Air Nostrum airship flight that lands near, rather than at the airport?

It's arguable who the demographic might be that uses the airships, leisure travellers who see airships as a novelty will certainly be a predictable customer base. Business travellers might appreciate the exclusivity but won't appreciate the speed of travel, which is not useful for early morning meetings.

So, back to the business strategy, as a niche operation, Air Nostrum will stand alone, which offers a point of difference, but is it enough to sustain advantage in a highly competitive environment, especially when LCCs offer low fares, and what about Europe's rail network? Train travel in Europe is quick, efficient and easy; can airships, which travel at speeds equating to train journey times compete against them? Answering these won't be easy, but thankfully the business world assists airlines in positioning themselves within markets.

According to business analysts there are five forces acting on airlines that aid in determining their corporate strategy, these are:

1. competition within the market,
2. potential of new entrants into the market,
3. power of suppliers,
4. power of customers,
5. the threat of substitutes.

Each of these determine where and how an airline positions itself in a particular market depending on it's core competencies, i.e. its strengths as a business entity. Analysing these elements determine how its business strategy evolves to become sustainable in a competitive environment.

Using this to analyse a potential airship operator helps advise us of what an airline operating airships in an existing competitive environment can expect. Considering point number 1, Air Nostrum operates in a highly competitive environment, where LCCs dominate because of their low cost approach. Airship travel has to compete evenly with these to maintain market share.

Considering point number 2, airship travel has to be able to prove profitable as a new entrant into a highly competitive environment to sustain operations, otherwise it'll quickly wither and die.

Considering point number 3, airships are high maintenance with their own peculiar issues that are unique to operating them, such as supply of lifting gas and overnight facilities available at destination airports. Essentially, the efficiency of supply of maintenance and operational elements could determine the success and failure of the operation.

Point number 4 equates to whether or not potential customers are attracted to the idea enough to want to travel on the airline's airships in lieu of conventional travel. What is the current public perception of airships? What kind of service would they provide to pax and most importantly of all, is airship travel sustainable within the existing passenger base?

Point number 5, can the airship operation survive if another airship operation enters the market? Perhaps the question should at this stage be if the airship operation can remain competitive in a non-airship market?

One consideration is how is Air Nostrum going to price its airship fares, will they be the same as conventional airfares or will they be higher? If so, this limits appeal and effectively dissuades the leisure travellers who are not time sensitive but are traditionally more price sensitive? As mentioned already, Air Nostrum needs to target leisure passengers for its airship operations. Ultimately, are airship operations cost-effective for the airline?

It appears that the airship idea for Air Nostrum is being heavily pushed toward the sustainability angle, which is a noble, but at this stage financially uncertain goal, not least because airship operations are simply an unknown quantity. Airlines are investing in renewable strategies and most have big aspirations mentioned on their websites, net zero carbon emissions beyond 2050 is the common mantra, and airships might assist in achieving that, but financially, are airships sustainable? They might be ecologically, but most importantly, airlines require financial sustainability, otherwise they die.

If Air Nostrum can pull this off, it'll be a trailblazer, but be surprised if it does, not if it doesn't.

 

[MIflyer]

The US Navy remained the sole operator of maritime patrol airships until the early 1960s,

One day 20 years or so ago I flew a friend over to Fantasy of Flight in order to enable him to turn in the paperwork to list his 1929 Waco at an upcoming auction there. That task completed, we took an "indirect" route back to my airplane, around the backs of the hangars. We found what turned out to be the wing for a PBY and a gondola for one of those big USN airships; it was an impressive piece of hardware, although it lacked the radar equipment.

"An airship over Iwo Jima would have made a rather juicy target for Japanese aircraft, perhaps not the best environment for them."

I think all the Japanese aircraft based on Iwo were wiped out well in advance of the invasion fleet arrival, but I'm sure the Japanese had enough artillery to make the life expectancy of a blimp in the vicinity of mere minutes.

 

[ThomasP]

The following is just my analysis:

The only real area I can think of with (potentially) distinct advantages for the modern airship is in heavy lift to out of the way or difficult to get to areas. Although I have not run across a particularly in depth review of the options, I have seen data that says 100 tons is not beyond reason for the maximum lift capability of the new designs. (I have seen 200 tons mentioned, but no real information on the airship design.) 100 tons practical lift capability is so far beyond what heavy lift helicopters can manage that it does not compare. Add the (potentially) practical range difference between airships and helicopters and you can see the advantage.

A landing area can be set up relatively quickly and cheaply (in comparison to building an airstrip capable of handling heavy lift cargo aircraft) in any reasonable open area. As long as there is no relatively (to airships) severe weather in the offing, the airship can be tied down in the open.

Weather, as mentioned up-thread, is probably the main (potential) disadvantage for the airship. Any operations using airships will have to be carefully coordinated/timed with the weather, possibly(probably?) in a seasonal manner in many cases. This is a definite problem, but may not be as much of a disadvantage as it seems, since many other delivery systems have to be careful about weather also.

With modern control systems, handling in most circumstances that would have been dangerous for mid-1900s airships should be manageable - including hovering, slow directional movement and positioning, landing/take-off, and docking.

 

[GrauGeist]

I've seen vintage airship maximum lifting capacity usually listed as "useful lift", but don't recall ever seeing a breakdown in detail as to what that encompasses.

In the case of LZ-129 (Hindenburg class), the "useful lift" is rated at 511,000 lbs.

The Akron class airships had a "useful lift" rating of 182,000 lbs.

 

[MIflyer]

The Piasacki concept in the 80's that used four Mojave helicopters combined with a surplus blimp envelope was designed for large, outsized, heavy lift missions into remote areas. But it crashed.

But I do think it is possible to build commercially feasible airships that could carry multiple semitrailer sized loads and help eliminate some of the 18 wheelers on the road.

 

[ThomasP]

I have seen a couple of designs that carry 1 or 2 truck/ship containers. Although none of them (as far as I know) have gone beyond the design stage, the ones I saw carried them as part of the 'fuselage', ie they were carried submerged in the hull of the airship so that the bottoms were flush with the bottom 'skin'. One of the design descriptions mentioned that the container(s) became temporary parts of the structure to help make up the difference between hull force loads with and without the containers present. I thought that was kind of interesting.

 

[Dimlee]

I have seen a couple of designs that carry 1 or 2 truck/ship containers. Although none of them (as far as I know) have gone beyond the design stage, the ones I saw carried them as part of the 'fuselage', ie they were carried submerged in the hull of the airship so that the bottoms were flush with the bottom 'skin'. One of the design descriptions mentioned that the container(s) became temporary parts of the structure to help make up the difference between hull force loads with and without the containers present. I thought that was kind of interesting.

As someone involved in container shipping in past and in international trade today, I'd love to see airships carrying our cargoes from Europe to Asia. Yet I never saw any cost estimate.

 

[Dimlee]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

View: https://youtu.be/FrAc-yORdAo

 

[SaparotRob]

It's like looking in on Zeppelinheim! I was delighted to see it. It sure looks like they're building a Zep in the traditional way, just with OSHA watching.

 

[MIflyer]

I'd love to see airships carrying our cargoes from Europe to Asia

I'd love to see them carrying them from Miami to NYC. Get some of those 18 wheelers off the road.

 

[manta22]

The following is just my analysis:

The only real area I can think of with (potentially) distinct advantages for the modern airship is in heavy lift to out of the way or difficult to get to areas. Although I have not run across a particularly in depth review of the options, I have seen data that says 100 tons is not beyond reason for the maximum lift capability of the new designs. (I have seen 200 tons mentioned, but no real information on the airship design.) 100 tons practical lift capability is so far beyond what heavy lift helicopters can manage that it does not compare. Add the (potentially) practical range difference between airships and helicopters and you can see the advantage.

A landing area can be set up relatively quickly and cheaply (in comparison to building an airstrip capable of handling heavy lift cargo aircraft) in any reasonable open area. As long as there is no relatively (to airships) severe weather in the offing, the airship can be tied down in the open.

Weather, as mentioned up-thread, is probably the main (potential) disadvantage for the airship. Any operations using airships will have to be carefully coordinated/timed with the weather, possibly(probably?) in a seasonal manner in many cases. This is a definite problem, but may not be as much of a disadvantage as it seems, since many other delivery systems have to be careful about weather also.

With modern control systems, handling in most circumstances that would have been dangerous for mid-1900s airships should be manageable - including hovering, slow directional movement and positioning, landing/take-off, and docking.

Count me out! List of airship accidents - Wikipedia