General aviation/airplane news and chat
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Those big airships looked like a lovely way to travel. Shame they couldn’t use helium instead. Most of them had a smoking lounge with a single lighter that was chained to the table 
Airship development is discussed in Nevil Shute’s book Slide Rule. He was employed by Vickers on the development of the R100 and R101 projects as the chief calculator.
The British government envisaged fleets of airships connecting the Empire. Imagine how amazing that would have been?
I read the book years ago when I was an apprentice. When we still only had slide rules.
The British government envisaged fleets of airships connecting the Empire. Imagine how amazing that would have been?
I read the book years ago when I was an apprentice. When we still only had slide rules.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Horrendous. In general airships use 20% of the fuel of a conventional aircraft but carry 10% of the payload at 10% of the speed.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
You know how a wing works..?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
In extreme detail. I also have a thorough understanding of how aerostats work.That doesn't make the concept of a load of air being able to lift tons of metal seem any less intuitively weird to me.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
The US Army have long been dipping their toes into the idea of biiiiiiig airships - they've always wanted a way of deploy really heavy armoured units by air, but without the astronomical costs of aircraft like the C-17 and C-5. The airship idea kind of fits because cargo aircraft can only lift a tiny percentage of a brigade sized formation at a time, and they don't really need the halfway-around-the-world-in-24-hours kind of speed that cargo aircraft provide, but they wanted the flexibility of airmobility.
The problem of course is that an airship is a really big, easy target for anyone with anything bigger than a shotgun, and no one fancies losing half an Armoured Cavalry Regiment to some bloke in flip-flops with a 40 year old SAM-7....
The problem of course is that an airship is a really big, easy target for anyone with anything bigger than a shotgun, and no one fancies losing half an Armoured Cavalry Regiment to some bloke in flip-flops with a 40 year old SAM-7....
I remember reading about that, they were moving into the original airship site at Cardington? I will have a dig around.
Last edited:
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Gf just got sent this on FB. 1955 apparently.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
That's basically the history of airships and Cardington. (I'm from near there - see R101)
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Moved into Cardington. Brought back the vehicle a previous incarnation of the company had built for the US DoD/Lockheed Martin. Modified it. Flew it a few times, looked awesome by the way. Crashed it. Repaired it, flew it a few more times. Left it out in a squall so it blew over and deployed its auto-deflate mechanism venting god knows how many thousands of pounds worth of helium to the atmosphere. Moved to a serviced office setup in Bedford. Got hit by the Covid lock down, currently running a share issue to keep going.
I brought £100 of their shares in an issue when they started flying, because I think the Airlander HAV looked cool in the air. I haven't checked but I suspect they are currently worth the price of a book about airships. Paperback.
(I have got a picture of me standing next to it in the shed. It was pretty cool close up too.)
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Cardington Shortstown’s R101 was the 'Socialist' airship, the 'Capitalist' airship, the R100 was. built at Howden in Yorkshire and didn't crash... Probably because politicians didn't override the engineers and to push it into 'service' too soon.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Ah, cheers. Still going by the skin of their teeth then. I lost track of them soon after they bumped it into the ground but pleased to hear it isn't completely lights out. I did decide to support them by buying one of their packages, I think as a result of a discussion on here, but then I promptly forgot all about it. I'm sure you didn't buy their shares hoping to get rich so no worries there.
Have you got a link? I'll chuck them a few quid now.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
HAV
At Hybrid Air Vehicles we are redefining what aircraft can do. Airlander connects the unconnected and solves modern day aviation challenges. Explore the technology here.
HAV
Explore why and how to invest in Hybrid Air Vehicles on our Investor Relations page.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
The one of me was a publicity picture taken by the event I was at and I can’t find it (yet) but this is one I took. If you look at the bottom you can see a gap between the floor and the bottom of the vehicle as they kept it neutral in the shed for some reason. This meant someone had to be there all the time to fettle the heating and stuff.
I don’t know why they did that, should have asked, as when they flew it it’s buoyancy was trimmed(?) so that it was heavier than air and generated aerodynamic lift in forward flight and also used the thrust of its engines to move it up and down so as not to need a massive ground crew for landing, I think it also had a kind of reverse hovercraft ‘ undercarriage’ that stuck it to the ground whilst it was being tied up. Though that might just have been a plan.
(ETA, sadly we weren’t allowed to punch it to test wether the story that blimps are called blimps because that’s the sound a non rigid airship makes when you punch it is true. Health and safety gone mad...)
Last edited:
Lancman
Well-Known Member
I think that the Airlander probably has to be held “in suspension” because its weight (mass) would cause damage to the bottom of the structural frames if it were allowed to sit on them. A conventional aeroplane is supported by its legs which have strengthened areas around them, an airship dangles from the gas-bags exerting an upward force over a large area at the top of the frames. If you see what I mean.
“Slide Rule” is one of my favourite books from way back, I was particularly delighted to read that during the R100s transatlantic flights they found that the airflow over the top of the ship created a calm area just forward of the upper fin where the crew could climb up and sunbathe.
And "Colonel Blimp" was a rather rotund cartoon character of the early thirties.
There is some interesting information coming out regarding the tragic crash of the Pakistan Airlines flight on 22nd May. It seems that there was an initial attempt to land the plane with the landing gear retracted and the subsequent damage caused to the engines during the belly flop likely caused the eventual crash when it went around and attempted a second landing.
Its all very odd because the pilots do not seem to have informed ATC that they had a problem on the initial landing attempt and there were no emergency vehicles ready and waiting for the attempt at a crash landing. Its my understanding that in a situation when there is landing gear problems you stay airborne and trouble shoot the problem only attempting a belly landing if you run our of options. If this was the last option why was there no warning given and why the go around?
Very early days but it seems to me something went badly wrong in the cockpit. Either they simply didn't lower the landing gear (pretty unthinkable) or more likely had failed to grasp that the landing gear hadn't deployed for some reason.
Its all very odd because the pilots do not seem to have informed ATC that they had a problem on the initial landing attempt and there were no emergency vehicles ready and waiting for the attempt at a crash landing. Its my understanding that in a situation when there is landing gear problems you stay airborne and trouble shoot the problem only attempting a belly landing if you run our of options. If this was the last option why was there no warning given and why the go around?
Very early days but it seems to me something went badly wrong in the cockpit. Either they simply didn't lower the landing gear (pretty unthinkable) or more likely had failed to grasp that the landing gear hadn't deployed for some reason.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
How did they get him on the plane?
PIA has a pretty horrendous safety records. Something like 4 fatal crashes in the past decade and numerous more in the last 4 or 5 decades. I wouldn't fly them
Looking at wiki they have had quite a few incidents but then again a few of them involve being hit by gun fire and hijacking. Its not a terrible recent record by any means and they operate a lot of international services (or at least did pre-virus) so their safety certifications must all be up to date.
This crash does stand out as particularly bad and indeed odd in their recent history.
Lancman
Well-Known Member
"I can't understand the kids' accents Nav, so I suppose that this might be Pembroke Dock."
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
The Amelia Earhart story?
The official one says that she was too scared to get out of the plane on landing because she'd opened the door, shouted "Where am I?" and then slammed it shut again because she couldn't understand the accents. The story in Pwll is that it wasn't the accents but that, being a Welsh speaking town, it was a different language she was encountering. And, expecting English, she got scared when it wasn't an English reply.
Similar threads
