Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

party_pants said:

Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

Yeah

lady’s going to bed, banter way out the door
me – goodnight, i’m reading about hydrogen airships
lady – you going to build one and send me up in it
me – yeah you can test fly it
lady – you going to send me up with a packet of cigarettes (fantasy about having a smoke)
me – yeah and chuckle
she smiles amused and walks off

anyway what of lightning, I mean i’ve seen holes burnt in aircraft wings as recall

transition said:

lady’s going to bed, banter way out the door
me – goodnight, i’m reading about hydrogen airships
lady – you going to build one and send me up in it
me – yeah you can test fly it
lady – you going to send me up with a packet of cigarettes (fantasy about having a smoke)
me – yeah and chuckle
she smiles amused and walks off

anyway what of lightning, I mean i’ve seen holes burnt in aircraft wings as recall

I remember being struck by lightning in a plane going over the snowies. I kept on thinking about the Southern cloud wreck in Cooma. I remember all the lights going off in the cabin until Melbourne. And then waiting hours for another plane. Scared me.

I was wondering if there could be a helium and hydrogen hybrid. Some tanks.bladders (whatever they are called) of helium which would give some lift but not enough to lift it off the ground. Combined with a hydrogen lifting balloon and compressor tank system to control the lift. When lift is required the hydrogen balloon is filled; when descent is required the compressor pumps the hydrogen out of the balloon back into the pressure tank to allow a slow and smooth descent.

Be handy if the inert helium bladders could somehow surround the hydrogen bladder so even if the hydrogen escapes there is no air for it to come into contact with.

The size of the balloon required to lift a commercially viable weight would probably be your biggest challenge. Someone did calculations on this for me a few years ago: IIRC, it takes a helium balloon of 3m diameter to lift 10kg.

Lockheed Martin have some design they reckon can carry 20 tonnes. There is also a French/Chinese project working on a 60 tonne machine. AFAIK all of these are using helium only.

The L M machine is interesting in that it has a lifting body design and requires a take-off run of around 700-1000 metres to get airborne. It was this one that prompted into thinking about hydrogen.

party_pants said:

Lockheed Martin have some design they reckon can carry 20 tonnes. There is also a French/Chinese project working on a 60 tonne machine. AFAIK all of these are using helium only.

The L M machine is interesting in that it has a lifting body design and requires a take-off run of around 700-1000 metres to get airborne. It was this one that prompted into thinking about hydrogen.

Yeah OK, I gather they’re using the balloon to reduce the weight of the powered airframe? Interesting concept.

I would still have serious concerns about the viability of the object. A huge balloon takes up a lot of real estate. Keep it inside and you’ve got to deal with the prospect of a tiny leak creating an explosion. Keep it outside and you’ve got rapid degradation of the surface materials by sunlight and weather.

I bet there’s a ton of research being done on improving the efficiency of flight…

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

Lockheed Martin have some design they reckon can carry 20 tonnes. There is also a French/Chinese project working on a 60 tonne machine. AFAIK all of these are using helium only.

The L M machine is interesting in that it has a lifting body design and requires a take-off run of around 700-1000 metres to get airborne. It was this one that prompted into thinking about hydrogen.

Yeah OK, I gather they’re using the balloon to reduce the weight of the powered airframe? Interesting concept.

I would still have serious concerns about the viability of the object. A huge balloon takes up a lot of real estate. Keep it inside and you’ve got to deal with the prospect of a tiny leak creating an explosion. Keep it outside and you’ve got rapid degradation of the surface materials by sunlight and weather.

I bet there’s a ton of research being done on improving the efficiency of flight…

The focus seems to be more on a helicopter replacement or a super helicopter lifting capacity. For operations in remote areas, or for construction projects that require lifting heavy cargo in and out cheaper than using helos. Yes, they need some more space than a helo, but they are cheaper to operate, and possibly capable of lifting far heavier loads.

party_pants said:

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

Lockheed Martin have some design they reckon can carry 20 tonnes. There is also a French/Chinese project working on a 60 tonne machine. AFAIK all of these are using helium only.

The L M machine is interesting in that it has a lifting body design and requires a take-off run of around 700-1000 metres to get airborne. It was this one that prompted into thinking about hydrogen.

Yeah OK, I gather they’re using the balloon to reduce the weight of the powered airframe? Interesting concept.

I would still have serious concerns about the viability of the object. A huge balloon takes up a lot of real estate. Keep it inside and you’ve got to deal with the prospect of a tiny leak creating an explosion. Keep it outside and you’ve got rapid degradation of the surface materials by sunlight and weather.

I bet there’s a ton of research being done on improving the efficiency of flight…

The focus seems to be more on a helicopter replacement or a super helicopter lifting capacity. For operations in remote areas, or for construction projects that require lifting heavy cargo in and out cheaper than using helos. Yes, they need some more space than a helo, but they are cheaper to operate, and possibly capable of lifting far heavier loads.

Interesting. Thank you for the info.

party_pants said:

Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

Yes.
But why? An airship is almost never going to be as flexible as a helicopter, etc.

Spiny Norman said:

party_pants said:

Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

Yes.
But why? An airship is almost never going to be as flexible as a helicopter, etc.

I though that airships were supposed to be good for lifting large loads quite economically over long distances.

Sure, nowhere near as fast as jet cargo planes, but bigger quantities than jets, and faster than sea-surface ships.

Running large load-lifting helicopters over long distances would, i estimate, be hellishly expensive, and there’s a lot more to go wrong with helicopters (and more readily) than with airships.

Spiny Norman said:

party_pants said:

Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

Yes.
But why? An airship is almost never going to be as flexible as a helicopter, etc.

Airships are quieter & have far longer range.

Spiny Norman said:

party_pants said:

Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

Yes.
But why? An airship is almost never going to be as flexible as a helicopter, etc.

Might make a comeback like vinyl among people who like steampunk

dv said:

Spiny Norman said:

party_pants said:

Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

Yes.
But why? An airship is almost never going to be as flexible as a helicopter, etc.

Might make a comeback like vinyl among people who like steampunk

If ever you get a chance go to the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen.

I guess the other question is:

Would these be better than helium airships? Hydrogen is harder to store than helium. I’ll admit that hydrogen is slightly more buoyant but you have to add it all up.

Tamb said:

dv said:

Spiny Norman said:

Yes.
But why? An airship is almost never going to be as flexible as a helicopter, etc.

Might make a comeback like vinyl among people who like steampunk

If ever you get a chance go to the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen.

You’re certainly showing it a whole lottta love.

sibeen said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

Might make a comeback like vinyl among people who like steampunk

If ever you get a chance go to the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen.

You’re certainly showing it a whole lottta love.

The liquefaction of hydrogen needs cooling

sibeen said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

Might make a comeback like vinyl among people who like steampunk

If ever you get a chance go to the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen.

You’re certainly showing it a whole lottta love.

Slow, low altitude, big windows, quiet.

dv said:

I guess the other question is:

Would these be better than helium airships? Hydrogen is harder to store than helium. I’ll admit that hydrogen is slightly more buoyant but you have to add it all up.

Helium is hard to get.

It’s also used in MRI machines. We start using it in large quantities in airships, MRIs will be much more expensive, if nothing else.

Hydrogen – we’ve got oceans of the stuff.

Rear view of HAV 304 / Airlander 1, or possibly Elastagirl

dv said:

Rear view of HAV 304 / Airlander 1, or possibly Elastagirl

ROFL

dv said:

Rear view of HAV 304 / Airlander 1, or possibly Elastagirl

It needs painted acrosss it:

‘I like big butts and I cannot lie’

dv said:

Rear view of HAV 304 / Airlander 1, or possibly Elastagirl

A Kardashian?

Tamb said:

dv said:

Rear view of HAV 304 / Airlander 1, or possibly Elastagirl

A Kardashian?

Great and terrible thing.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

Rear view of HAV 304 / Airlander 1, or possibly Elastagirl

A Kardashian?

Great and terrible thing.

Gee it really is just asking for a rude nickname

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

A Kardashian?

Great and terrible thing.

Gee it really is just asking for a rude nickname

Maybe it’s one of the sex arses held at the border.

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Great and terrible thing.

Gee it really is just asking for a rude nickname

Maybe it’s one of the sex arses held at the border.

What does he mean?

Tamb said:

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

Gee it really is just asking for a rude nickname

Maybe it’s one of the sex arses held at the border.

What does he mean?

Fake arses for men’s pleasure I think

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Divine Angel said:

Maybe it’s one of the sex arses held at the border.

What does he mean?

Fake arses for men’s pleasure I think

Sounds queer.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

What does he mean?

Fake arses for men’s pleasure I think

Sounds queer.

Perhaps there are women’s arses as well

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Fake arses for men’s pleasure I think

Sounds queer.

Perhaps there are women’s arses as well

Ah. I hadn’t thought of that.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Sounds queer.

Perhaps there are women’s arses as well

Ah. I hadn’t thought of that.

With or without ball-sacks is how it’s described in the brochure.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps there are women’s arses as well

Ah. I hadn’t thought of that.

With or without ball-sacks is how it’s described in the brochure.

Smart move appeals to a wider range of people

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps there are women’s arses as well

Ah. I hadn’t thought of that.

With or without ball-sacks is how it’s described in the brochure.

He was a French novelist wasn’t he?

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Ah. I hadn’t thought of that.

With or without ball-sacks is how it’s described in the brochure.

Smart move appeals to a wider range of people

And they said that four years to get a marketing degree was a waste of time…

party_pants said:

Using modern materials and technology, d’ya reckon it could be possible to make a safe airship using hydrogen as the main lifting gas?

I’ll give that some thought.

Hydrogen is far cheaper than helium to make and fuels that are potentially explosive ate used all the time. The Hindenburg, as you know, had a covering similar to thermite, which made it more dangerous than the hydrogen. I have a book at home about airships, for instance one American airship used hydrogen on some trips and helium on others. They would pump the helium out and replace it with hydrogen and vice versa.