The numbers for the two modern airships, especially the Airlander, seem very unrealistic. The bigger Airlander version will have only half the gas volume of the Hindenburg (and that’s helium, which has less lifting power than H2), yet it claims more than twice the payload.
Adding to the strangeness, the fact that it’s an hybrid airship (HAV) implies that it has more aerodynamic drag, and it burns more fuel (it needs to burn fuel to stay afloat, since it’s heavier than air). So it must carry more fuel, especially considering it’s going to use powerful, but very thirsty turboshaft engines. Fuel is not included in the payload, so how come the Airlander, carrying more fuel still has several times the payload of the more economical LZ129?
It also claims twice the cruising speed of the LZ129, even though its hybrid double hull shape creates a lot more drag than the teardrop shape of the Zeppelin.
Also, these people are saying a lot about the HAV’s ability to hover above the ground, but since they’re heavier than air, they must use the engine’s thrust, to do so, much like an helicopter, burning fuel, making lots of noise and dust. There’s a video of the Aeroscraft test, and it blows dust everywhere.
I also wonder about the payload. I’ve read claims that the Airlander can go round the globe twice without refueling, which again is very unlikely considering the fuel consumption of a turboshaft and the payload claims. But on other sites i’ve read that the range is only 1600 miles.
So i’m not sure i can believe all these numbers. The US Army supposedly dropped the program due to budget cuts, but in that case why did they sell back the project for only 1% of its cost? And Airlander is now using something like a few million pounds to conclude the project, which means it was already 90%+ funded, so why did the US really dropped the project? Maybe it’s because it saw no future in it.
These HAV are targeted at the military market, but so far all of them have failed. How can Airlander sell their craft if the main backer and likely first customer gave up on them?
I said twice the payload above, comparing the Airlander to LZ129, but actually they claim 20 times the payload!
by the way the numbers I’m comparing are in relation to the post below by Dagmara.
Dagmara Lizlovs
11 years ago
I did a quick and dirty rough comparison of the LZ-129 Hindenburg, Airlander and the Aeroscraft. For the Airlander I found two different sets of dimensions given. One at this link:
The Aeroscraft is a work in progress, and so I have also given a range of dimensions. If anyone has a better set of dimensions or performance data, feel free to add it. I have converted figures given in British tonnes and US tons to pounds, and speeds given in knots to mph.
Payload:
LZ-129: 22,046 lb cargo + 18,900 lb passengers and crew (assume 90 occupants at 170lbs per person 40lbs baggage per person) = 40,946 lbs total. I assumed that the lift of 511,500lbs for the aircraft is the lift produced by the aircraft and not the payload.
Airlander: 110,231lbs – 132,300lbs (440,925lbs ultimately to be reached)
Aeroscraft: 500,000lbs (planned)
Altitude:
LZ129: cruise 3,000ft
Airlander: 10,000 to 20,000ft for up to 21 days.
Aeroscraft: 12,000ft
Engine Power
LZ-129: 4 Daimler-Benz 16-cylinder LOF 6 (DB 602) Diesels. 1190hp each
Airlander: 4 turboshaft engines 2350hp each
Aeroscraft: don’t have figure yet
The link below mentions Bruce Dickinson’s of Iron Maiden intentons of doing an around the world flight in the Airlander. Graf Zeppelin all over again except this time it will be non-stop.
In case anyone is not a Gerry Anderson fan (or too young to remember the 1960’s supermarionation series “Thunderbirds”) and want to know what is the Thunderbird 2 aircraft that Bruce Dickinson was referring to here it is:
I think that the Dragon Dream looks more like Thunderbird 2 than the Airlander.
By the way, is Igor Pasternak related to Boris Pasternak the author of the novel “Doctor Zhivagoâ€. (The 1965 film based on the novel is a must see. My maternal grandmother lived in Russia during the Revolution and the Russian Civil War.)
The numbers for the two modern airships, especially the Airlander, seem very unrealistic. The bigger Airlander version will have only half the gas volume of the Hindenburg (and that’s helium, which has less lifting power than H2), yet it claims more than twice the payload.
Adding to the strangeness, the fact that it’s an hybrid airship (HAV) implies that it has more aerodynamic drag, and it burns more fuel (it needs to burn fuel to stay afloat, since it’s heavier than air). So it must carry more fuel, especially considering it’s going to use powerful, but very thirsty turboshaft engines. Fuel is not included in the payload, so how come the Airlander, carrying more fuel still has several times the payload of the more economical LZ129?
It also claims twice the cruising speed of the LZ129, even though its hybrid double hull shape creates a lot more drag than the teardrop shape of the Zeppelin.
Also, these people are saying a lot about the HAV’s ability to hover above the ground, but since they’re heavier than air, they must use the engine’s thrust, to do so, much like an helicopter, burning fuel, making lots of noise and dust. There’s a video of the Aeroscraft test, and it blows dust everywhere.
I also wonder about the payload. I’ve read claims that the Airlander can go round the globe twice without refueling, which again is very unlikely considering the fuel consumption of a turboshaft and the payload claims. But on other sites i’ve read that the range is only 1600 miles.
So i’m not sure i can believe all these numbers. The US Army supposedly dropped the program due to budget cuts, but in that case why did they sell back the project for only 1% of its cost? And Airlander is now using something like a few million pounds to conclude the project, which means it was already 90%+ funded, so why did the US really dropped the project? Maybe it’s because it saw no future in it.
These HAV are targeted at the military market, but so far all of them have failed. How can Airlander sell their craft if the main backer and likely first customer gave up on them?
I said twice the payload above, comparing the Airlander to LZ129, but actually they claim 20 times the payload!
by the way the numbers I’m comparing are in relation to the post below by Dagmara.
I did a quick and dirty rough comparison of the LZ-129 Hindenburg, Airlander and the Aeroscraft. For the Airlander I found two different sets of dimensions given. One at this link:
http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/hav304.aspx
And the other at this link:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/02/28/x/d/o/Airlander-50-Technical-Data-v2.pdf
The Aeroscraft is a work in progress, and so I have also given a range of dimensions. If anyone has a better set of dimensions or performance data, feel free to add it. I have converted figures given in British tonnes and US tons to pounds, and speeds given in knots to mph.
Length:
LZ-129: 803.8 feet
Airlander (HAV): 300 – 390 feet
Aeroscraft: 550 – 770 feet (Eventual)
Width:
LZ-129: 135.1ft (not counting fins)
Airlander: 113ft – 196ft
Aeroscraft: 75ft for Dragon Dream, future plans 150ft
Height:
LZ-129: 149ft
Airlander: 85ft – 115ft
Aeroscraft: 85ft for Dragon Dream, future plans for aircraft height will be greater.
Cruise Speed:
LZ-129: 76mph – 84mph max
Airlander: 92mph – 195mph
Aeroscraft: 138 mph
Payload:
LZ-129: 22,046 lb cargo + 18,900 lb passengers and crew (assume 90 occupants at 170lbs per person 40lbs baggage per person) = 40,946 lbs total. I assumed that the lift of 511,500lbs for the aircraft is the lift produced by the aircraft and not the payload.
Airlander: 110,231lbs – 132,300lbs (440,925lbs ultimately to be reached)
Aeroscraft: 500,000lbs (planned)
Altitude:
LZ129: cruise 3,000ft
Airlander: 10,000 to 20,000ft for up to 21 days.
Aeroscraft: 12,000ft
Engine Power
LZ-129: 4 Daimler-Benz 16-cylinder LOF 6 (DB 602) Diesels. 1190hp each
Airlander: 4 turboshaft engines 2350hp each
Aeroscraft: don’t have figure yet
Envelope Volume:
LZ-129: 7,062,000 cubic feet
Airlander: 1,340,000 ft³ – 3,640,000 ft³
Aeroscraft: 700,000 cubic feet for Dragon Dream, future plan 1,400,000 cubic feet
Airlander videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpQnZu6p8v8
http://vimeo.com/86716764
http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/local/video-pilot-dave-to-test-the-airlander-1-5917562
The link below mentions Bruce Dickinson’s of Iron Maiden intentons of doing an around the world flight in the Airlander. Graf Zeppelin all over again except this time it will be non-stop.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/world-s-largest-flying-machine-the-40m-airlander-OjuMinscTmmcW33xD8EQWQ.html
Another interview with Bruce Dickinson on the Airlander is at this link:
http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/iron-maidens-bruce-dickinson-talks-to-bloomberg-tv-about-worlds-largest-aircraft-airlander-video/
In case anyone is not a Gerry Anderson fan (or too young to remember the 1960’s supermarionation series “Thunderbirds”) and want to know what is the Thunderbird 2 aircraft that Bruce Dickinson was referring to here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_machines
Aeroscraft videos of the Dragon Dream:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndMapWaxgfA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjQ8PL1Y6SU
I think that the Dragon Dream looks more like Thunderbird 2 than the Airlander.
By the way, is Igor Pasternak related to Boris Pasternak the author of the novel “Doctor Zhivagoâ€. (The 1965 film based on the novel is a must see. My maternal grandmother lived in Russia during the Revolution and the Russian Civil War.)