Ultimate Off Road Vehicle?
- Thread starter santaman2000
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Technology is quite different from last century. The problem was never about whether it will work or not though: It worked even then. The problem then (and th question now) is whether or not there is a niche market for it.
it will be interesting to see how successful the trials are. Both in operation and financial feasibility. Things have changed, apart from the weather. I wonder how fast the wind speed has to be before it affects the operating ability of these things ?
Worked? Yes, if the atmospheric conditions are right.
Ideas have been hatched, money found, sometimes even scale prototypes built.
I am not talking a century ago. Within the last decade.
Will not happen. Too slow. Too weather sensitive.
They wete used before WW2 because the alternative, ships, were even slower.
Aircraft of course did not have the range.
Ideas have been hatched, money found, sometimes even scale prototypes built.
I am not talking a century ago. Within the last decade.
Will not happen. Too slow. Too weather sensitive.
They wete used before WW2 because the alternative, ships, were even slower.
Aircraft of course did not have the range.
Last edited:
The niche theyr'e missing is the "land in 1200 metres" claim. If you could winch lift 200 tonnes into 20 metres thats going to be far more attractive, or do it bit by bit. Oil companies for example may find that far more use. Helicopters are quite expensive, highly dangerous compared to planes and high maintainance. Imagine all the mountain ski constructions.
Too slow? It cruises at roughly three times the speed of a cargo ship. Average cargo ship’s cqruising speed is listed as 24 knots; that means this flies at about 72 knots.
No more weather dependent than any smal aircraft.
Date of the article: 17 Aug 2016.
The Zeppelin company made a serious attempt at it from the 1990s, and for a while you could book sightseeing flights from Friedrichshafen around Lake Constance, but if you'll pardon the really bad pun, the business never really took off.
If you're interested in dirigibles, then I suggest you read Doctor Eckener's Dream Machine, a really good book.
For a couple of decades we have been reading about the most incredible ’revolutionary designs’, flying cars and bikes, rigid, semi rigid dirigibles, private Mars expeditions, floating or underwater cities and Jules Vernesque stuff like that.
They raise some good money, and then go bust. I am not implying all are fraud, but that does come to my mind.......
Santaman, for sure they are quicker than a ship, but how many dirigibles would you need to transport the same amount of stuff as one Panamax ship?
Want faster shipping than a ship? DHL and FedEx fly your mail and packages.
Bobnewboy, that company has been in this game for a while.
The British tax payer wasted quite of bit of cash on the dirigible nicknamed ’the flying bum’, a failed US armed services design.
Same people.
Google it!
They raise some good money, and then go bust. I am not implying all are fraud, but that does come to my mind.......
Santaman, for sure they are quicker than a ship, but how many dirigibles would you need to transport the same amount of stuff as one Panamax ship?
Want faster shipping than a ship? DHL and FedEx fly your mail and packages.
Bobnewboy, that company has been in this game for a while.
The British tax payer wasted quite of bit of cash on the dirigible nicknamed ’the flying bum’, a failed US armed services design.
Same people.
Google it!
Last edited:
So how does this work in the African continent where a large ship cannot travel, and there are no roads for DHL and FedEx. I am highly sceptical about "airships" but give them a chance, this, in some places, is the only alternative, at the moment.
Yeah, the passenger/sightseeing aspect is nice to note but I’m thinking of cargo delivery to remote areas.
My comment about their speed was in reference to places where there are no runways nor open seaways for normal seaplanes (I still have family at remote Alaska locations) You seem to be thinking of the domesticated world. This isn’t designed for that use.
It also has something else conventional aircraft don’t have; loiter time.
Maybe easier to let those countries build back their own infrastructure?
They used to have a very good one, both roads and railways, but we know what happened to those.
I would personally love it is the World got back the people transportation by decent ships and airships, like it was in the 1930’.
But evolution only goes foreward, never back!
The more obvious use for blimps is a military one.
It is quite interesting listening to the various justifications made by various potential manufacturers of these things. The sad thing, in this country anyway, is that transporting people/goods whatever to out of the way rural locations is not profitable, so the infrastructure suffers. The ideas put forward are good, but who pays for them to materialise ? Especially in places where the government can't even guarantee constant electricity supplies in major cities. The engineering is viable, not so sure about the financial aspect though. Anyone remember the "Ekranoplan" ? There were apparently huge possibilities for both commercial and domestic use, but it never happened.
Ummm. The transportation in the 1930s had class. For the wealthy. Even so, it pretty much stunk and left a good portion of the world accessible only on foot, sled, or horseback after days of trekking.
The point of this (if it does go forward) is to try to combine the versatility of helicopters with th affordability and much larger capacity of fixed wings at a reasonable speed and needing minimum infrastructure So far it ticks all those boxes for civilian use although from a military standpoint it’s just an easy target.
Edited for typos.
Last edited:
The Ektanoplan was/is a fantastic design. I believe it wasvery energy efficient, compared to comparable (Soviet) aircraft?
It used the same principle the Cold War era Swedish Fighter/ Attack pilots trained for in the Baltic Sea, attacking the Warsaw Pact forces. Ground effect.
I lost a very, very good friend that way.
Santaman, the mil blimps can be quite small, remotely controlled and fly high up. But they develop winged ( heavier than air) aircraft instead now.
It used the same principle the Cold War era Swedish Fighter/ Attack pilots trained for in the Baltic Sea, attacking the Warsaw Pact forces. Ground effect.
I lost a very, very good friend that way.
Santaman, the mil blimps can be quite small, remotely controlled and fly high up. But they develop winged ( heavier than air) aircraft instead now.
Yeah, I know. I worked on the fixed wings and helps for twenty years. Still don’t see the military being a real niche for lighter than air craft.
Similar threads
