kallis@pen.DEC (04/17/85)
Rob DeMillo asks about airships. One high-priced photographer I know has made these a hobby, having a superb collection of books on the subject. The U.S. Navy tried experimenting with some -- besides blimps, they worked with dirigibles, with less than perfect success. Pro's of airships. 1) Lighter than air. If the engines quit, they don't immediately sink (although most have positive weight, letting aerodynamic forces give >a little< lift. 2) Can nearly hover, making sequencing easier. Cons: 1) Skin friction requires great expenditure of fuel, though hardly as much as a heavier-than-air craft of equivalent payload. 2) Not very maneuverable. 3) Rigid airships are highly susceptible to shearing effects, potentially causing in-flight breakups. 4) Hangaring requirements are rough, needing vast enclosures. Are they viable? Anything is, given sufficient determination. Will they be used? Only if potential backers can see a clear economic advantage. Steve
faunt@hplabs.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (04/23/85)
> subject. The U.S. Navy tried experimenting with some -- besides > blimps, they worked with dirigibles, with less than perfect success. 40+ years of service with the Navy is somewhat more than an experiment. The last LTA squadron was decommissioned in 1961. When I was in a helicopter squadron in '64/65. lots of the lifers had come from LTA. -- ....!hplabs!faunt faunt%hplabs@csnet-relay.ARPA HP is not responsible for anything I say here. In fact, what I say here may have been generated by a noisy telephone line.