Extreme Dirigibles for the Modern Age "Would you like to ride in my beautiful balloon... We could float among the stars together, you and I... The world's a nicer place in my beautiful balloon... We can sing a song and sail along the silver sky... For we can fly!" ("Up, Up and Away" by the Fifth Dimension)
Festo Air-Ray, Inspired by Nature
Air_Ray flying structure (concept airship) mimics the movements of manta-ray (and also reminds us of war-bird machines in "Sky Captain: World of Tomorrow"). This is the ultimate expression of bionics: bringing the fluidity of movement and effortless dynamics, found in nature, to our technological (even if slightly futuristic) application.
Make sure to check out computer flight simulation video here. By adjusting the angle of wings the craft can fly forward, backwards and change direction fluidly and naturally.
Watch its undulating movements here, quite hypnotizing:
Millennium Airship company created the revolutionary SkyFreighter., which is designed to lift really heavy cargoes and transport machinery and equipment intact, without the need of re-assembly. It can haul 500 plus tons and has speeds averaging 100 mph for 6000 miles unrefueled:
Futuristic air wars gain a new dimension if they are fought with (supposedly) obsolete giant airships and military zeppelins. Seen in many a pulp during science fiction Gold Age of the 30s and "the age of wonder", the vision persisted into the 70s - witness Michael Moorcock's novel "The Warlord of the Air", where the Edwardian technology takes to the air in a sort of precursor to steampunk fiction.
or the movie "Zeppelin vs. Pterodactyls" (more info) -
More futuristic visions (some are rarely seen) -
Frank Tinsley drew this image for the 1957 book "Airships in the Atomic Age":
The now largely exinct airborn "islands" were all the rage during the dawn years of aviation, firing the imagination (and getting lots of financing) of general public and politicians of the time.
See the "Zeppelins through the ages" catalog here - a wonderful site, full of info and trivia, collected by Daniel J. Grossman.
To properly appreciate the grand scale of these beasts, compare their size with puny humans: LZ-127 Graf Zeppelin
or with the mooring tower:
In the luxury vein of "Titanic" era, the interiors were as glamorous as any prestigious hotel:
In the early 30s airships "Graf Zeppelin" and "Hindenburg" flew regularly on transatlantic routes between Germany and America. As the movie "Sky Captain" skillfully shown, they did intend to moor to the most prominent skyscrapers:
The observation tower at the top of the Empire State Building was originally intended to be a dock for mooring airships: (read here "how the engineers crowned world's tallest building")
There is something about "Zeppelins over Manhattan" images...
As a symbol of bygone era, as a counterpoint to all these skyscrapers: the airborn giants made a perfect picture floating over Manhattan, and many photographers recognized it:
To browse through "scale progression" of airships (many of them hypothetical), head over to this site. It clearly illustrated how "bigger is better" applied to airship really made sense to designers: (note little airplanes underneath them)
US Navy actually built two zeppelin aircraft carriers (see our recent article): USS Macon (info) and USS Akron ZRS-4 (shown below: these tiny dots at the bottom are people)
Akron could carry four airplanes, Macon five, and the further models were designed to carry up to 22 airplanes!
All culminating perhaps in this idea: (see full info at this page)
The idea of a giant ship that can carry "bridges, buildings, fleet of trucks; that eliminates the need for roads, railroads and harbors" was kept alive all throught the 30s and beyond: this book documents a history of the project, dubbed "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed". Financed by private individuals (presbyterian missionaries), after 12 years and half a million dollars, the Aereon Corporation had a static ship model and plenty of wrecked ones. (read more here)
Aereon 26 strange-looking plane actually took to the sky in 1971:
The company's research, however, opened many paths toward creating stealth airships for the military (some weirdly giving rise to more UFO mythos and spotting):
Moby Air - the Flying Luxury Hotel
Presented in this issue of Popular Science, this brainchild of Worldwide Aeros Corporation has pretty good specs and will carry 288 passengers in ultimate luxury to the cruising altitude of 8000 ft.
In conclusion, we have to say that if the longevity of the name "Zeppelin" is any indication (just witness the undying fortune of the "Led Zeppelin" rock group), we are going to see some embodiment of this dream in a few years; after all skyships make good economical sense (all safety factors notwithstanding) - and the sight of airships flying over the Golden Bridge will be quite commonplace:
When I was younger, I was fascinated by the airships and zeppelins of the early part of the 20th Century. In fact, I have a book called "Zeppelin: The German Airship Story", which touched on their rise and fall. I am struck by the fact that they could never seem to get the design of these monsters right, and the majority of them crashed to Earth or burned up. If you can find a copy of this book, snag it. It's very fascinating.
Great article! Looks like they finally got it right!
There are still airship hangars at Cardington in the UK. Check out the pictures on their web-site: http://www.controltowers.co.uk/C/Cardington.htm You cannot believe the immensity of them unless you've been there, as I have. The pictures just don't do them justice
Yes, Zeppelins certainly will become a familiar site in the skies over San Francisco! BTW, we're Airship Ventures, not Airship Adventures as you credit us on a couple of the images. www.airshipventures.com airshipventures.blogspot.com
one of the tallest buildings in Europe is an aqua spa in the hangar of a bankrupt modern zeppelin construction factory: http://www.tropical-islands.de/de/presse/pressefotos.html
and the central market in Riga is one of the biggest dayly markets in Europe and is in the old zeppelin hangars from the early 20th century
Thank you for the link; what a great collection of images!
The mooring mast on top of the Empire State Building seems to have been a publicity gimmick more than anything else. Certainly, it wasn't very well thought out: it was far too windy up there to be viable. Still, I did like seeing it in use in Sky Captain.
We still have new, ACTIVE airships here in Elizabeth City, NC. Production and maintenance is on the old Weeksville Naval LTA Base. http://elizcity.com/weeksnas/ http://www.newbegun.com/tour/Airship_Hanger.php http://www.newbegun.com/tour/Bicycling_02.php
The real Problem with Airships is, that Helium is extremely rare. As a tecnician at the Zeppelin Yard in Friedrichshafen explained to me, there is only about enough helium to fill two of the once proposed "Cargolifter" Airships. Until we synthesize a light gas we probably wont see alot of these Dreams come true.
Airships are still wonderful ships and could be on the way back. See my 2006 post that covers much of what's on here: http://www.creationrobot.com/2006/03/airships-they-are-coming-slowly-from-many-different-companies-and-countries/
yes the gas is a problem but not the rare is the point ,but the priece. the cost of one fill for the cargolifter is more expensive than the rest of the zeppelin.
Hey there great article just blogged about it at Airshipworld. Here ist the Link: Dark Roasted Airships
Regards
Andreas -- Editor of Airshipworld -------------------------------------------------------- Visit the Airshipworld Blog at http://airshipworld.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------
The problem with airships of the past was that they were ahead of their time. The problem was materials and the flotation gas.
The outer materials used to "protect" the skins of these beasts turned out to be the same formulation used for solid rockets today.
The gas normally was helium, but Germany chose to use Hydrogen because the only source of helium was the USA.
The structure of these beasts were typically made out of Aluminum, a fairly new metal not quite mastered. A lot of structural failures occurred because engineers assumed Aluminum was lightweight iron, which it wasn't. Aluminum, while strong, has different characteristics, which require different engineering considerations. Hence the designs were always flawed.
Today we have carbon fiber based composites, super adhesives, light-weight fabrics and polymers, and a far superior knowledge of metals.
There is one problem, however, there is a finite supply of helium, and once it's gone, it's gone. It's so light, it just leaves our atmosphere.
Thank for such thematic stuff. And you could get any info about aeronautic direction from the Aerocrat blog in LJ - http://aerocrat.livejournal.com The Russian original of the one you could translate via google's translating service.
There are several reasons Zeppelins will never make a come back despite the efforts of those uninformed of the reasons for its prior demise, and every failed technology has the same followers who say - we can fix that now...except the magic bullet invariably helps whatever alternate technology exists more.
First of all, the majority of rigid airships were lost due to weather, not the (vastly overrated) inflammability of the filling gas so changing the gas won't help. Structural engineering wasn't a problem either.
The primary problem is that because it is lighter than air, it has vastly more surface area than mass, and tends to get pushed around by gusts of air. Updrafts and downdrafts easily exceed the ability compensate. Stronger winds still (but still of little concern for any airplane of the past 50+ years) can cause stresses on the structure beyond its capability to absorb, while building it to handle those stresses would result in it being too heavy to be useful.
Unlike an airplane, it cannot apply sufficient power to overcome strong wind gusts because the power would add weight both in engines and in associated structure and so again runs into a weight wall. It is reliant on two control systems. The first is aerodynamic, which works poorly at the speeds typical of an airship. The second is buoyancy control, either shifting buoyancy fore and aft or on controlling the overall buoyancy, but this cannot be controlled quickly enough to deal with changes in air pressure in even the smallest storm, even if losing lifting gas isn't a problem.
Hydrogen and helium leak out of whatever you put them in. You can't stop that unless you want an airship that's too heavy to fly. That means they have to be topped up - a considerable ongoing expense that would seriously reduce their utility in the few markets available since large quantities would need to be made and/or shipped.
When the airship was at its peak, it was faster than heavier-than-air aircraft but lost that advantage during the course of WW1 and never got it back. Into the 1930's it could offer range, and without stopping it remained competitive speed-wise but that disappeared with faster and longer legged aircraft, along with the flying boat (which had similar weaknesses). A small market potential remains, but not for passenger airships, and definitely not for large ones. No doubt others think differently (otherwise Zeppelin AG and others wouldn't still be finding investors) but the only markets are on the fringe, and yet they would still be in danger from inclement weather. Modern weather forecasting is a huge improvement and many weather systems can be avoided - but not all and it would still be in danger sitting on the ground waiting for a storm to pass. Composites mean the structure can be stronger than before but will never be strong and light enough, and computer control will help with some of the difficulties in handing and newer materials will reduce the loss of gas but none of it will ever really be enough. Helicopters can lift heavier and heavier loads, and if you want a scenic tour, there is always the train or a light plane.
I do believe that it is good to review previous technological failures since not all are insoluble and lessons can be learned - alas few lessons ever are. The majesty of a flying vehicle (either being in it or watching it) nearly a thousand feet long remains as the technology's sole prerogative, and the engine that drove the whole enterprise from 1914 onwards. If it wasn't so ridiculously huge it would never have had so many adherents, yet it served no purpose once it was passed by in the very dawn of aviation. Kudos to Zeppelin though, for keeping the dream alive as long as he did.
The colourful moon image is by Neil Carboni http://ncarboni.home.att.net/Astrophotography.html (I saw it the other day on the venerable APOD, here: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060907.html)
I hadn't really thought, until now, about how odd it is that the moon seems to be a completely monochrome world. What the picture shows is, in fact, the slight variations in colour exaggerated.
The forked Volkswagen is a part of the Royal Deluxe (google it) performance in Iceland. My photo of the same car: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/2104794414_bc0be46924.jpg
The location is Madrid and the group is strange fruit. An australian street theater group. The performance is called "on the field" I see it and I liked a lot
I ended up doing a school project on these eggs-at first, I thought I'm simply be discussing pretty jewely egg things made by some guy in Russia. But there's a lot more history involved. It amazes me how the royal family could spend so much money on a couple eggs every easter and still let Russia's desolate people waste away. I mean, wow. Had they used the money for materials and whatnot to make them to feed and provide other kinds of care to their people, they might have saved a lot of lives.
The sad fact about Communism is that it replaced one rigid class system with another. The history of Communism was every bit as bad as Feudalism, and in many cases worse. The common people did not reap any benefits despite all the rhetoric handed down from on high. The ruling elite had a disproportionate amount of wealth as compared to the proletariat. As such, it was far from a classless society. Did the Romanov's have an obscenely lavish lifestyle compared to the peasants? Yes, but so did every Soviet leader except for maybe Lenin. Some may argue that the Soviet Union was never really a pure communist state as per the writings of Marx. That may be true, but Marx was too much of an idealist and failed to properly deal with human nature, and the desire of the individual to differentiate from the crowd. So, the theory works on paper, but can never work in reality.
As for the eggs, they are a beautiful example of the ingenuity and creativity of the Russian people.
Good insight, which I believe to be entirely correct. It's hard to summarize the whole chapter of history or ideology, but you did it remarkably well. Cheers!
18 MILLON FOR AN EGG ARE YOU SERIOUS THATS A SHAME SHE BUILT THOSE EGGS FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PEOPLE NOT FOR A HOLE IN YOUR WALLET SHE WOULD NOT BE HAPPY :(
Regardless of whether they purchased them or not they did employ countless workers to produce them and left a beautiful legacy of artwork that is enjoyed throughout the world. There's something to be said for that too. People love to find fault with everything.
the abbey road shot looks heavily shopped, just look at the white line where ringo should be, are you sure it's not from the b3ta abbey road kit? http://www.b3takit.co.uk/page1.htm
the psd version has a layer with the beatles removed
The Panzer driver's mask is not a gas mask - It's to protect the face from spall (splinters of metal that fly off the inside of the armour when it is hit hard). The lower section is made of chain mail
i never knew burning man was real..i saw it on "malcolm and the middle." i love this website! its only been a day and im almost done lookin at evrythin, i think..if u can reply..how old are you??
PS Gas masks don't do a thing against radioactivity or nuclear fallout, I don't know where you get that from.
True, gas masks don't do much at all for protection against fallout, but they do for mustard gas and other corrosive gases.
The cultural conflation of gas masks with nuclear fallout probably comes from seeing them used during wartime (mustard gas).
I came across a 1961 booklet published in Canada (with a forward by Prime minister Diefenbaker) titled "11 Steps to Survival' that outlines how to survive a nuclear explosion. Gasmasks in this case don't protect against fallout, but *do* help to filter out some of the heavier particles cast into the air by the detonation.
Great images, thank you! the other unknown credit (the black and white image above the burning man-one) is by Francisco Matas Rosas, Mexico City. http://www.franciscomata.com.mx/portafolioinicioi.html
Nice post. Cool images. Also, Romulus, you are incorrect. Modern gas masks filter out radioactive particulates from fallout, but only when used with a proper filter. But a gas mask alone will not save you from radioactivity, you need a full set of correct protective clothing AND a gas mask for that.
"Romulus said: PS Gas masks don't do a thing against radioactivity or nuclear fallout, I don't know where you get that from."
I believe that the second horse picture is incorrectly labeled. The horse appears to be wearing a simple "nose bag," a canvas sack filled with grain that enables the horse to eat on its breaks from work while it is away from a manger or pasture.
|
20 Comments:
When I was younger, I was fascinated by the airships and zeppelins of the early part of the 20th Century. In fact, I have a book called "Zeppelin: The German Airship Story", which touched on their rise and fall. I am struck by the fact that they could never seem to get the design of these monsters right, and the majority of them crashed to Earth or burned up. If you can find a copy of this book, snag it. It's very fascinating.
Great article! Looks like they finally got it right!
There are still airship hangars at Cardington in the UK. Check out the pictures on their web-site: http://www.controltowers.co.uk/C/Cardington.htm
You cannot believe the immensity of them unless you've been there, as I have. The pictures just don't do them justice
These are the Cardington hangars on Google Earth: http://tinyurl.com/3dc4k3
Yes, Zeppelins certainly will become a familiar site in the skies over San Francisco! BTW, we're Airship Ventures, not Airship Adventures as you credit us on a couple of the images.
www.airshipventures.com
airshipventures.blogspot.com
one of the tallest buildings in Europe is an aqua spa in the hangar of a bankrupt modern zeppelin construction factory: http://www.tropical-islands.de/de/presse/pressefotos.html
and the central market in Riga is one of the biggest dayly markets in Europe and is in the old zeppelin hangars from the early 20th century
Thank you for the link; what a great collection of images!
The mooring mast on top of the Empire State Building seems to have been a publicity gimmick more than anything else. Certainly, it wasn't very well thought out: it was far too windy up there to be viable. Still, I did like seeing it in use in Sky Captain.
We still have new, ACTIVE airships here in Elizabeth City, NC. Production and maintenance is on the old Weeksville Naval LTA Base. http://elizcity.com/weeksnas/
http://www.newbegun.com/tour/Airship_Hanger.php
http://www.newbegun.com/tour/Bicycling_02.php
thank you all... wonderful info
The real Problem with Airships is, that Helium is extremely rare. As a tecnician at the Zeppelin Yard in Friedrichshafen explained to me, there is only about enough helium to fill two of the once proposed "Cargolifter" Airships. Until we synthesize a light gas we probably wont see alot of these Dreams come true.
Airships are still wonderful ships and could be on the way back. See my 2006 post that covers much of what's on here: http://www.creationrobot.com/2006/03/airships-they-are-coming-slowly-from-many-different-companies-and-countries/
yes the gas is a problem but not the rare is the point ,but the priece.
the cost of one fill for the cargolifter is more expensive than the rest of the zeppelin.
sry for my bad english. ^.^
Thank you, Creation Robot - great link!
Hey there great article just blogged about it at Airshipworld. Here ist the Link: Dark Roasted Airships
Regards
Andreas
--
Editor of Airshipworld
--------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Airshipworld Blog at
http://airshipworld.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Andreas, we'll keep a close look on your site.
The problem with airships of the past was that they were ahead of their time. The problem was materials and the flotation gas.
The outer materials used to "protect" the skins of these beasts turned out to be the same formulation used for solid rockets today.
The gas normally was helium, but Germany chose to use Hydrogen because the only source of helium was the USA.
The structure of these beasts were typically made out of Aluminum, a fairly new metal not quite mastered. A lot of structural failures occurred because engineers assumed Aluminum was lightweight iron, which it wasn't. Aluminum, while strong, has different characteristics, which require different engineering considerations. Hence the designs were always flawed.
Today we have carbon fiber based composites, super adhesives, light-weight fabrics and polymers, and a far superior knowledge of metals.
There is one problem, however, there is a finite supply of helium, and once it's gone, it's gone. It's so light, it just leaves our atmosphere.
Hi Avi,
I'm looking for a higher resolution copy of your image titled "USS Macon over New York, in 1931."
ussmacon3.jpg
I'd like to make a print to put up in my living room.
Could you help me out or direct me to the source?
cheers,
Kosta
Try this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uss-akron-manhattan.jpg
Thank for such thematic stuff. And you could get any info about aeronautic direction from the Aerocrat blog in LJ - http://aerocrat.livejournal.com
The Russian original of the one you could translate via google's translating service.
There are several reasons Zeppelins will never make a come back despite the efforts of those uninformed of the reasons for its prior demise, and every failed technology has the same followers who say - we can fix that now...except the magic bullet invariably helps whatever alternate technology exists more.
First of all, the majority of rigid airships were lost due to weather, not the (vastly overrated) inflammability of the filling gas so changing the gas won't help.
Structural engineering wasn't a problem either.
The primary problem is that because it is lighter than air, it has vastly more surface area than mass, and tends to get pushed around by gusts of air.
Updrafts and downdrafts easily exceed the ability compensate. Stronger winds still (but still of little concern for any airplane of the past 50+ years) can cause stresses on the structure beyond its capability to absorb, while building it to handle those stresses would result in it being too heavy to be useful.
Unlike an airplane, it cannot apply sufficient power to overcome strong wind gusts because the power would add weight both in engines and in associated structure and so again runs into a weight wall.
It is reliant on two control systems. The first is aerodynamic, which works poorly at the speeds typical of an airship.
The second is buoyancy control, either shifting buoyancy fore and aft or on controlling the overall buoyancy, but this cannot be controlled quickly enough to deal with changes in air pressure in even the smallest storm, even if losing lifting gas isn't a problem.
Hydrogen and helium leak out of whatever you put them in. You can't stop that unless you want an airship that's too heavy to fly. That means they have to be topped up - a considerable ongoing expense that would seriously reduce their utility in the few markets available since large quantities would need to be made and/or shipped.
When the airship was at its peak, it was faster than heavier-than-air aircraft but lost that advantage during the course of WW1 and never got it back. Into the 1930's it could offer range, and without stopping it remained competitive speed-wise but that disappeared with faster and longer legged aircraft, along with the flying boat (which had similar weaknesses). A small market potential remains, but not for passenger airships, and definitely not for large ones. No doubt others think differently (otherwise Zeppelin AG and others wouldn't still be finding investors) but the only markets are on the fringe, and yet they would still be in danger from inclement weather. Modern weather forecasting is a huge improvement and many weather systems can be avoided - but not all and it would still be in danger sitting on the ground waiting for a storm to pass. Composites mean the structure can be stronger than before but will never be strong and light enough, and computer control will help with some of the difficulties in handing and newer materials will reduce the loss of gas but none of it will ever really be enough. Helicopters can lift heavier and heavier loads, and if you want a scenic tour, there is always the train or a light plane.
I do believe that it is good to review previous technological failures since not all are insoluble and lessons can be learned - alas few lessons ever are.
The majesty of a flying vehicle (either being in it or watching it) nearly a thousand feet long remains as the technology's sole prerogative, and the engine that drove the whole enterprise from 1914 onwards. If it wasn't so ridiculously huge it would never have had so many adherents, yet it served no purpose once it was passed by in the very dawn of aviation. Kudos to Zeppelin though, for keeping the dream alive as long as he did.
Very insightful comment, thank you. Contact me by email, maybe we can write on similar subjects on DRB.
Post a Comment
<< Home