|
Why nobody builds commercial airships?
...or do they?
My point is, what happened to Hindenburg was certainly tragic. But it happened a long time ago. And modern airships don't use hydrogen anyway or anything combustible, well, other than fuel. Are they less safe than airplanes because of something else? Or is it just people in general being conservative and distrusting, which makes commercial airships cost-prohibitive?:confused: |
For passenger service, two main reasons would be speed and weather.
|
Nux said it. Airships are much slower and much more easily affected by weather. I've been in one recently and it's an awesome ride. There is a review in the trip reports sections of FT that documents a ride in I believe Switzerland. It's a great way to travel if you have the time, flexibility & money.
Helicopters are great too but they're pricy and highly affected by weather. I used miles years ago to book a helicopter flight from Manhattan to EWR during a really cheap promotion. The day came for my ride and because of high winds & low cloud cover they canceled and sent me a car service instead. I did fight and got most of my miles back too since 175$ service isn't quite comparable to a 60$ service. |
There was just an interesting article on TechRadar about airships.
But airships are back. No longer a steampunk fantasy, there are advanced plans to fill the skies with helium-filled lighter-than-air machines for travel, cargo and even as emergency mobile phone masts. |
Originally Posted by Yoshi212
(Post 26928140)
Nux said it. Airships are much slower and much more easily affected by weather. I've been in one recently and it's an awesome ride.
|
something i recalled >
http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestu...cruise-concept (concept) interesting they also did > http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestudy/first-spaces (concept) http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestudy/bell-helicopter (client contract) |
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
(Post 26940898)
something i recalled >
http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestu...cruise-concept interesting they also did > http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestudy/first-spaces http://www.seymourpowell.com/casestudy/bell-helicopter |
Originally Posted by Kupris
(Post 26931362)
Well, that makes sense. Although it seems to be more of a time-consuming flight than fuel-consuming, much unlike helicopters. It's expensive for those to even hover in the air I guess.
|
Originally Posted by salanki
(Post 26968397)
Hovering is the most expensive part! Requires more power than forward flight.
|
Another albeit small difference... Helium has less lifting power.
|
Originally Posted by trooper
(Post 26968822)
Another albeit small difference... Helium has less lifting power.
|
That is my understanding.
(I couldn't just say YES... messages that short aren't allowed! lol) |
Well, true, but helium isn't flammable. Which is a good thing.
|
Originally Posted by trooper
(Post 26968945)
That is my understanding.
(I couldn't just say YES... messages that short aren't allowed! lol) |
Why would such a quota even exist?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:59 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.