Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/varialift-airships-solar-powered-airship/?fbclid=IwAR2qn-4yBVF2RmTmqtMeGmmcrwB4yymsFlG_wZQL5gFS_aNTH-TJXwELYXo

Ok, I have little doubt that modern technology could make airships far superior to the hindenburg. Modern composites, computer modeled design, automatic computer response to sudden situations, it would all add up to a better airship than anything from the 30's.

So they could be brought back.

My question is what purpose would they serve?

The article here suggests a slow cargo transport that would be faster than an ocean freighter and cheaper than an airplane but I don't see them carrying enough cargo to be a valid competitor to conventional freighters.

Anyone here have any ideas on what a valid use of an airship would be in the modern world? Between drones and satellites I am just not sure what they could really do to make their existence feasible.

There isn't one.

If you want to move something fast and it isn't too heavy, you have aeroplanes. If you want to move in bulk, you have freight ships

An airship has the weight restrictions of the aeroplane without its speed. It creates a compromise which isn't actually better for anyone when you factor in the cost of running such a service. This is going to be almost as expensive as sticking it on a plane and for that you have the privilege of it getting there much slower.

In the article they talk about it being able to move at half the speed of a 747. They then talk about carrying bulky items by hanging them from the bottom. You don't need to be an engineer to see the potential issues with trying to travel fast whilst something is swinging around below you.

An airship can transport goods straight to the destination, if the area is clear of tall obstructions.
There's no need to use a lorry to the port or airport, ship to the next place, and lorry it away again.

That has competition:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=flying+bum+airship

Also, since they can stay airbourne for a long time, they can be observation platforms.
That would be useful for research, VIP boxes at big sports events, emergency control, etc.

Now thats a damn good thought!

Being able to deliver directly rather than go thru multiple stages like boat , train, truck, etc.

And they could possibly service remote or isolated communities and such.

Might be a niche market there.

Yep, no need to land. No airports.

But, on the other side, they're huge. Not many airfields or airports would have a building large enough to support one.
Open-air repairs may be the norm, but there's a huge great bubble over you whenever you're worning on the gondala or cockpit.

It might be the kind of technology that could see a rising importance in terms of fuel efficiency, which could eventually translate into much cheaper transportation. Sure it might be slower, but if it can cover the distance then not all products have to be shipped super-fast. In addition the price saving could be considerable, esp for those making regular shipments.

Even ships consume considerable amounts of fuel when transporting goods.



They would still need a landing site as they have to come in to land and also unload their cargo, but I would imagine that the size required would be far smaller since they don't have to use a runway. So more like a larger helicopter. It won't be delivering easily into dense urban regions unless its able to make use of secondary delivery units (ergo remote helicopters).


Weather would be one of the more serious issues as I would think its more vulnerable than most modern aircraft to shifts in weather and wind patterns. Even with modern technology and engines its still a very large bulk which makes it ideal at catching the wind. So strong crosswinds could be a very serious issue for them to contend with.



It's interesting and in a society steadily (if very slowly) working toward greener and more fuel efficient methods of transportation it could fill a niche.

If they can hang cargo off the botttom, and winch it up and down, they've just got to hover on the spot. That may be more difficult than a helicopter, as it is affected by wind more, and has less lateral movement (on the airships I have read about). Swinging containers hurt.

But, we may see the trade winds being used more for international transport. A good tail wind could shave lots of time off an ocean crossing.

I feel like that one episode of Archer really addresses this subject wonderfully well.

Good replies. Thanks!

Airships are about style and aesthetics, not rushing about or bulking haul mass produced trash.

That _thing_ pictured in the article is not an airship. If they're going to go in that direction, they might as well not bother.

 Skinnereal wrote:
If they can hang cargo off the botttom, and winch it up and down, they've just got to hover on the spot. That may be more difficult than a helicopter, as it is affected by wind more, and has less lateral movement (on the airships I have read about). Swinging containers hurt.

But, we may see the trade winds being used more for international transport. A good tail wind could shave lots of time off an ocean crossing.

One does wonder if an airship could be built with deployable sails to catch a tailwind and enhance it's benefits?

 LordofHats wrote:
I feel like that one episode of Archer really addresses this subject wonderfully well.

Wanted to come post this.

as oceanic travel its worthless. but it might be interesting as a a sort of land cruise, touring the country side. with black jack and hookers.

Voss wrote:
Airships are about style and aesthetics, not rushing about or bulking haul mass produced trash.

That _thing_ pictured in the article is not an airship. If they're going to go in that direction, they might as well not bother.

Wow.

In modern terms an airship is about functionality and utility. Style and aesthetics take a back seat. We're making a useful transport vehicle, not a cruise ship.

This pops up every couple of years. There is a pretty solid business case for a fleet of commercial airships. The main draw has been mentioned above. The airships I've seen advertised could more or less hold 8 cargo trucks worth of materials. (around 25-30,000 lbs. each if I remember our weight numbers back when I used to unload trucks in college).

Regardless, the advantage is indeed being able to deliver goods onsite direct from the point of pick-up, weather permitting. Quietly and rather fuel-efficient as well. Particularly good for remote areas (Russia, middle of nowhere in Africa, etc.). Unaffected by ground weather conditions (mud, snow, etc.) but obviously impacted by genuine wind/weather. Want to drop something off in the middle of a swamp on a tiny spit of land? Only real solution outside of a bunch of Mi-8/Mi-26 helicopters. No rotor-wash to worry about, no noise, no disturbing a dig site etc.

In a place like Europe another advantage would be direct from factory (or damn close) delivery options to a variety of locations. Similar to having a factory situated on or adjacent to a railway depot. If airships become popular, you could have a loading dock in the parking lot behind your warehouse and skip a lot of intermediate transport.

They have a few other applications, but mainly from a security/military standpoint. Loiter time would be immense for an airship used for observation or higher altitude reconnaissance, monitoring traffic or smuggling routes, international boundaries, water traffic, etc.

I remember reading about the Airlander 10 prototype 2-3 years ago and got very very veeery excited this might be more than a pipe dream!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/worlds-biggest-aircraft-airlander-10-retired-from-service

I am quitting my job and becoming a sky captain if airships ever become a thing. Its a no brainer...

In terms of realistic practical application, I think as a leisure personel transport/event they have a nieche and a purpose. Sadly I just don't see them being efficient enough in a commercial sense or cargo. Although, could be wrong. if you can securely take a cargo container from port A 200 miles inland to destination point and it costs zero to no fuel, it might be a thing. No idea.. As mentioned the weather and airspace regulations coud be major obsticles. Especialy with the drive for drones.. How long until someone drives a drone into one of these and wrecks the M3?

I would like this to be a thing. I haven't really read much about the airlander 10 since the original articles announcing it was a thing. The build costs were staggering I think (around 30 mil per unit). If I was a mad billionaire id have a fleet of those already of course..

Voss wrote:
Airships are about style and aesthetics, not rushing about or bulking haul mass produced trash.

Indeed. I want an old-style zeppelin to set up as a luxury, floating restaurant.

Voss wrote:
Airships are about style and aesthetics, not rushing about or bulking haul mass produced trash.

That _thing_ pictured in the article is not an airship. If they're going to go in that direction, they might as well not bother.

If it is a vessel which generates lift because it has a lighter-than-air gas in inflated bladders, it is an airship. How it looks doesn't matter. Anyway, this does have some potential as an airship can take the direct route to a destination like a plane, but doesn't need a runway per-say, and it uses far less fuel. It probably wouldn't replace cargo ships, but it could supplement them and compete with land based transportation for specialty delivery.

One of the main issues an airship would have is that the infrastructure at existing airports doesn't necessarily allow for a vessel of that size to dock anywhere. They would need to add some terminals capable of interfacing with them, but that isn't really too difficult.

Most current blimp docks are just a tower. it doesn't take that much space and doesn't necessarily need to be near an airport.

the biggest problem is speed. limited cargo per run and much slower than a plane means it needs to be competitive with boats which i cant see happening.

from a business standpoint. military and non transport applications there are plenty though.

I think the key is that there likely is a niche; its if they can fill that niche in a competitive sense and build on that strength. In theory they likely need to get a working unit up and running and then try and get some government backing to help promote it and perhaps cut some costs along the way. Another option is big private investors or other fast high revenue streams to expand.

I met a designer who worked on airships in the early 90's at the time when the UK experimented with the return of airships.
Only one thing came out of that, which was the sculpted hull airships sold the the USAF as long duration AWACS.

Anyway this chappy had a patent on a n idea to maintain level buoyancy in flight, a problem airships have because as they use fuel they lose mass. Normally this is achieved by releasing gas but that is crude and expensive and causers the airship to lose air room (safety margin). His solution was to add a water vapour filter to the engine, as fuel was spent an equal amount of water vapour was condensed and sent into a reservoir as ballast.

As a fellow airship enthusiast I had a good chat and shared my own musings.

What are airships good for? This thread has already made the salient points: aircraft are faster, helicopters can provide small tonnage vertical lift more efficient in terms of logistics and ships carry bulk loads. However I argue that what airships could be superior at is transporting bulk volumes as opposed to bulk mass. What do we have that could be transported by an airship that is volume rather than mass reliant and has a point of need to travel? Have a guess.


My solution was: Hospital wards.
Think about it. Ultimately they are mostly empty boxes to which you add humans. There is more to it than that but the equipment could be lightened especially if it was modified for purpose. You could airlift medical equipment to a point of need such as on site disaster relief, but you need sterile conditions for operating theatres and sealed environments for post op recovery wards, especially in an area that has been hit by a natural disaster and the post disaster plagues such as typhus are closing in. A hospital ward with operating theatre is simply too big to be carried by a helicopter, but could be made very lightweight and transported under, or make up the lower portion of an airship.

Nothing came of this simply because I did not have access to the right people, but I still believe the idea has merit, more so now with modern lightweight composites. When I look at images of the passenger quarters of the Hindenburg I can see just how plausible it is to transport large structures. Hindenburg had promenade decks etc and while it had the advantage of hydrogen lift which is 10% more efficient than helium, it was not as mass efficient as a flying hospital could be. Also note that the hospital airship would be transported empty, but including lightweight beds and most of the furniture for operating theatres, actual medical supplies and medical staff would be transported by jet and then locally by helicopter and would rendezvous at the drop site.

Disaster relief airship-hospitals have a valid future role. I am sure of it.

I think in a disaster you'd be needing far more room than a normal airship could provide reasonably, though we do respond to major disasters in other countries with medical ships from our Navy often, etc.

Just general disaster relief would be a huge benefit of an airship - akin to helicopters. Being able to traverse a landscape which has its highways wrecked by landslides, or earthquakes or tsunamis --- the airship wouldn't have an issue assuming the weather had moved out. Being able to deliver goods (food, medicine, construction materials) directly to a location which has had its infrastructure wrecked is a solid benefit.

I thought I had heard of potentially using an airship to fight fires kind of like those helicopters do, except an airship could carry a lot more water at a time theoretically. Not sure where I read that though.

People in this thread keep comparing them to planes and cargo ships mainly, and they raise good points by doing so. However, like others have pointed out, they really aren't going to compete with those things. I think they'll compete with trucks and/or buses. Trains already probably outclass airships for passenger travel and freight delivery on land though.

Perhaps the niche for airships will be kind of like flying luxury yachts, with rich people using them to see the sights. Or even like small cruise ships.

 Elbows wrote:
I think in a disaster you'd be needing far more room than a normal airship could provide reasonably, though we do respond to major disasters in other countries with medical ships from our Navy often, etc.

Just general disaster relief would be a huge benefit of an airship - akin to helicopters. Being able to traverse a landscape which has its highways wrecked by landslides, or earthquakes or tsunamis --- the airship wouldn't have an issue assuming the weather had moved out. Being able to deliver goods (food, medicine, construction materials) directly to a location which has had its infrastructure wrecked is a solid benefit.

IDK. Airships can be really really huge. Sure, only a small portion of the airframe is dedicated to its cargo, but its a really big airframe.

A specifically designed cargo airship would probably be able to drop it's cargo via a cable like a helicopter in the event it could not actually land on the ground, but having an advantage over the helicopter in being able to fly much farther with less fuel as well as being able to keep the cargo in a cargo hold rather than dangling below.

As Orlanth suggested, they would make good mobile hospital wards, as well as many other potential things. A single airship could probably bring a mobile hospital, generators, and some supplies, drop all of these off, and then continue to make supply runs/evacuate people to safety.

Yeah if they dropped off medical tents/units/equipment I'd agree...but as a floating hospital, I think it'd be far too ineffective for a mass casualty event. I've only taken part in a handful of MCE style drills/practices, but it's bedlam...people in and out constantly, large body counts, etc. Now a smaller disaster? Perhaps? But for a major incident with hundreds if not thousands of injured and triaged people it'd be a tough call.

 Elbows wrote:
Yeah if they dropped off medical tents/units/equipment I'd agree...but as a floating hospital, I think it'd be far too ineffective for a mass casualty event. I've only taken part in a handful of MCE style drills/practices, but it's bedlam...people in and out constantly, large body counts, etc. Now a smaller disaster? Perhaps? But for a major incident with hundreds if not thousands of injured and triaged people it'd be a tough call.

Well, if it is in an area that doesn't have a hospital its better than nothing. Even a small treatment center would help. At the very least, the airship would allow transport of equipment that could normally not be transported. Like MRI machines, full size surgery suites, etc...

You'd probably not have anything but ICU patients get kept onboard, but the medical facilities could definitely be there.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Yeah if they dropped off medical tents/units/equipment I'd agree...but as a floating hospital, I think it'd be far too ineffective for a mass casualty event. I've only taken part in a handful of MCE style drills/practices, but it's bedlam...people in and out constantly, large body counts, etc. Now a smaller disaster? Perhaps? But for a major incident with hundreds if not thousands of injured and triaged people it'd be a tough call.

Well, if it is in an area that doesn't have a hospital its better than nothing. Even a small treatment center would help. At the very least, the airship would allow transport of equipment that could normally not be transported. Like MRI machines, full size surgery suites, etc...

You'd probably not have anything but ICU patients get kept onboard, but the medical facilities could definitely be there.

Problem though is an area that doesn't have a hospital probably wont have infrastructure to support an firstaidcraft close by.

storage for safe non flammable helium and maintenance. that and in a disaster situation how long does it take to deploy an aircraft what is the transit time. would it be better to just invest in infrastructure and a hospital.

Games Workshop could use one to deliver their low mass plastic kits!

 Elbows wrote:
I think in a disaster you'd be needing far more room than a normal airship could provide reasonably, though we do respond to major disasters in other countries with medical ships from our Navy often, etc.

Just general disaster relief would be a huge benefit of an airship - akin to helicopters. Being able to traverse a landscape which has its highways wrecked by landslides, or earthquakes or tsunamis --- the airship wouldn't have an issue assuming the weather had moved out. Being able to deliver goods (food, medicine, construction materials) directly to a location which has had its infrastructure wrecked is a solid benefit.

I disagree here, helicopters are way faster and you can split the load between helicopters. What you need to consider is that an airship has to get to the disaster area then pick up supplies. Helicopters are found just about anywhere, you can source them locally. Now yes this means a mobile hospital would also be delayed, but launching a global response takes time anyway, and initiative of disaster relief airships could be launched from two or three locations for global coverage. Helicopters are hired locally.

You need applications that transport volumes. Accommodation will not work because you need way too much, but an ER room with emergency ward would work and have practical effect. In most large scale disasters the true cost in casualties comes afterwards from overstretched medical support. Infection is a major killer. Sterile operating theatres are a must, and while there are tents that do this job, hard structures are better.

Other applications could include a mobile command centre for relief efforts with data structures in place.

Otherwise luxury transport for the ultra rich, a flying yacht if you will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Yeah if they dropped off medical tents/units/equipment I'd agree...but as a floating hospital, I think it'd be far too ineffective for a mass casualty event. I've only taken part in a handful of MCE style drills/practices, but it's bedlam...people in and out constantly, large body counts, etc. Now a smaller disaster? Perhaps? But for a major incident with hundreds if not thousands of injured and triaged people it'd be a tough call.

Well, if it is in an area that doesn't have a hospital its better than nothing. Even a small treatment center would help. At the very least, the airship would allow transport of equipment that could normally not be transported. Like MRI machines, full size surgery suites, etc...

You'd probably not have anything but ICU patients get kept onboard, but the medical facilities could definitely be there.

Right lets look at this. Say an earthquake happens and a global response is triggered. Local relief starts in the next twelve or so hours. It takes about two days for an international relief effort to truly get underway. By that time an airship hospital has arrived as have a large number of foreign doctors from red Cross, Medicines Sans Frontiers etc.
What does the airship do. First step is triage, set up by the main cadre of doctors. Assessors on the ground find who the priority medical cases are, people who need urgent medical attention. The most at risk are placed in a ward on the airship and are operated on six (or more) at a time in six (ore more) operating theatres on board. There is an environmentally conditioned ward on the other side. This is highly intensive but a disaster relief effort is rarely short of doctors it is short of medical facilities. What you end up with is a triage 'conveyor belt' when patient after patient is chained through the operating theatre, changing staff as necessary but keeping the operating theatres used 24/7. Now these wards would be pretty full, but not in the case of local hospital crammed with survivors, you need to keep the place clean, so you fill the beds you can with priority cases in pre-op, operate as theatre space becomes available and move post-op patients tom recovery. The majority of those are then moved to tents as they improve, or if stable enough onto a helicopter and then to a hospital elsewhere. The good news here is that the airship is on site and can treat people too ill to be airlifted out, stabilise them then airlift them out.
Less sick people are dealt with in tents or ushered to local medical facilities.
Triage means that the 'little' you talk of goes a very long way. This is how it is done and triage procedures are very well established and effective. Having decent facilities to back up triage would make a massive difference, because the difference would be focused on the most needy cases.
People looking for missing relatives, people will minors cuts and bruises or even medium risk injuries are directed well away from the airship. It is there for the most urgent cases early until the situation improves enough that it can treat anyone on a first come first serve basis, which would probably be several weeks into the mission.

 Desubot wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Yeah if they dropped off medical tents/units/equipment I'd agree...but as a floating hospital, I think it'd be far too ineffective for a mass casualty event. I've only taken part in a handful of MCE style drills/practices, but it's bedlam...people in and out constantly, large body counts, etc. Now a smaller disaster? Perhaps? But for a major incident with hundreds if not thousands of injured and triaged people it'd be a tough call.

Well, if it is in an area that doesn't have a hospital its better than nothing. Even a small treatment center would help. At the very least, the airship would allow transport of equipment that could normally not be transported. Like MRI machines, full size surgery suites, etc...

You'd probably not have anything but ICU patients get kept onboard, but the medical facilities could definitely be there.

Problem though is an area that doesn't have a hospital probably wont have infrastructure to support an firstaidcraft close by.

storage for safe non flammable helium and maintenance. that and in a disaster situation how long does it take to deploy an aircraft what is the transit time. would it be better to just invest in infrastructure and a hospital.

An Airship would not need a constant supply of helium or a full maintenance facility if it is in the field conducting an operation. Certainly it wouldn't need those things any more than the aircraft and ships that currently get used would need them. If that was such a crippling problem then we simply wouldn't have any disaster relief efforts at all.

That's kinda the nice thing about an airship. It can hover in place with minimal resource expenditure and just be there with whatever facility it transports. You don't necessarily have to land completely. You can hover a few dozen feet off the ground, or even higher, and take people up to the craft. It can do its thing in areas that don't have infrastructure.

 Grey Templar wrote:

As Orlanth suggested, they would make good mobile hospital wards, as well as many other potential things. A single airship could probably bring a mobile hospital, generators, and some supplies, drop all of these off, and then continue to make supply runs/evacuate people to safety.

I envision the airship as the hospital, it lands. Once filled with personnel and casualties it cannot lift off. It is there for the duration.
Now let us look at that. If we were to go the whole hog and make an airship the size of Hindenburg, and have a single storey hospital as the whole underside, made of lightweight materials with furniture and specialist equipment, but avoiding any heavy items with possible exception of scanners. You would have a deck space of approx 200mx30m, underside in close contact with the ground. You will need a flight control gondola and engines, but that makes one heck of a large hospital space. I would start with smaller, but if funded enough to build a very large airship like they had in the 30's, you could easily match the capacity of a reasonable sized hospital, all ER and all triage.

What airships are not good at is evacuations or carrying heavy items. They need a large area to land, need low winds and ground assistance (which would be helicoptered in with the medical crews and supplies), it takes a while to settle an airship and its not stable until its done.
This is what can happen to an airship coming in to land.

This is the USS Los Angeles incident 1927, caused by an errant gust of wind, the airship is 600ft long, nobody was harmed.

Now you can land an airship without a tower, though you will need ground cables. Thankfully you can fast (partly) deflate a modern airship to prevent incidents like this once it has landed. This is not a problem as a hospital or command centre airship is staying where it is for several weeks after it arrives at the landing site, hopefully very close to the centre of a disaster. However if used as transportation rather than installation deployment then you need a whole raft of safety procedures to follow on an ongoing basis mitigated if it only lands once per mission.

Airships are not good at transporting heavy stuff and humans are quite heavy. As for generators, land a helicopter and run the engine without rotor control, that's your generator for a whole tent city.