The aeroscraft, not quite an airship, not quite an airplane, not quite a helicopter, but features of all 3 aircraft combined. It’s not fully lighter-that-air, but 2/3rds of it’s lift is provided by helium. It dwarfs any commercial airliners, but can take off and land vertically without the large ground crews of the zeppelins of old. Slower than a jet (with a top speed of 174mph a cross country trip would take 18 hours). In cargo mode it can carry 400 tons and land practically anywhere. As a passenger vessel 250 people can cruise with luxuries such as lounges, a dining room, and private staterooms. And the prototype should fly this year.
I’ll admit I’m more than a little skeptical. :dubious: Could this actually be commercially viable? The CargoLifter CL160 didn’t turn out so well (what was supposed to be it’s hanger is now an indoor waterpark). Then again Worldwide Aeros seems to be doing much better than CargoLifter AG was. I can see how it could be successful as a cargo ship (especially since doesn’t neet an airport to land), but as a passenger ship? There’s no way it could offer the kind of amenities a cruiseship does, but I wonder if it could work as a liner. Travel more focused on the destination that the voyage itself.
Would enough people really be willing to put up a travel time 3 times as long as a jet in exchange for much, much nicer surroundings? It’s also supposed to use much less fuel than a jet (but would it really be cheaper to operate?). If the 250 passenger figure is based on the kind of large staterooms seen in the web galler and it can carry 400 tons of cargo then it could be could be configured to carry almost twice as many people and still be nicer than an airliner.
Four passengers is approaching an Airbus A380, but with for better passenger amenities. Would that be enough to compenstate to the longer travel time? Flying coach still get’s you a seat, not a cabin, but it could mean a larger seat that can lay flat, room to actually get up and move around. Food service that comes with an actual menu and a seperate dining area, bar, & lounge. Kind of like a flying train. Maybe some kind of soundproofed. mini play area/daycare where parents could leave their kids for awhile can go to the bar. Business class would be a sleeper cabin that coverts to upper an lower berths like a train. First class passengers would get an actual stateroom with private toilet & shower. There’d probally also public areas reserved for sleeper passengers only too.
Then again there’s no reason to believe that the TSA wouldn’t make passengers go through the same security as airline passengers. I’ve also haven’t seen any studies on what the fares would be or what fares would be needed for this to work. I’m also posting at 2:30 in the morning and going on and on about stuff that goes on and on with flights of fancy. Still it’d be really interesting to seem somebody actually try this. If only so we’d all now for sure wether it’s it’s a moronic idea doomed to failure or something actually workable.
Looks like the future of innovative web design where fast page loading can best be accomplished by removing any relevant information. It doesn’t even qualify as a pipe dream.
My anti-spy-wear was also triggered. Lose the link.
First, how high will it fly? If it flies high it may be subject to strong headwinds and with such a slow cruising speed moderate to strong headwinds are such a high percentage of its cruising speed that it could end up taking twice as long to get anywhere. If it flies low then it will be subject to all of the adverse weather conditions you get at low level, and that thing does not look like it will do well in bad weather. That means there will be a much lower chance of it reaching its destination which means lower passenger confidence, less bookings, etc.
Second, it may be big enough to have 250 people in luxury but the airlines know that people will put up with what they get at the moment, it’s more likely to be fitted out for 600 people.
The bad news is that I thought you’d forgotten the link so I googled it and found the page myself. The good news is that Microsoft Security Essentials seems to work well.
I just don’t see it. People get on a plane or train or car to get from Point A to Point B. There are exceptions, but they’re infrequent. Most people, I’d bet, would rather be packed in like sardines for a few hours, and spend more time at their destination (or at home), than enjoy a more spacious transport but have to spend a much longer time there.
If people want to derive enjoyment from the means of transport itself, they’ll book a tour on a cruise ship.
All they need is tiny fraction of travelers to want to have a more pleasant, relaxed and different experience to have more bussiness than they will know what to do with.
IMO the real question is can they get it cheap enough that folks other than the ubber rich would even consider it.
True, but people put up with cramped quarters because it’s so much faster than anything else. If a cross country trip takes 18 hours (vs 5-6 in a plane) it’s either going to have to be alot cheaper or more luxurious (at least train level) to make up for longer travel time. If it could bypass regular airports (ie use a ferry terminal in NYC and what’s essentially a dedicated parking lot in LA) it’d might become popular.
It’s probally a moot point since this will end up being used for cargo (assuming it flys at all).
A really useful way to evaluate this sort of thing is in terms of passenger-miles (for freight, ton-miles) per day.
Aeroscraft: 250 people * 174 mph * 18 hours flying in a day = 783,000 passenger-miles/day Airbus 380: 500 people * 600 mph * 18 hours = 5.4 million passenger-miles/day
So the Aeroscraft will need to show capital and operating costs less than 15% of the A-380’s in order to make financial sense.
Could it do that via lower fuel costs? The A-380 gets something over 100 passenger-miles/gallon. The Aeroscraft will need to deliver at least double that to be competitive. That translates to a fuel burn of around 217 gal/hr which, in really, really efficient engines might yield around 3200 hp. It would be quite astounding to propel such a huge vehicle at 174mph on 3200 hp (Hindenburg’s best was 78mph on 3400 hp).
Also consider the extra crew costs which result from a much longer flight that probably requires substantially more staff - and the fact that many passengers would prefer a 5-hour flight to one that lasts 18 hours, and thus would need the inducement of a lower fare.
How about freight? The Aeroscraft would compete with modern container ships that carry something like 50,000 tons at 25+ mph. These thus deliver 30 million ton-miles per day, vs. the Aeroscraft’s 1.67 million. How many shippers would pay 17 times as much for the extra speed, but not be interested in really fast shipping via a jetliner?
If that thing can deliver really large and or heavy freight and requires nothing more than a large clearing, there are plenty of commercial and industrial projects in the “middle of nowhere” infrastructure wise that could use such a thing.
If freight costs are as high as they look to be, they will seriously limit the number of projects that can afford this. The Aeroscraft may find work only as a specialized short-hauler.
Only real advantage would be in a region where it’s either point-to-point from one glamourous location to another, or from a home port to some relatively nearby natural wonder. As a direct competitor with either airlines or cruise ships it’s a loser.
I think the analysis is more complicated than that. You’d have to figure out the whole door-to-door cost. You’d still need cargo handlers at the ends, but there’s no transition from one mode to another in between. I don’t know what it costs to build, staff, and maintain a large port, but that cost must show up somewhere.
So, we’ll see what happens. I doubt they’d building it if they didn’t think they had a shot at turning a profit. I’d be fascinated to see the thing in the air, someday.
I’m wondering if the aeroplane is the wrong competitor for passengers. Perhaps a more appropriate one would be the train or long distance coach? The Aeroscraft has the capacity of the former and the flexibility of the latter.
On the cargo side, this is a transport which excels at high speed point-to-point delivery, much like cars and lorries. Modern aircraft require extensive ground facilities. All this requires is a car park. And you know which industry has lots of car parks? Supermarkets! Instead of dispatching lorries, Walmart will just send far fewer Aeroscraft. And being airborne, they’re not subject to roadworks or traffic accidents.
