No, I suggested that the liquid propane be used to run an electrical generator.
The voltage runs the motors that drive the propellors.
This approach keeps the fuel in a pod outside the hull, for peace of mind. Power can be transmitted by wire, which is especially helpful if we go the tilt rotor approach.
Fly by wire control.
The Army was/is funding a feasibility study by a German company, looking into building massive blimps that could transport several tanks or whatnot. The wisdom of paying the Hun to design his dread air-ships again aside, I believe the idea was shown to be unpracticle at todays level of technology (the cost of the materials used to make the skin, or something like that). I’ll have to google for details.
Apparently Zeppelin NT is running passenger flights – here’s a page with a photo gallery of modern airships: http://www.modern-airships.info/en/home.html See also http://www.myairship.com/ http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/airship.html, and http://www.aht.ndirect.co.uk/.
And here’s a company called 21st Century Airships, Inc. Their ships, notably, are spherical, not cigar-shaped: http://www.21stcenturyairships.com/ I wonder why?
For a dissentiing view, HERE’S a pessimistic article about the feasibility of airships. (Although the author is an infamous “naysayer” for what it’s worth.)
Hydrogen is fine. The “Hindenburg hydrogen-fire” thing is a recently debunked myth.
How debunked? Cite?
Oh come on now, you can google.
Briefly, the pulverised aluminium based paints used on the balloon acted as accelerants on an electrical fire. I don’t recall clearly but the fire may have been caused by static electricity or lightening, also aggravated by those paints.
That said, I think the reputation of the Hindenburg is the single impediment any such project faces. Not entirely rational, but real.
If Sevastopol put a suitcase nuke on it.
JUST joking. Really.
A typical American coal unit train, which is loaded about as heavy as one can get, has 100-115 cars of about 100-110 (short) tons each. This varies due to a variety of factors on each train, of course.
So, about 20 million pounds? Dang.
This discussion is all futile. I remember well the articles in Popular Science back in the '60s and early '70s about how the future of industrial aviation would all be lighter-than-air craft of one sort or another.
As we all know, a glowing write-up about a future technology in PS is the Kiss of Death. Remember the Rotomat? Exoskeletons? Flying cars?
If airships come back, will GIANT ROBOTS invade Manhattan? Check out “AIR COMMANDER and The World of Tomorrow”-GREAT flick!
how long did it take for the titanic to sink, though?
I love the Hindenberg and have a big, beautiful book about it, but the passenger airship (on that scale) will never come back.
In the 20s and 30s, there was a market for such ships: wealthy people who wanted to get somewhere quick. The standard mode of travel across the oceans was, of course, the steamship.
Now the standard is the airliner, which can get you nearly anywhere within a day, usually a good deal sooner.
So the only thing that’s left is the cruise idea. Of course, that would have to compete with ocean cruises. Now a first-class transoceanic flights costs more than $10k round trip; how much would an airship cruise cost? $20k? $50k? Still, the very rich might be willing to pay that. But the Hindenberg could only carry 50 persons transatlantic yet had a crew of 61. Cite.
As for profitability, my back-of-envelope goes like this. This has some helpful figures. The cost of developing a large aircraft is in the $10 billion + area. But let’s say we can build and develop one craft for a cool $1B (about 5 times the price of a loaded 747). Let’s say the company can squeeze $25k profit out of each passenger, and let’s say that covers all the maintenance, G&A, everything. That requires 40,000 passengers to break even. At 75 persons per flight (25 better than the Hindenberg) and 1 flight a week (for a one-week cruise), that gives us a payback period of 10 years.
No one in Person’s right mind would make such an investment.
A while ago there was a German company, Cargolifter, that planned to build a large transport airship.
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/cargolifter.htm
Probably their most important selling point was that current heavy load transports (of individual heavy items, 100 tons+) are only as fast as a pedestrian over long distances and they offered significant advantages for that niche. It was never really intended for ordinary container cargo.
They are bankrupt now, but at the time they were supported by possible industrial clients like Siemens. Btw they really built that hangar, the largest self-supporting hall in the world and it is currently being converted into a “Tropical Island” theme park.
So, if the Hindenburg had been filled with helium, it still would have exploded, because of the flammable stuff on the skin of the gasbag?
Most ship cargo is now packed in containers, which are basically the equivalent of a frieght car. A typical cargo ship will carry 1600 containers; a large one might carry over 6000.
And the Akron…
And the Macon…
And the Shenandoah…
And the R-101…
That’s Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow. Duh.