Limoes are for high class people travleing short distances. But unfortunatly limoes still have to travle on public roads just like everyone else, and go through traffic. So why not ditch the limo and go with the airship instead. The Zepplin NT would work perfect in doing this especialy in large citys. Trust me zepplin NT can travle over 90 mph, and cruise at 75mph. I know that there is a great deal of turbulence over citys and industrial areas, but a trained piolit can deal with it. I think the biggest step to over come is creating a system for airships to safely land and take off from high buildings. perhaps the Harpon system could be used.-- wood2coal, Aug 31 2001 The Zeppelin NT http://www.zeppelin-nt.com/ [angel, Aug 31 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004] [zero5]'s link as a link. http://www.cardesig...eim-show/index.html [angel, Aug 31 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004] Don't they use helicopters for this anyway?-- mrkillboy, Sep 01 2001 Welcome to the Hotel de la PlagueLimoes travleing unfortunatly travle Zepplin especialy zepplin travle citys piolit over come Harpon.-- thumbwax, Sep 01 2001 'Limos', 'traveling', 'unfortunately', 'travel', question mark at end of question, 'perfectly', 'especially', 'cities', 'pilot', 'overcome' is one word, and any sentence that begins with 'Trust me' means 'Do not believe what follows'.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'Harpon'.
As to why not to do this, do a web search for 'Oh, the humanity!'. Turbulence, especially in cities, is not easy for a trained pilot flying something with the aerodynamic stability of a beach ball at a Grateful Dead concert. Trained pilots were flying all of the various dirigibles that no longer exist because they crashed. The remaining ones, the tiny advertising blimps, are kept well away from buildings that may cause them to come to grief for just this reason.-- StarChaser, Sep 01 2001 first of all let me answer Mrkillboy's question. Helicopters are very expensive to maintain and operate, they consume alot of fuel, they are cramped and noisey a limo is suppose to be luxury travel. And as airships they would also be affordable for the middle class to ocasionly use them and not just tycon millionars. And in reply to Starchasers comment, remember I sugested use of a zepplin not a blimp, zepplins contain a rigid framework and the propelors can be mounted in various positions to balance the ship if a wind hits it. And the Hindenburg crash was only one crash, how many cars have crashed, how many airplanes have crashed, the answer is alot. Forgive me my friend but I don't think you know as much about airships as you think you do. I urdge you to look up these companys on the web, AAT, Zepplin, Cargo lifter, Ohio airship inc, and RAD. You will see modern airships are capable of more than most people realize.
The only problem is landing and take off from the top of a building, but with enough engineering work i beilieve this is a problem that can be easily overcome.-- wood2coal, Sep 02 2001, last modified Sep 03 2001 Dyslexics Untie!-- thumbwax, Sep 02 2001 I think the problem would be the size of the airships... The only place suitable for takeoff/landing, would be a large field, or a tall building. Large fields are obviously out of the question (in large cities), and tall buildings severly limit the number of takeoff/landing sites.
If there were only 2 airports in the world, you'd still have make your way to your final destination by some other means.-- Delutignot, Sep 03 2001 Size would not be as big a problem as you think. Remember I am not talking about the Hindenburg or Graf, the Zeppelin NT is only 75 m long, and can lift 2 tons of wieght. It would be limited to a few places but a fixed flight plan could be established between three or four of the most important areas in the city (or even subburbs) they would function similar to the way elevated trains do. It does not require an airport for landing. Although it would require at least 3 ground handelers to moore the ship. We would need ground handelers stationed all over the city.-- wood2coal, Sep 03 2001 I said 'dirigible' and 'blimp' seperately for a reason. Don't be condescending when you don't know what you're talking about either. How many of those new ones are being used in close proximity to large buildings? Not very many. Why? Because they have 'the aerodynamic stability of a beach ball at a Grateful Dead concert.' Lighter than air ships are much like hovercraft, in that they can not be easily maneuvered. A hovercraft can't turn a short corner. A LTA can't hover in one place if there's a stiff enough wind against it, and cities are prone to fast updrafts and wind changes. 75 meters long is still huge, more than two hundred and forty feet long. Yes, this is only about a quarter the length of the Hindenburg, but there were other, smaller dirigibles that came to bad ends. The Navy had two of them and they both died pretty miserably. I forget the names offhand, though.
The propellors on a dirigible are not 'mounted in various positions to balance the ship'. They are where they are, and they can be rotated, but it takes a lot more effort to stop it once it gets moving.
You've reinvented the original way that dirigibles were used, or at least the visions that the proponents had. The Empire State building was designed originally with a mooring mast at the top, and an airport. When the Hindenburg bit it, it was decided that they were too dangerous.-- StarChaser, Sep 03 2001 Not long ago - there was a Popular Science article which discussed new dirigibles at some length - quite a number of manufacturers - the article is 'somewhere' in an 18 year olds bedroom - which quite neaturally - resembles the wreck of the Hindenburg. I'll excavate it and see what I can find.In the meantime, I would suggest a spell checker for those who may be in dire need of one.-- thumbwax, Sep 03 2001 Dirigibles and harpoons: Truly the vanguard of 21st century technology.-- The Military, Sep 03 2001 w2c - "the Hindenburg crash was only one crash". Er, what about Britain's pride, the R101?-- Gordon Comstock, Sep 04 2001 I think we're forgetting that the Hindenburg and R101 were filled with hydrogen which is explosive when mixed with air, whereas current airship practice is to use helium which is inert.-- angel, Sep 04 2001 Helium is a relatively new member of the halfbakery, and could hardly be considered inert.-- thumbwax, Sep 04 2001 The current incarnation of airships include plans to pickup and deposit cargo without landing. Such a system could be used for passengers in that you lower the gondola for disembarkment.-- Aristotle, Sep 04 2001 Thanks Aristotle I am glad there are some people out there that aren't afraid of airships.
Agian to answer some of your questions first let me answer saying yes this is not a new idea it has been conceved before but never accomplished mostly because of lack of support there are few aviation and transport experts that are willing to dedicate all there time to research of airship. But ofcourse I am one of the few that is, I have already determined that there is a demand for this type of transportation in most citys in the U.S. especially those that are subject to sprawl, transportation becomes a majior issue. But once the airship is mentioned as being the solution people back away. Remembering all the past airship disasters I am trying to be brief so I will not go into any details but the most well known airships are R-100, R-101, Graf, Hindenburg, Graf II, Akron, Macon, and Los angelos. I keep mixing up the R-100 and R-101, one crashed becuase of engine failure at that time in history the combustion engine had very poor reliability, the other one crashed because a chemical reaction that took place on the envelope causeing it to flake and releas Hydrogen without anyone knowing. The Graf lived a good life. The Hindenburg explosion was not because of the hydrogen, it was because of the dope covering the outter fabric this made the outer surface not only flamible but also explosive even if the Hindenburg had been filled with Hellium the great explosion would have still occured, the dope was corrected on the Graf II but by then everyone was afraid of airships. The Graf II lived a good life. Both the Akron and Macon were destroyed for the same reason, the tail fin was to low. On the Akron the altitude meter was reading that the ship was over 1300 ft high (a safe height) when really the ship was only about 50 ft high, a wave from the ocean hit the tail fin and practicly pulled the entire ship under water. The Macon was destroyed because of the tail fin, every time the ship would land it would bump the tailfin on the ground causeing extreme damage, while flying over the cost of California the tailfin practicly fell off and the ship began to rise suddenly captian willey dumped ballast and the ship began to fall sudenly so captian Willey gave the order to abandone ship, their is still great controversy that had Willey attempted to make an emergency landing he might have been able to save the Macon. The Los Angelos lived a good life and all the patrol blimps lived a good life.
However let me just say that if the Fuel cell engine is perfected and made compact, Helicopters with fuelcell engines would be a better option than airships. But for now the airship is the best solution for solving transportaion problems in citys that are subject to sprawl.
Starchaser: The word Drigible commonly refers to all airships that are steerable. The word zepplin refers to a rigid airship, and the word Blimp refers to a nonrigid airship. And it has been proven that side winds only seriously effect blimps, Zepplins are more than three times the size and wieght of blimps. Somehow as the airship gets bigger rather than becoming more dangerous they becomes less vulnerable to side winds. But the structural integrity of the ship often gets comprimised as it gets bigger and it can no longer make sharp turns. However with modern synthetic materials this might also be a problem that can solved or atleast improved.-- wood2coal, Sep 05 2001, last modified Sep 06 2001 I didn't get the part about the captain's willy falling off.-- The Military, Sep 06 2001 If airships looked as classy as the one on this page, I'd take them everywhere. Air travel and car travel have lost their "romance" or something, compact cars, traffic jams and cattle class in planes don't leave much to get excited about.
http://www.cardesignnews.com/features/2001/010806pforzheim-show/index.html-- zero5, Sep 06 2001 I BEFORE E EXCEPT AFTER C and except for words like 'weight'. I know alot about spelling. Alot.-- lewisgirl, Sep 06 2001 thankyou for the spelling correction-- wood2coal, Sep 07 2001 replace "airship" with "hot air balloon" and i'll vote for it.
hot air balloons are cool!-- mihali, Sep 07 2001 Hot air balloon require a very special light weight envelope that is sensitive to the sun. Estimated the envelope has to be replaced every 500hr, and common propane tanks usually only hold enough gas for about a 3 hr flight. Hot air balloons simply would not be able to hold enogh weight. Youre comments are nice but the reason I posted this message was because I was hoping someone here would give me an idea on how to design a building top landing system for the airship service. Something practicle that can easily be adapted to almost any building. Does anyone have anyideas.-- wood2coal, Sep 07 2001, last modified Sep 30 2001 "There ain't no way they're gettin' me in one a them blimp contraptions, ain't that right Maw?"
Maybe you can get the Blimpie sandwich chain to go in on a joint venture with you.
Seriously, it's a charming idea, but completely unfeasible for large cities. Too expensive for one thing (outfitting mooring spots, hiring staff, insurance). Even if such a service were offered, only the very wealthy would be able to afford it, and even then it wouldn't be used for convenience.
I must confess, w2c, that I didn't read your September 5 (extremely long) annotation.-- snarfyguy, Sep 08 2001 You admit that the idea is not original, so it doesn't belong here anyway. Since it is not original, you might look at the designs of the past that were intended to do exactly what you're describing. This was all figured out in detail before it was decided that it's too dangerous to have air-whales wallowing around buildings. Bigger airships are less prone to movement, but they are also harder to stop moving once they get going, for the same reason. There are -very- powerful winds around high-rise buildings; I've seen one woman nearly get her sundress peeled off her by an updraft, at ground level. You can have the thing completely covered in propellors and they won't be able to stop it fast enough.
As to the Hindenburg, it was a bad idea to paint a bag filled with highly flammable gas with rocket fuel...
Lewisgirl: I before E except after C except when it's not.-- StarChaser, Sep 08 2001 Hey its going to be almost 2 years since 9/11/01. I guess the aircraft and buildings topic became verbotten for a while.
It's time once again to have more airship ideas. There will very likely be airships in our future cities, and maybe a hot air ship hybrid. A lot of hot air that's really not, it's hot, as potential reality.-- Aerhead, Mar 31 2003 How about air buses? Utilizing the park and rides already in place. Air limo's can still happen but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. I don't see why air buses can't happen fairly soon.-- realdreamer, Sep 12 2003 Just so everybody knows, it's I before E, except after C and when it sounds like A as in weigh. There are no exceptions. (except when used in names, which don't follow any rules at all)
The Macon died because the ship was specifically designed for three tail fins: one dorsal, and two hanging down at 45 deg. to either side. There was no ventral fin as originally designed. There were three "keels" and these keels were to support the tail structures, among other things. The engines are mounted on the keels, and the Sparrowhawk hangar was between them. The US Navy changed the design while the Akron was under construction so the Captain could use the ventral fin to determine attitude. The Macon was built identical to the Akron. As someone has already stated, the ventral fin tended to get banged about more than just a bit. The Navy also decided that a structural re-design was unnecessary (BIG mistake, but probably done by a "surface ship navy" puke).
With modern navigation aids and state-of-the-art electronics, a current technology version rigid airship would be perfectly safe, but probably not a good candidate for intra-city limo service. Limp airships tend to become a little too flexible as they approach a length of 350' and rigid airships can't lift enough unless they are somewhat more than 350'. Back to the electronics issue, GPS navigation and satellite broatcast weather info would go a long way toward keeping rigid airships from coming to the same fate as the Akron. Just avoid the bad weather. But, don't expect to reach port on-time.
Included in the modern electronics suite are various cameras placed strategically around the ship, a number of which would provide the pilot/captain with the means to dock to a mast unaided. With a retractable gizmo on the pointy end of the airship to clamp on to a knob at the top of a mooring mast, piloting a large airship (once again, using modern computers and gyro equipment) to the mooring mast would be, well, not childs play, but certainly easier than having a hundred or so guys and gals hanging off ropes to drag the darned thing around.
My two bits.-- engineer10, Mar 05 2004 random, halfbakery