Electric Blimp?

[Combwork]

Or dirigible? Something the size of the Hindenburg or bigger using helium for lift. Skin covered with the lightest photovoltaic cells possible. By day they power electric motors and charge lightweight batteries, by night the batteries take over.

Possible? Zero running pollution; load carrying capacity would depend on size but it need not look like a floating cigar. What about something circular with a hole in the middle? Wing profile through 360 degrees, the hole in the middle lets the air blow clear after it's given lift. Could the machine be steered by altering the wing profile as it flew?

Just a thought.

[d-ray657]

Whatever shape it is, there would have to be room for advertising on the side.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Or dirigible? Something the size of the Hindenburg or bigger using helium for lift. Skin covered with the lightest photovoltaic cells possible. By day they power electric motors and charge lightweight batteries, by night the batteries take over. There are some "lifting body" shapes that might though.

Possible? Zero running pollution; load carrying capacity would depend on size but it need not look like a floating cigar. What about something circular with a hole in the middle? Wing profile through 360 degrees, the hole in the middle lets the air blow clear after it's given lift. Could the machine be steered by altering the wing profile as it flew?

Just a thought.

The Wright Brothers used wing warping on their early flyers but then you don't have a dirigible any more but a blimp. Not sure that a flying banger isn't the best shape though. You have the gas for lift and you need a form that affords directional stability. A disc or an annulus doesn't give you that.

The PV skin is an interesting idea. There's certainly a lot of surface area on the gas bag for that but does such a material exist or would you need to apply photovoltaic cells to a conventional skin?

John

[merrylander]

In the past dirigibles the skin was merely for streamlining. The actual hydrogen was contained internally in gas bags. The crew was able to walk about inside the framework. So light weigh PV cells could take the place of the skin.

[Boreas]

The Brits built a couple of beautiful airships, The R-100 and R-101. Both were pretty revolutionary in construction techniques and both saw service. The R-100 was a success but, when the perhaps too adventurous and inadequately testedR-101 crashed, the R-100 was permanently grounded.

R-100


R-101


R-101, gas bag inside rigid airframe

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

In the past dirigibles the skin was merely for streamlining. The actual hydrogen was contained internally in gas bags. The crew was able to walk about inside the framework. So light weigh PV cells could take the place of the skin.

Not only was the crew able to climb around in the envelope but the passenger and crew spaces were often contained within it. Gondolas for passenger and crew were more a feature of blimps.

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The Brits built a couple of beautiful airships, The R-100 and R-101. Both were pretty revolutionary in construction techniques and both saw service. The R-100 was a success but, when the perhaps too adventurous and inadequately testedR-101 crashed, the R-100 was permanently grounded.

R-100


R-101


R-101, gas bag inside rigid airframe

My Dad took pictures of the R-100 when it came to Canada. They built a mooring tower at the St. Hubert airbase outside of Montreal.

[BlueStreak]

The idea has been bandied about in recent times. It usually comes down to speed.
30 mph or 600 mph? Makes a huge difference when travelling 3,000 miles. Besides our effed up politics, it's the same problem that dogs rail travel in the US. It would save huge amounts of fuel, have near-zero emissions and provide a pleasant, interesting travel experience flying low and slow so you can see the pretty scenery. But, here in America it would get zero support.

I can hear it now;

"F**k that stupid balloon. If I want to fly, I'll take a jet and be there in 1/20th the time." Then they'd make some ignorant sarcastic comment about how only "prissy Marxist Europeans fly in balloons", or some such idiotic nonsense.

Regards,
Dave

[merrylander]

We went to Colorado on Amtrak SuperLiner, most pleasant experience, excellent food and service. Could have taken one of those flying coffins but they left at 6:00AM and that was when they insisted that you be at the airport two hours befoore departure time. Being somewhere at 4:00 AM is uncivilized.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The idea has been bandied about in recent times. It usually comes down to speed.
30 mph or 600 mph? Makes a huge difference when travelling 3,000 miles. Besides our effed up politics, it's the same problem that dogs rail travel in the US. It would save huge amounts of fuel, have near-zero emissions and provide a pleasant, interesting travel experience flying low and slow so you can see the pretty scenery. But, here in America it would get zero support.

I can hear it now;

"F**k that stupid balloon. If I want to fly, I'll take a jet and be there in 1/20th the time." Then they'd make some ignorant sarcastic comment about how only "prissy Marxist Europeans fly in balloons", or some such idiotic nonsense.

Regards,
Dave

Modern LTA craft have speed capabilities in the range of 80 - 100 mph with conventional power sources. I don't know whether that would be feasible with PV generation for electric motors. Maybe but current solar powered airplanes don't come anywhere even close to that and LTAs have massive frontal area to overcome.

I think the future for something line a solar LTA craft would be in less speed-critical applications like remotely piloted observation/surveillance aircraft. The key here isn't in speed but in flight duration. Theoretically, these can stay aloft forever.

John