Airlander 10 "breaks in two"
Discussion
otherman said:
As usual with BBC headlines and inverted commas,
Airlander 'breaks in two'
really means
Airlander doesn't break in two.
I was reading it and thinking the same. The eye witless saw it break in two, the company says it autodeflated and they will get it flying soon, saying nothing about it breaking. Airlander 'breaks in two'
really means
Airlander doesn't break in two.
There were multiple stages to the deflation. The first stage happened when the Airlander broke away from the mast, triggering an automated tearing mechanism to prevent the Airlander from bouncing away and flattening some local houses. The "breaking in two" was probably just a way to describe how it split.
The completely collapsed stage was after the emergency services and the HAV team were finished onsite extracting the remaining Helium and Aviation fuel.
The completely collapsed stage was after the emergency services and the HAV team were finished onsite extracting the remaining Helium and Aviation fuel.
grumpy52 said:
When I used to drink in the Exeter Arms or the Kings Head a few of the locals sounded like Joe Pasquale on skittles night .
Airships seem to be fated at Cardington.
Not really anything to do with Cardington. It just so happens that's where most UK airship operations have been based. You could say the same for Lakehurst or Friedrichshafen.Airships seem to be fated at Cardington.
back of an envelope maths:
Airlander 10 is 92m long and 26m high, so a side area of 2,392 square meters. (wiki)
Wind power at 50 metres altitude is 400 watts per square meter if the wind speed is 15 knots (google).
So wind energy hitting Airlander 10 (if stationery, and perpendicular to the wind direction) is 956,800 watts.
She has 4 × 4 litre V8 turbocharged diesel engines, 242 kW (325 hp) each, so a total of 968,000 watts.
So in a side wind like that she would need all her engines to be facing exactly sideways, at almost full power, just to avoid being blown away, and no spare power for forward flight.
What could possibly go wrong?
(awaits correction by more knowledgeable folk, possibly invoking basic errors in arithmetic or the behavior of lighter than air craft in wind, who might also mention that her profile is rounded, not flat, so some wind energy would be diverted around her, but still..)
Airlander 10 is 92m long and 26m high, so a side area of 2,392 square meters. (wiki)
Wind power at 50 metres altitude is 400 watts per square meter if the wind speed is 15 knots (google).
So wind energy hitting Airlander 10 (if stationery, and perpendicular to the wind direction) is 956,800 watts.
She has 4 × 4 litre V8 turbocharged diesel engines, 242 kW (325 hp) each, so a total of 968,000 watts.
So in a side wind like that she would need all her engines to be facing exactly sideways, at almost full power, just to avoid being blown away, and no spare power for forward flight.
What could possibly go wrong?
(awaits correction by more knowledgeable folk, possibly invoking basic errors in arithmetic or the behavior of lighter than air craft in wind, who might also mention that her profile is rounded, not flat, so some wind energy would be diverted around her, but still..)
Ayahuasca said:
back of an envelope maths:
Airlander 10 is 92m long and 26m high, so a side area of 2,392 square meters. (wiki)
Wind power at 50 metres altitude is 400 watts per square meter if the wind speed is 15 knots (google).
So wind energy hitting Airlander 10 (if stationery, and perpendicular to the wind direction) is 956,800 watts.
She has 4 × 4 litre V8 turbocharged diesel engines, 242 kW (325 hp) each, so a total of 968,000 watts.
So in a side wind like that she would need all her engines to be facing exactly sideways, at almost full power, just to avoid being blown away, and no spare power for forward flight.
What could possibly go wrong?
(awaits correction by more knowledgeable folk, possibly invoking basic errors in arithmetic or the behavior of lighter than air craft in wind, who might also mention that her profile is rounded, not flat, so some wind energy would be diverted around her, but still..)
Isnt the idea like with a hot air balloon you either generally go with the flow or change height to suit alternative wind directions. Airlander 10 is 92m long and 26m high, so a side area of 2,392 square meters. (wiki)
Wind power at 50 metres altitude is 400 watts per square meter if the wind speed is 15 knots (google).
So wind energy hitting Airlander 10 (if stationery, and perpendicular to the wind direction) is 956,800 watts.
She has 4 × 4 litre V8 turbocharged diesel engines, 242 kW (325 hp) each, so a total of 968,000 watts.
So in a side wind like that she would need all her engines to be facing exactly sideways, at almost full power, just to avoid being blown away, and no spare power for forward flight.
What could possibly go wrong?
(awaits correction by more knowledgeable folk, possibly invoking basic errors in arithmetic or the behavior of lighter than air craft in wind, who might also mention that her profile is rounded, not flat, so some wind energy would be diverted around her, but still..)
And check the weather forecast
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff