[V.Narayan]

Airlander 10 - a Hybrid Airship - also called a Dynostat

The Airlander 10 is a British designed hybrid airship, achieving lift, and thereby flight, via both aerostatic and aerodynamic forces. That means it gets some lift from buoyancy of helium (aerostatic) and some lift from the wing effect when airflows at some speed over a flattish surface. Unlike most airship designs, it does not have a circular cross-section. It instead has an elliptical shape with a flattened lower surface that acts as a lifting body, contributing aerodynamic lift (like a wing) while the airship is in forward motion. This generates 20% to 40% of the airship's lift in a similar manner to that of a conventional fixed-wing aeroplane. Buoyancy is also provided by the lighter than air helium contained within the envelope. The Airlander 10 is equipped with a set of pneumatic skids which are designed to let the airship land and take off from a wide variety of terrain, as well as from water. It, understandably does not need a runway. Originally design for the US military it is now offered for civilian applications.




The hull of the airship is made of a triple-layered combination of composite materials that provides strength and rigidity when inflated, serving to keep in the gas, retain its unique shape, and support the four engines, fins and the flight deck that are attached directly upon it. The hull is internally divided by diaphragms into a total of six main sealed compartments. Air filled ballonets are housed within these compartments in order to regulate gas pressure. These are inflated on the ground to increase density and reduce lift and vice versa. This helps modulate lift without the need to bleed valuable and expensive helium into the atmosphere when it needs to shed left to descend or deal with weather conditions. Air and helium are not allowed to mix in the ballonets, thus enabling each to be furnished with valves and fans in order to increase and decrease air volume independently; this approach is claimed by HAV to be unique to the airship. Indeed it is an innovative solution.


The Airlander 10 is powered by a total of four 325 hp V8 diesel engines which drive sets of three-bladed ducted propellers to provide the thrust for both flight and maneuvering. These engines are positioned in pairs, one set being located towards the rear of the airship, while the other are positioned alongside the sides of the forward fuselage, mounted on stub wings. The assembly for each of the side-mounted engines can be pivoted 20 degrees in either direction, vectoring the thrust to provide flight control, particularly during landing and taking off; the rear-mounted engines are fixed. By employing thrust vectoring the engines can direct their thrust downwards to provide additional lift during takeoff.


It is the longest flying machine in the world today. In the 1920s and 1930s hydrogen air ships at times exceeded 200 metres in length! The Airlander 10 can be combined with an array of reconnaissance payloads for both military and civil applications. Its special capability (like with all airships) is in being able to hover over the designated area for days keeping a watch over a vast area simultaneously. Just what is needed on the border forces and coast guards.


As a concept this has existed for 100 years. A few of prototype experimentals, mainly small scale models, have also been built. To best of my knowledge the Airlander 10 is the first full scale and successful machine built and put into operation. Lets see where this goes. The British to their credit have had a history of innovation with vertical lift - the Harrier, the hovercraft and now the Airlander 10. Officially the craft is named Martha Gwyn after the wife of the founder Chairman of the designer HAV Inc. With typical British humour she is nicknamed the big bum. Mrs. Gwyn's views on the nick name have not been recorded.

From an aviators point of view what’s most interesting is its hybrid nature of obtaining lift from helium (like an air ship) and a lifting body (somewhat like an aircraft wing) and by thrust vectoring (like our loved Hawker Harrier) and the fact that it is more green by several degrees than any other flying machine that can lift a 10 tonne payload. The Canadians are working on a solar powered version and who knows they might be onto something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-0aYicv26M

[Aditya]

Thread moved from the Assembly Line to the Commercial Vehicles section. Thanks for sharing!

[libranof1987]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Airlander 10 - a Hybrid Airship - also called a Dynostat

Pretty interesting, thanks for sharing! The moment you see airship, the first that comes to mind (unfortunately) is the Hindenburg disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

In what ways are these two airships similar/different and does this mitigate the risks that the earlier airships had?

The report says this technology can be considered for civilian use; how realistic is that: not just the implementation but also convenience and viability?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

Pretty interesting, thanks for sharing! The moment you see airship, the first that comes to mind (unfortunately) is the Hindenburg disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
In what ways are these two airships similar/different and does this mitigate the risks that the earlier airships had?
The report says this technology can be considered for civilian use; how realistic is that: not just the implementation but also convenience and viability?

Thank you for the most relevant two questions on this topic.

The biggest difference is in the use of helium, an inert gas, in Airlander and hydrogen, an explosive gas, in Hindenburg. Helium's lifting buoyancy is half that of hydrogen and the Airlander makes up the other half by the aerodynamic lift created by the body shape which creates lift as the vessel moves through the air. The body of the Airlander is technically an aerofoil (even though it may not look so). As the speed it flies at is so low (50 to 100 kmph) the aerofoil can be very very thick. It is not exactly a wing but similar. Helium makes it very safe.

Relative to the Hindenburgs technology of 1930s a lot has changed in materials, bonding, inflammability resistance. In fact use of only flame resistant material technology has advanced significantly in aircrafts even relative to 1975.

Civilian use could be one day in geographical surveys, ecological surveys and so on but this is to be seen. Here drones are more likely to succeed on grounds of cost and convenience. As a cargo mover there maybe some specialized applications like supplying remote points such as weather and scientific stations in Antarctic or Artic but all this is to be seen. Border patrol & coast guard patrol are more realistic and likely in the near term. Many countries, India included, with sea and land borders with states that support terrorism have always needed 24/7 air surveillance and I see this fitting that role. I do not know about costs of procurement, maintenance and operation.

[Amit_breakfree]

The only statement which comes into mind after reading this is what goes around comes around.

Almost a 100 years ago, men used to fly in airships filled will Hydrogen gas. And now 100 years later, we are going back to flying in airships filled with helium.

Now a bad thing, considering the advancement in technology, negative aspects of fossil fuels, and difficulties in applicability of renewable energy in aviation.

However, since the ship is so huge, that must present challenges in military applicability and as you mentioned drones would be a safer bet in those circumstances.

An informative thread nonetheless and one to be followed.

[Beerus]

It can somewhat replace the cargo ships for civilian/commercial purposes.

Some advantages -

• No danger of oil spills.
• Lesser Pirate threats, they can still shoot it down.
• Faster

[bejoy]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Airlander 10 - a Hybrid Airship - also called a Dynostat

The Airlander 10 is a British designed hybrid airship, achieving lift, and thereby flight, via both aerostatic and aerodynamic forces.

Thanks for starting the thread on Airlander. It is really an engineering marvel. Didn't know about the air/helium buoyancy control.

I remember watching a test flight video and it had a troublesome landing, I think nose first. Also why diesel engines?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by bejoy

I remember watching a test flight video and it had a troublesome landing, I think nose first.

The landing is meant to be nose first with the forward two ducted props pushing thrust upwards and then air (which is heavier than helium) being drawn into the ballast ballonets to make the whole craft lose buoyancy.

Also why diesel engines?

Fuel efficiency. A high speed diesel would have a specific fuel consumption of ~160 grams/ HP/hour versus a gas turbine which would deliver 250 to 300 grams/HP/hour. Given that the buoyancy of helium allows liberties with power to weight ratios and the need for speed isn't there ie small engines will do, diesel works. Also very small turbo props (aviation gas turbines) in the less than 550 hp range have not been built successfully other than one successful example. Even for hovercraft today marine diesels are preferred over gas turbines.

[Jeroen]

Thanks for sharing. There have been numerous initiatives during the last decades to try and get airships in some shape or format into commercial and or military use. With limited succes as far as I know. I hope this one fares better. If anything it is a bit different then all the others. It’s also huge.

I wonder how you would train on this one as a pilot, I assume from a certification point of view they fall under zeppelins/balloons or something like that?

I’m not quite sure I understand how this ‘buoyancy lift versus body lift’ works in practice. Obviously, it doesn’t take off as a plane so to get of the ground it needs to have a pretty good positive buoyancy in order to lift off more or less vertically. I can understand as it builds speed it will add ‘body lift'

If you are flying at a given altitude at a certain speed would you have to release helium to maintain altitude?

Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

If you are flying at a given altitude at a certain speed would you have to release helium to maintain altitude?
Jeroen

It carries air as a ballast within the fuselage and releases air to increase lift and pumps in air to reduce lift. More details in paragraph 2 of post #1.

Take-off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjMfWK9CHeI

Another take off. Watch from 15:15 time onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlTnSkgqXxc

Landing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpMimUGH9M

[srishiva]

I like things that can float without much effort since falling off is ruled out

I think it can only take limited load and might be good for small cargo and small passenger movement. Even smaller motors can propel it ahead since the thrust is not needed that much for lift ?

[libranof1987]

My curiosity led me to a question and then this article:

Since Helium is a naturally occurring element in the atmosphere, although just 5ppm by volume, I was wondering if and how one could synthesize/separate Helium from the air. This would serve the purpose of not having to carry Helium or at least, use the available He in the atmosphere during emergencies.

But,

There is no chemical way of manufacturing helium, and the supplies we have originated in the very slow radioactive alpha decay that occurs in rocks. It costs around 10,000 times more to extract helium from air than it does from rocks and natural gas reserves.

A renowned expert on helium says we are wasting our supplies of the inert gas helium and will run out within 25 to 30 years, which will have disastrous consequences for hospitals and industry.

Professor of physics, Robert Richardson from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, won the 1996 Nobel prize for his work on superfluidity in helium, and has issued a warning the supplies of helium are being used at an unprecedented rate and could be depleted within a generation.

https://phys.org/news/2010-08-world-...ze-winner.html

[norhog]

https://youtu.be/bL_CucxGWko

It says here this thing crashed. So is it still being perused?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by norhog

It says here this thing crashed. So is it still being perused?

Sure, that was just a little mishap upon landing.
Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by norhog

It says here this thing crashed. So is it still being perused?

On 24 August 2016, at the completion of its second test flight, the airship came into contact with the ground nose-first during its final approach and suffered damage to the cockpit. The crew were unharmed. The investigation revealed that the airship's mooring rope had become entangled in wires as it approached its mooring mast. The Airlander 10 was repaired and fitted with inflatable "feet" which could be deployed in 15 seconds to protect the cockpit in an emergency landing. Airlander 10 resumed flight testing on 10 May 2017. The video you posted is date lined the same 24-8-2016. The video maker and commentator seem to be enthusiasts and not industry professionals and have hence used the word crash. Hope this helps.

Lockheed Martin a leading aerospace company is working on a similar machine titled the P-791 which is larger and aims to be more versatile in payload - 20 tonnes vs 10 tonnes for the Airlander. A 3-minute video for the viewing pleasure of T-BHP readers. the P-791 is now FAA certified - that is the American aviation regulator. It is available for sale at $40MM. If you buy one please offer me a seat on the first ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBhs-SrvwI