Re:A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about th...
by dingaling on Thursday February 07, 2019 @05:01PM
(#19109016)
Airships couldn't fly great-circle routes of shortest distance, so the actual distance would be much longer. They did pressure-flying, skirting around weather formations like a helicopter flying through mountains. Sometimes they could get a slingshot by riding a wind as it flowed from a high.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about th...
by zepearl on Thursday February 07, 2019 @06:41PM
(#19109824)
Maybe for airships/blimps the approach would have to be different than for airplanes, meaning more intermediate stops? (maybe their "landing/takeoff"-cycle is more efficient than the ones of airplanes?) Kind of bus/tram vs. trains?
Or maybe just complementary? E.g. long routes handled by airplanes, "medium" routes handled by airships/blimps, and the rest handled by trains/bus/whatever?
Re:A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about th...
by larkeith on Friday February 08, 2019 @12:08AM
(#19111718)
I suspect we could do much faster landing/takeoff in airships nowadays than before, with dynamic positioning and azimuth thrusters or similar (rather than relying entirely on tether lines and/or mooring towers). It might be possible to have a faster cycle than airplanes due to VTOL abilities and more on-board infrastructure allowing for landings at smaller airfields than most commercial flights are able to use - though I imagine most local airfields would require some degree of retrofitting before they could support airship landings.
While I doubt they will ever be a primary transportation medium, I wonder if there would be enough demand for a cruise-ship-style airship to be commercially viable; I for one would absolutely love to spend a month on a luxury cruise around the world, landing every other day without the limitations of only seaside locations.