Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pen!kallis
From: kallis@pen.DEC
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: On Airships
Message-ID: <1704@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 13:43:23 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1704
Posted: Wed Apr 17 13:43:23 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 07:25:17 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 31

Rob DeMillo asks about airships.  One high-priced photographer I know
has made these a hobby, having a superb collection of books on the
subject.  The U.S. Navy tried experimenting with some -- besides
blimps, they worked with dirigibles, with less than perfect success.

Pro's of airships.

	1) Lighter than air.  If the engines quit, they don't immediately
	   sink (although most have positive weight, letting aerodynamic
	   forces give >a little< lift.

	2) Can nearly hover, making sequencing easier.

Cons:

	1) Skin friction requires great expenditure of fuel, though
	   hardly as much as a heavier-than-air craft of equivalent
	   payload.

	2) Not very maneuverable.

	3) Rigid airships are highly susceptible to shearing effects,
	   potentially causing in-flight breakups.

	4) Hangaring requirements are rough, needing vast enclosures.

Are they viable?  Anything is, given sufficient determination.  Will
they be used?  Only if potential backers can see a clear economic
advantage.

Steve