|Airship was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|Airship has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 The Montgolfier Brothers?
- 2 Nick Talbot's Kite-shaped airships
- 3 Локомоскай
- 4 Aerodrome or Airport?
- 5 Military use
- 6 Susceptibility to lightning
- 7 Predictions and press releases
- 8 Undeveloped Ideas
- 9 A proposed merger of two articles
- 10 UFOs
- 11 Final Fantasy
- 12 Although airships are no longer used for passenger transport
- 13 Propulsion methods
- 14 LTA gas does not make airship stay aloft
- 15 Airships Today
- 16 Another thing....
- 17 Meaning of Aerostat
- 18 Strange sentence structure in introduction
- 19 Units of measurement
- 20 Envelope
- 21 Safety
- 22 Bartolomeu de Gusmão
- 23 Material for a Footnote?
- 24 rise of fuel-consumption with speed in an airship?
- 25 Flying boats in fiction
- 26 Golden age
- 27 Updated External Link
- 28 Categorising airship manufacturer articles
- 29 GravityPlane
- 30 Remove this hatnote
The Montgolfier Brothers?
- An "airship" according to Webster's has steering and propulsion. The Montgolfier balloons had neither? (I.e., the Montgolfier Wiki article is incorrect calling them airships.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nick Talbot's Kite-shaped airships
Should this be mentioned/referenced somewhere?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248159/Aircruise-touted-scenic-new-millennium-luxury-ships-floating-U-S-37-hours.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberWasteland (talk • contribs) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I just came across this Russian company that builds lens-shaped heavy-lift ships based on a 1980s Aviastar design, the "thermoplane": LocomoSky, article & video, press release. I wonder why there is nothing on Wikipedia if the design is so old. It sure looks interesting.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- We need reliable sources showing it's real. Until then it's "pie in the sky". Crum375 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Aerodrome or Airport?
- Aerodrome is an alternative term for airfield, in common use in Britain. For example, see Dunsfold Aerodrome, until recently a British Aerospace flight test center, and Denham Aerodrome, a local airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
June 14, 2010 has been relased news that Northrop Grumman has been awarded a $517 million agreement to develop up to three Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) systems for the U.S. Army. A new hybrid airship weapons system, just larger than the length of a football field, will take to the skies in just 18 months to provide an unblinking, persistent eye for more than three weeks at a time to aid U.S. Army troops in Afghanistan, according to Northrop Grumman Corporation.
WHY above text have been taken away from the article? What kind of "poor writing". If it is POOR they you are suppose to IMPROVE IT not DELETE IT!!! BEST REGARDS TIMO FROM FINLAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- You do not see the advertisement aspect and the poor writing? The text you added is a straight text dump taken from Northrop Grumman press releases like this one, using peacock phrases such as "unblinking, persistent eye" to describe the venture. The text you added falls under Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Rewrite the bit for encyclopedia style. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- as opposed to "In November 2006, the US Army bought an A380+ airship from American Blimp Corporation through a Systems level contract with Northrop Grumman and Booz Allen Hamilton." do you actually read the article, or do you merely troll the new adds and abuse the editors ? rewrite or tag; don't delete. Accotink2 talk 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Susceptibility to lightning
The fact that an Airship is made out of composite materials doesn't make it less susceptible to lightning. A metal airship flying through the air would gain charges at one end and lose them at the other. Charges on plastic, or other similar non conductive materials would accumulate where they form.Blakut (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, making an airship out of composite materials seems likely to make it more susceptible to lightning. Composite materials were implicated in the crash of a helicopter over the North Sea a few years back, because its less conductive body did not channel the lightning safely away from the tail rotor quickly enough, causing the rotor catastrophic damage. A similar poorly-conductive skin on the scale of an airship could lead not only to similar problems, but also might create spectacular and possibly catastrophic arcs between different parts of the airship upon mooring.
An airship is no more or less susceptible to danger from lightning than airplanes. There are factors which affect both. The lack of sufficient grounding of structure or systems, the presence of inflammable gases.
Airships are more susceptible to gust and turbulence than aircraft due to their size. When an airship is operated in weather conditions which threaten it's structural integrity it is possible that lightning will cause an explosion of inflammable gases produced by either flying above pressure height (thus venting gas) or structural failure.
Airships also can be susceptible to explosion when as in the case of the Diximunde (French name for the L-72) when the aircraft is operated with dangerously 'ripe' that is to say gas cells which contain dangerous levels of air contamination. Mark Lincoln (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Predictions and press releases
I am with 84user in questioning the many predictions and press releases about future airships. Each one should be able to establish its notability, not just its existence, or the existence of a design or patent. The proposal must have been the subject of verifiable comment in reliable mainstream sources. This does not mean the company's own website or the publishing of a bit which parrots the company's public relations release. Others in the industry must comment on it. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Present-Day research: Proposed designs and applications - Undeveloped Ideas" contains some topics of questionable quality, notability, and placement:
1) Vacuum airship is not cited as being contemporary research, though seemingly notable.
2) Hybrid airship is both notable and currently under development, but could use some clarification.
3) Aeroscraft is clear, notable, and currently under development.
4) Cruise ship is apparently original work and either needs either immediate citation or deletion. Fixblor (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the three sections "Modern use", "Recent developments" and "Present-day research" should be merged and updated. Information (such as heavy lifting) appearing in two sections might be have better readability if combined. I think poorly cited bits should either be thrown out or reinforced with better cites. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding "Undeveloped ideas", I deleted the section because of its notability issues, and because of two year old fact tags that went unanswered. The Aeroscraft paragraph concluded that it was not an airship, so why was it present? Terzi's 1670s vacuum airship should have been introduced in the history section. In this reversion, you restored my deletions. I stand by my deletions as helpful to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, I'll have this section cleared up (to the best of my ability) by this time tomorrow. Fixblor (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A proposed merger of two articles
I think that the articles on airship and zeppelin need to be merged with each other, and the the remainin article have redirects from both titles airahip and zeppelin. Just look at the two articles, and you will see that the overlap to a huge degree. There are two ways of explaining this:
A. About 75% of all airships have been zeppelins (German-made and used, during the First Reich (the German Empire) and the Third Reich, or B. The word zeppelin became a generic term for an airship no matter what country built or flew them. From this point of view, even the United States and the United Kingdom have flown zeppelins (look up the U.S. Navy's zeppelins named the Akron, the Macon, and the Los Angeles. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, as there is a huge amount of source material solely devoted to the Zeppelin. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The Rigid and Non-Rigid airships have sufficiently diverse natures from an engineering sense as to make putting them in the same article is questionable.
The Semi-Rigid embodies the worst of both.
That the editors of Wikipedia have such limited technical and historical competence that they insist upon hammering round pegs into square holes is something that contributors have no ability to influence.
Wikipedia will eventually atrophy because a few have positioned themselves as the absolute arbiters of reality based largely upon their personal relationships and their common ignorance.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning somewhere in this article that airships are frequently reported as Unidentified Flying Object sightings due to their rarity and the unusual ability to silently hover and manouver in the air ? --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually had this experience in 1965. My mother called me to come and see the UFO. It took about 1/10 of a second for me to realize it was N2A coming head on. The Goodyear blimp proceeded the length of Key Biscayne and then turned to head back to it's base at Watson Island.
Hey guys I think there should be a section about the Final Fantasy series of videogames. I wasn't born yet when the first one came out but I'm pretty sure it had the first airship and thus became the inspiration for the first real airships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Although airships are no longer used for passenger transport
- Perhaps it can be worded differently... I understand the intent to be that airships no longer operate as airliners taking passengers from point A to point B for pay. Sightseeing where the passengers are picked up and dropped off at the same location is not transport. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Propulsion methods are not described. Also, I think it would be best to also detail the mantaray & jellyfish propulsion method by Festo (see http://www.festo.com/inetdomino/coorp_sites/en/c79c5d07d5805095c12572b9006f04f5.htm ) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
LTA gas does not make airship stay aloft
In the article we read: "Unlike aerodynamic aircraft such as fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, which produce lift by moving a wing through the air, aerostatic aircraft, such as airships and hot air balloons, stay aloft by filling a large cavity with a lifting gas." --> Airships do not stay aloft, they are neutrally buoyant, meaning they skim the surface but do not hover. Instead, the propellers themselves create the thrust required to hover. Else, the airship would go into a continuous climb, since the air is pressured most at ground level (thus right above the ground, more LTA gas is required than at air layers above it)
- Your statement is wrong on all points. Airships are neutrally buoyant, meaning there is no force acting on them to cause them to gain or lose altitude. They can hover just fine without the propellers (and routinely do so when they need to be quiet, or have suffered engine failure), and can change altitude by dropping ballast or venting lifting gas. The volume of lifting gas needed does change with altitude, with a greater volume of gas needed at higher altitudes: this makes a neutrally-buoyant airship stable with respect to altitude. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm no airship expert, and that is partly why I made the image: the theory of requiring less lifting gas at higher altitudes weirdly enough seems to make more sense to me (given that the higher up, the further from the earth, the less gravitational force, the less air pressure); and I heard from someone (more) experienced in airship design that airships either hug the ground or ascend to a very high altitude. He also explained that thus neutral buoyancy isn't a feature of (most?) airships; it may be so however that this depends on airship to airship. I know that atleast small airships can only hover using the propellers, the LTA gas simply reduces the weight of the aircraft. I agree though that my image is a bit oversimplified, and it would have been better made with a gradient color (rather then other colors "per layer"). You can thus do with the image as you like, but I do think it makes things more understandable, definitly so with the calculation of m³ of LTA-gas for lift/neutral buoyancy, which in an airship has narrow margins. The whole is part of a research at http://www.appropedia.org/AT_CAD_Team/AT_airship
Wow, what a concept! I guess you have never read Hugo Eckener's "Brief Instructions and practical hints for piloting Zeppelin Airships for the flight personnel of the "DELAG." It is the pilot's manual for the LZ-120 and 121. Another sound discussion of the subject is given in Harold Dick's 'The Golden Age of the Great Passenger Airships." See "Appendix C" "Crew Manual of the German Zeppelin Reederi."
- There's only a limited amount of ballast to jettison (to climb) and lifting gas to release (to descend), so some early airships used elevator controls to move within the range permitted by their (largely neutral) buoyancy for a given altitude. So it was and perhaps still is always a compromise, depending on conditions. --TraceyR (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are so many misconceptions in your (22.214.171.124) statement that I don't know where to start.
- Helium airships are never neutrally buoyant: because helium is so expensive, venting it is only done in an emergency, and so for financial reasons they fly "heavy" (ie. not enough lifting gas to get off the ground) to ensure that they can return to the ground without venting.
- Hydrogen airships often flew heavy as well: as TraceyR notes, ballast is a limited resource, and back when hydrogen was the lifting gas of choice, it could not be replenished in flight. When maximizing range or duration aloft is important, flying heavy and using aerodynamic lift to make up the difference is a way to conserve both.
- The few hot-air airships in the world fly neutrally buoyant: hot air is easy to replenish in-flight, and the amount of lift generated per volume of air can easily be adjusted.
- The change in gravity with altitude is so small that it can be ignored.
- The change in pressure with altitude means that the higher you go, the less effective your lifting gas is. At sea level, a thousand cubic feet of hydrogen can lift 72 pounds; at 18000 feet altitude, a thousand cubic feet can only lift 36 pounds.
- Airships either fly low to maximize the cargo load they can carry with a given amount of lifting gas, or fly high to avoid anti-aircraft guns.
- Thanks Carnildo for saving me a whole lot of typing!
- If anyone is seriously interested in the problems of airships, then a very good read is Len Deighton's book Airshipwreck (Yes, Len Deighton the spy novelist - he also wrote non-fiction on aircraft). This explains something of how they work, a lot on how they can fail to work, and lists the vast numbers of airship crashes. It's a good argument not to fly on one! It's particularly good on the problems of the vent valves and how to crash into the ground by flying too high. A large number of crashes were caused by excess height, the automatic vent valves opening to release excess hydrogen, then the airship now having insufficient buoyancy to stay aloft and crashing when it returns to a lower altitude in a now uncontrollable state. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I found that ballonnets are generally used by airships to control the elevation. Weirdly, it's not really mentioned as such in this article, and no English article on it exists neither, a Dutch one does (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonnet) Basically, ballonnets are 2 balloons filled with air inside the LTA-gas balloon. Additional air can be added or removed; this compressed or decompresses the LTA gas in the main balloon, and depending on the compression level, the airship increases/decreases altitude.
Ballonet control two different things. First they control the fore-aft center of lift. Second they control the pressure inside the envelope (and thus the shape/integrity of the blimp).
J4Mii (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Do people still use airships as a form of transportation? Why is the airplane better? Why were there so many accidents? If there were so many accidents with hydrogen, then why couldn't helium have been made more available? Can the airship be Mede to go any faster? And finally, can someone answer my questions? J4Mii (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Airships only have an advantage in that it is unnecessary to expend fuel to produce lift.
Airplanes are capable of much faster flight, less susceptible to weather and require far fewer persons for landing and ground handling. Airplanes may operate at much higher altitudes with far less compromise of load carrying ability and structural strength.
Airships suffered accidents due to several reasons. First the number of airships was small compared to aircraft and thus the rate at which experience and development could be achieved was much lower and slower. Airships were particularly affected by weather in that even low winds made ground handling difficult and their low airspeed magnified the effects of winds. Last the high unit cost, limited crew experience, and fragmented nature of development programs (German, Italian, British, American and Russian) resulted in repeated learning curves with only one approaching a satisfactory level.
Helium is a very limited resource on this planet. No attempt has yet been made to stick a hose into the sun and extract helium from the source which contains well over 99% of the element in this solar system.
The problem of airspeed in airships is a function of the Drag Equation. That is FsubD, the force of drag, is a function of 1/2 of the mass density of air (necessarily high due to low altitude) times the velocity of the object to the air squared, times the Coefficient of Drag of the object, times the Area of the object.
Needless Air Density is relatively unimportant, though high due to the need to avoid expending all lift in ballast to achieve high altitude. Drag goes up as a SQUARE of the velocity and as a direct function of the Area.
Which is to say no matter how fine the Coefficient of Drag of the design, an airship will need an astounding increase in thrust to achieve a small increase in speed.
The airship had an advantage only until the power-to-weight ratio of engines improved enough to make it possible for aircraft to fly much faster.
From that point on the advantage of the airship declined. making it useless in war where aircraft were available by 1916, and for long distance flight by 1945.
J4Mii (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC) There should be a section showing the interior design of airships. And where does the article describe the engine? What about the different airlines, if there were any? J4Mii (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Meaning of Aerostat
I question the statement, "The narrower and more technical meaning of aerostat refers only to tethered or moored balloons: here, airships are distinct from aerostats." This distinction is less technical rather than more technical, since it arises from a misunderstanding of stat meaning stationary, i.e. moored. It actually refers to the lift for the craft being aerostatic, as opposed to aerodynamic. I would suggest changing this to say, "A narrower meaning of aerostat refers only to..." and then go on to explain the cause of the confusion. For further information, see the wikipedia article for Aerostat. Ericthefred (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree..As you say the second usage is less technical rather than more technical, and is dependant on a misunderstanding of the word's etymology. The OED cites for usage are all non-specialist journalistic sources, the first being the Christian Science Monitor, so the genesis of ths usage is merely some hack using a long fancy word when she/ he coud have used two simple ones (ie tethered balloon). But doesn't the whole clarification simply belong in the aerostat article? Otherwise it's just linking round in ever decreasing circles, ad we all know where 'that ends. It certainly adds nothing to one's knowledge of dirigibles.TheLongTone (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange sentence structure in introduction
Is it just my limited knowledge of English, or does the sentence structure in the introduction sound really strange, especially towards the end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrr (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unlike aerodynamic aircraft such as fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, which produce lift by moving a wing through the air, aerostatic aircraft, and unlike hot air balloons which stay aloft by filling a large cavity with a lifting gas.
Yeah, it looks like someone did a "I'll just add an '...and' clause" edit and left that "aerostatic aircraft" hanging. I'm not quite confident enough about the dirigible/hot-air-ballon distinction to know how to fix it, however.—126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Units of measurement
There's a reference to the Hindenburg being ' more than five times as long as the height of the Statue of Liberty without the pedestal'. Apart from being a really clunky sentence, the Statue is not a standard unit of measurement unless you are american. Even if you are american, it's a measurement of height, so probably the correct unit of length would be the Brooklyn Bridge or whatever. Here in the UK we use the ot the Nelson's Column as standard units of imprecise large sizes for height and the football pitch as a unit of length, but I don't think the use of such terms really appropriate. You might as well say 'as big as five big things'.TheLongTone (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and I have added a comparision diagram and made a tentative reword. -84user (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nice work. btw I'm a bit shocked that whichever edit that produced a total banjaxing of the opening para had gone so long uncorrected. This is an excellent article, many people on reading that sentence (all you'd get in the result page of a google search, btw) would assume the rest of the article was equally incomprehensible & go elsewhere.TheLongTone (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The summary for this edit asks whether "envelope" should be linked. I think it should, and there used to be an entry in Envelope (disambiguation), but it was removed with the comment "rm unambiguous entries and ones with no article". I guess what is needed is a section somewhere that describes the various constructions of such envelopes. Here is what my summary used to say, if anyone can improve it and find it a home:
This whole section is very similar to http://www.worldskycat.com/skycat/safety.html The information about resistance to small arms and mortar fire is out of place. This is not an issue for civilian airships and I doubt that the articles about cars, bicycles or aeroplanes mention what happens when they are fired at :) Furthermore, I think the section should at least mention some of the safety issues and causes of previous accidents, such as vulnerability to bad weather, turbulence and strong winds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Bartolomeu de Gusmão
Where is a citation about the inventor priest Bartolomeu de Gusmão? He is best known as inventor of baloon, or aerostat, called by him of Passarola, which flew for the first time on october, the 03 of 1709. His invention was witnessed by Michelangelo Conti, who become Pope in 1721. His achievement was made much before of any other person mentioned in the part of History of that article. Please, what´s happened? It needs a correction. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was more of a fantasy than a practical airship design. There was no lifting agent (gas or hot air) and no propulsion apart from some magnets which were supposed to pull it forward in some mystical way that I don't really understand. According to our Bartolomeu de Gusmão article, he expected that a man standing in the gondola would be able to blow it into the sky using a pair of bellows. Absolutely barking mad, but quite funny. Sadly, he contributed nothing at all to the development of the airship; sorry to disappoint you. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Material for a Footnote?
The following sentence is parked in the middle of the article:
"For information about the legacy of the USS Shenandoah and its demise over rural Ohio, see Aaron J. Keirns' book America's Forgotten Airship Disaster: The Crash of the USS Shenandoah."
It seems more appropriate as a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed, its wikilinkable, will do.TheLongTone (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
rise of fuel-consumption with speed in an airship?
I would be very grateful indeed if you could provide a curve that shows the (probably exponential?) rise of necessary thrust respectively fuel-consumption, if you increase the speed above your "practical limit" of "(130–160 km/h)" to up to 650 km/h??!! this curve would also be interesting below that vague limit! and it would be very good if this curve considered the thrust/PAYload-ratio (because with an airship you have to carry a much lighter structure, right?) thanx in advance! these data are crucial to the developement of a new idea... --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Flying boats in fiction
This article doesn't see to have any info on the fictional "flying boat" type airships which seem to be quite common in fiction of the fantasy and steampunk genres (such as the ones in many Final Fantasy, Mario and Warcraft games, Spelljammer, Girl Genius, Stardust and The Vision of Escaflowne). IMO we should add either a section or a seperate article about fictional varieties of airship (such as "airships in fiction" or "airship (fictional boat)"). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Take it to airships in fiction or similar. Airship is a big, top-level article that has to cover an enormous range within one article. There's no room for fancruft where airships are relevant to the fiction, but the fiction has no commutative relevance to airships. However there is an awful lot of this – there's enough to support a stand-alone article. Sourcing is a problem for doing such things robustly, but there's enough serious meta-comment in the steampunk style-guide books these days to pass WP:RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Updated External Link
Categorising airship manufacturer articles
The following was added to the airship article lead but deleted by another editor. I think it was out of place there, but it appears to be genuine and I think with a little work something usable might come out of it.
- Yes, after I'd deleted it I did some more serious digging & I did come up with a brief mention in Flight. (there was an awful lot of rather flaky stuff). Imo it really belongs in Hybrid airship or in a separate article of its own if it can be relably sourced. Mention in light here: rigt at the bottom, above the graph. Article is from 2008 & it isn't flying yet...not has it been mentioned again.TheLongTone (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- His official web site appears to be http://www.fuellessflight.com/ . Also, I notice that the principle of forward propulsion is the same as the underwater glider, working examples of which are in use. Interesting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- This YouTube post from 2013 makes disturbing reading: "TMr. Hunt's work has continued however in the field of fluid dynamics and he recently conducted scientific experiments that disprove the Bernoulli Principal" (sic), and "He has recently filed for patent protection for a new rocket engine capable of re-using its propellant". I think we need a bit more than the odd one-liner in Flight and, apparently, in Flying January 2004 to establish Hunt's notability. As for the concept, the underwater glider has been around so long that other folks must have come up with the idea of an airborne version, if only we knew what search term to use. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hunt's presentation to the AIAA can be accessed from http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2005-7346 for those who, unlike me, are prepared to pay. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The full AIAA paper can be found at: http://www.deepheatpower.com/assets/aiaamanuscriptatec.pdf on the Links page of my Saturated Gas website: http://www.deepheatpower.com/links.html without costs.
I know how revered Bernoulli's Principal being 275 years old is and am merely in search of solid scientific principles. It occurred to me that the direction of applied force is critically important i.e. the optimum ninety degree vector angle and I questioned as to why it would not also apply to pressure. In seeking the true nature of pressure I reconstructed the original Bernoulli experiments. I did get the reading of the low pressure on the low velocity side when I conducted the main experiment that seemed to confirm Bernoulli initially. However, when I simply took the same exact equipment and reversed the direction of flow by 180 degrees. The high pressure reading now was on the high velocity side! The exact opposite results by reversing direction only. Thereafter, I investigated as to why.
I then discovered that Bernoulli was merely reading back pressure of the fluid caused by the reduction in area of flow from the large cylinder to the small cylinder. My conclusion which was then additionally proven with numerous other experiments that firmly conclude that direction is the cause of pressure and not velocity.
Think about vector angles and how force is lost as the vector angle decrease. Vector angles apply to pressure as well. When applied at the optimum 90 degree vector angle pressure is at a maximum and as the angle changes either going to a lower or higher vector angle it begins to decrease.
When pressure is read from behind a deflected area (such as the construction of the Bernoulli Venturi valve whereby the suction comes from behind a nozzle that shields the incoming vacuumed fluid from the direct impact of the kinetic energy of the high velocity flow) it is at the lowest pressure reading, including being a negative pressure creating a vacuum. This is an increased understanding of fluid dynamics that can serve to improve modeling. I am not trying to make headlines. I am merely trying to find out what is really happening in fluid dynamics.
A new vacuum valve resulted from experiments that is many times more powerful than the Venturi valve that I am now marketing to the oil and gas industry to withdraw fluids from reservoirs. They produce on the order of twenty times more suction than the Venturi valve. I have a new aircraft wing and a new aircraft design that apply this new understanding of fluid dynamics that have the potential to dramatically reduce induced drag so that an aircraft or wing can move through the air with highly reduced viscous drag. I think you will hearing a lot more about this development in the future. It is solid science proven by numerous experiments. Direction of flow along with the amount of inertia possessed by the flowing fluid determines that amount of pressure applied. Simply put pressure is a vector quantity and is not a scalar quantity as proposed by Bernoulli.
Feel free to contact me and I would appreciate your assistance in making the work that I have done to help advance airship technology known so that others may benefit from it. I know the gravityplane faces a lot of technical challenges and would be very expensive to build. My only hope is see one fly during my life time. However as is pointed out on the hybrid airship page that few are in actual operation after years of effort and expense. I did consulting for Aeros Corp. on their Walrus Project regarding their superstructure design with emphasis on building internal sealed cells strong enough to support vacuum-lift. One of the gravityplane concepts was to compress the lifting gas that was featured in the video to reduce lift and they have also applied that technology to their new designs.
- I think the technical ideas, especially the challenge to accepted lore on Bernoulli, need peer review and endorsement before we can safely accept them here. Documenting such a challenge as notable is a big step, not to be undertaken lightly. Do let us know if any independent authority publishes on these subjects. Based on the magazine mentions and the AIAA paper I will try and put something in the Hybrid airship article, but I doubt that I will be able to reliably source enough material to make for its own page. Do you know if anybody else has come up with a similar kind of idea to the gravity plane and if so what they call it or its technology? That would really help us to search online and establish stronger credentials. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
New draft article or section
I have started drafting my own version of what I think are the notable and verifiable aspects of the Hunt GravityPlane here. If the draft cannot expand enough to stand as an article in its own right, I am hoping it can at least form a new section in the Hybrid airship article. Any comments/improvements gratefully received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Remove this hatnote
"For the balloon known as a blimp, see Barrage balloon."
A barrage balloon is never called an airship or dirigible, the only titles that redirect here. So what is this hatnote doing other than causing confusion? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)