4 ms·
The one feature is the lack of significant runway needed for landing. You can use this to bring equipment and supplies to remote areas of the world that don't
by giarc 10y ago
The one feature is the lack of significant runway needed for landing. You can use this to bring equipment and supplies to remote areas of the world that don't have a runway to support a cargo plane.
- Zikes 10y agoI hadn't considered that, but I can indeed see the potential huge benefits there. Especially considering that their next iteration is the Airlander 50, with a 50,000kg capacity, which would put it at a fair middle ground of current cargo plane mass capacities.
- dogma1138 10y agoThe C-130 says hi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyNx0KoU0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyNx0KoU0c It can take off from even shorter "runways" with the rocket boosters, and it doesn't even need a runway just a very small clearing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSfD4Pnkd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSfD4Pnkd8). You also don't need land at all, touchdown-takeoff payload delivery is a pretty common thing, you pretty much touch the ground release the cargo which rides on a drag chute sled and you take off again, the entire process takes only a few seconds. Anyone who's ridden in something like an air balloon knows that the landing has a pretty big drift, any unpowered flight has a pretty long horizontal landing since you drift with the wind. It's unlikely that the clearing needed for these blimps would be smaller than the dirt patch you need to land a C-130 in, based on it's size and just how much it can drift due to wind and the fact that it doesn't have enough trust to compensate for the drift it would probably be bigger.
- mcguire 10y agoI was going to say, "Yes, but can it take off in the same distance afterwards?" but then I saw the most terrifying aircraft video ever made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q
- dogma1138 10y agoI said rocket boosters :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqAPRWMkuv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqAPRWMkuv8 takeoff is even shorter than landing unless its captured landing, the c130 landed on a carrier before :P
- giarc 10y agoThat's great, but no C-130 is delivering field equipment to Exxon/Shell/BP in the Arctic.
- dogma1138 10y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acI6bGYH0Ns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acI6bGYH0Ns
- giarc 10y agoI think you're missing my point that C-130's won't be doing private cargo transfer's. These are, for all intents and purposes, military only aircraft.
- dogma1138 10y agoNo, there are a C130s in civilian service. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_operators https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_C-130_Hercu... Lockheed also makes a civilian version of the C130 called L-100. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-100_Hercules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-100_Hercules And they've announced a new civilian version based on the C130 Super Hercules called the LM-100j.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 10y agoI'll warrant the Airlander's landing patch can be significantly rougher than what you'd land a wheeled, fixed-wing, heavier-than-air craft on. Or much softer -- snow or marsh, say. Field size is only one property.
- dogma1138 10y agoYou can land a C130 on snow and sand dunes. You aren't going to be landing anything in a marsh lighter than air aircraft need still a proper landing zone.
- sailfast 10y agoC-17 also supports a slightly longer runway than the C-130 at 3500 ft. Both capable aircraft, and you can add short-fire rockets as mentioned in the C-130 post.