4 ms·

Same thought here. An Mi-26 can easily do 50% more [1]. I thought the whole point of renewed interest in airships was their cargo carrying capacity. [1] https:

by glup 8y ago

Same thought here. An Mi-26 can easily do 50% more [1]. I thought the whole point of renewed interest in airships was their cargo carrying capacity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26

masklinn 8y ago
> Same thought here. An Mi-26 can easily do 50% more [1]. But probably not at the same price per pound, or so would the expectation be. > I thought the whole point of renewed interest in airships was their cargo carrying capacity. A mix of cargo capacity and cost. And this model (or others being developed right now) are probably not the high-end of what they could theoretically do, they're around where they expect financial sense is for an unproven system, they need to get buy-in and sales.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > not at the same price per pound, or so would the expectation be Exactly: > between 20% and 40% of the fuel consumption and operating costs of equivalent traditional aircraft > Minimal ground crew are required: two for an Airlander 10 and none for an Airlander 50. https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/downloads/download/Airlander%20Student%20Q&A%20Sheet.pdf https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/downloads/download/Airland...
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    Operating costs are tricky, a helicopter with cargo lift capabilities can serve many more roles and is much more flexible which means that the total operating costs are spread across a multitude of mission profiles. Having a dedicated vessel that has rather limited use might have a much higher TCO since it will not replace traditional aircraft but rather supplement them.
    - masklinn 8y ago
      > Operating costs are tricky, a helicopter with cargo lift capabilities can serve many more roles and is much more flexible which means that the total operating costs are spread across a multitude of mission profiles. The vast majority of operation costs for an aircraft are maintenance and fuel, both of which are pretty direct functions of operation time. So being more flexible does not actually spread these, each role incurs its own operation costs which would not be incurred in a more limiting device. And helicopters have high operation costs.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      >a helicopter with cargo lift capabilities can serve many more roles Which helicopter do you know that can loiter for 5 days without refueling while carrying a 10t payload?

by glup 8y ago

masklinn 8y ago

> Same thought here. An Mi-26 can easily do 50% more [1]. But probably not at the same price per pound, or so would the expectation be. > I thought the whole point of renewed interest in airships was their cargo carrying capacity. A mix of cargo capacity and cost. And this model (or others being developed right now) are probably not the high-end of what they could theoretically do, they're around where they expect financial sense is for an unproven system, they need to get buy-in and sales.

jessriedel 8y ago
> not at the same price per pound, or so would the expectation be Exactly: > between 20% and 40% of the fuel consumption and operating costs of equivalent traditional aircraft > Minimal ground crew are required: two for an Airlander 10 and none for an Airlander 50. https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/downloads/download/Airlander%20Student%20Q&A%20Sheet.pdf https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/downloads/download/Airland...
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Operating costs are tricky, a helicopter with cargo lift capabilities can serve many more roles and is much more flexible which means that the total operating costs are spread across a multitude of mission profiles. Having a dedicated vessel that has rather limited use might have a much higher TCO since it will not replace traditional aircraft but rather supplement them.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > Operating costs are tricky, a helicopter with cargo lift capabilities can serve many more roles and is much more flexible which means that the total operating costs are spread across a multitude of mission profiles. The vast majority of operation costs for an aircraft are maintenance and fuel, both of which are pretty direct functions of operation time. So being more flexible does not actually spread these, each role incurs its own operation costs which would not be incurred in a more limiting device. And helicopters have high operation costs.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    >a helicopter with cargo lift capabilities can serve many more roles Which helicopter do you know that can loiter for 5 days without refueling while carrying a 10t payload?