The world's longest aircraft, dubbed 'The Flying Bum' is set to go into full production to take its first passengers to the skies after successful final tests.
It comes after the Airlander 10 prototype was retired after it collapsed and plummeted into a field.
Also at BBC:
The world's longest aircraft is to go into full production with a model that will take its first paying passengers.
It comes after the prototype £32m Airlander 10 - a combined plane and airship - was formally retired following successful final testing.
As a result, Bedford firm Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) has been given Production Organisation Approval from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
[...] The firm was given Design Organisation Approval from the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) in October.
Stephen McGlennan, HAV's chief executive, said 2018 had been very good, with Easa's backing a "huge highlight".
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:09AM (3 children)
So kind of like the Brexit of the skies, then, isn't it? No need to reply. Point made.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:28AM
DailyFail story, what one is to expect of it?
For instance, as a caption of one of the photos, one can read:
Jumped to find some juicy references on the Web. Turns out that it was intended to be used for surveillance in Afghanistan [newschannel9.com] but it crashed before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday January 15 2019, @11:33AM
And if that fails, they can paint a thong on this thing [traveller.com.au], or maybe drape a skirt over it, and sell videos of it mooning around on Pornhub.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:42PM
Hey look, President Trump finally managed to do a job correctly: post an actually OK story to SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:51AM
Like that scene, on the Zeppelin, where Indy tosses the Nazi out the window, and then proclaims, "No ticket!". Better than punching Nazis in the face, is throwing them off the "Flying Bum". Irony meter again subject to inputs well in excess of original design parameters!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:26AM
I had to think of this film The Big Bus [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:30AM
next phase of development is being funded by the insurance claim after the last crash.
Hope they have a nore sustainable investment model for the future!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:49AM (5 children)
Why would those passengers choose this airship? Where would they fly from and to?
Will they even trust an "airline", knowing that the previous model crashed? At this point the company is best at insuring their product and later collecting the money.
The airship is filled with helium. On one hand, it is a waste of a relatively rare gas, on another hand helium can suffocate passengers in case of a leak - and helium just loves to leak.
Are the passengers aware that airships and storms do not mix? An airplane can avoid the storm by flying around. An airship is too slow to move aside in time.
Do the passengers of the airship have time that it takes to cross today's commercial distances (London to Paris, or London to Beijing) if they complain of long flights on turbojet airplanes?
In other words, what is the selling point here?
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday January 15 2019, @08:32AM
And why not? The safety record in absolute values are highly in favor of airships - just compare the number of dead passengers in blimp accidents vs plane accidents (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:19PM
It broke away from its mooring mast while not in use, triggering an emergency deflation mechanism (BBC [bbc.co.uk]). I'm not going to argue the toss as to whether or not that counts as "crashing" but its not like it fell out of the sky during a flight.
Presumably, it will be more fuel-efficient and hence cheaper for short hops, get you closer to your destination because it doesn't need a 2 mile runway, and potentially more spacious and comfortable for long-haul flights (sadly, commercial pressure probably means that they'll still pack 'em in like sardines).
...and if the passenger compartment on a regular aircraft leaks at altitude you'll either suffocate from lack of oxygen or get poisoned by jet exhaust. Not leaking is definitely something to look for in any aircraft. At least helium tends to head straight up when it does leak, and the passenger compartment is usually towards the bottom, and if it does get in, the way that everybody suddenly starts talking like a cartoon chipmunk is a good cue to reach for the oxygen mask...
Plus, lots of people happily travel on things called boats which literally float in dihydrogen monoxide - well established as one of the most lethal substances known to man (just google it). For that matter, oxygen is pretty nasty stuff, too. Hell, anything is dangerous if too much of it turns up in the wrong place.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 15 2019, @03:09PM (2 children)
I would. It would be like taking a cruise in the sky. Your cabin would have a window to look down on the Earth. 747s fly too high and you see nothing. Zeppelins can fly anywhere jets can, so they can take any route.
Also, in Cappadocia they make a good business of taking people up in hot air balloons to fly over the amazing landscape. Airships could to the same thing, better.
It looks like at the cruising speed of the Airlander it would take 38 hours to fly from New York to London. Not bad, if you look at it like a cruise instead of a cattle car, which jets are. In airships you can get up and walk around like you would on a train. To me that's a much more civilized way to travel.
Apart from carrying people, airships can perform more utilitarian roles. Firefighting is one. Surveillance is another. Transporting cargo to inland destinations is another.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @04:18PM (1 child)
Would an airship function in the updraft from a large fire? That seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:55AM
An airship of sufficient size could circle the fire at slow speed, dousing the flames with water or fire retardant. In forest fires choppers can hover and accurately deliver a spray, but they can't carry that much. Planes can carry much more, but it's easy for them to miss their target.
Moreover, an airship can dwell over a swathe of wilderness for extended times the way planes and choppers can't, without expending tremendous quantities of fuel. They can be on station to jump on top of lightning strikes or other incipient forest fires, so that they don't build to conflagrations that require thousands to put out.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday January 15 2019, @12:07PM
In the main article and as a photo caption: "The original mode cost £25 million to produce and was sued as a surveillance aircraft by the US army, before HAV bought it for civilian use."
s/mode/model/
s/sued/used/