You are not logged in.
For SpaceNut ...
There did not appear to be a topic dedicated to collection of news/insights/reports about lighter than air (atmosphere) aircraft
There ** are ** posts about such vehicles scattered throughout the forum.
This topic is set up for anyone who might wish to collect some of those posts in a single location.
I am particularly interested in seeing updates on the British "Bums" vehicle. It was developed in the United States and then transferred to Britain, where it has made a couple test flights, including one that ended with the nose plowing into the countryside at a modest pace.
The design featured two side-by-side gas envelopes, and lots of engines for steering and for attitude control.
I'd like to see it succeed in the real world, and would appreciate anyone reporting if they happen across updates.
A recent discussion about how to move large and bulky structures from factory to end site is the impetus for creation of this new topic.
Lighter-than-air aircraft would be ideal for moving such structures, if issues of stability and dealing with weather can be solved.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For lighter-than-air, weather is always the "killer" issue. Nearly every blimp or dirigible loss all the way back to WW1 traces in one way or another to weather, even the Hindenburg. Only a few were shot down.
There's winds, there's lightning strikes, and there's static electricity building up and arcing to cause fires (Hindenburg). But especially winds: the Macon, the Los Angeles, and many others.
When I was young, I used to see some military dirigibles and blimps flying around (US Navy stuff). They were still common in the 1950's. Not so much in the 1960's. Just the Goodyear blimps at the football games.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-09-28 12:01:26)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
The blimp in question is, IIRC, slightly heavier than air, and relies upon thrust and/or forward momentum generating aerodynamic lift to ameliorate some of the control issues of true lighter than air blimps / dirigibles. I could see blimps carrying bulky but light cargo in fair weather (package transfer between Amazon warehouses, faster than road travel but with similar fuel burn, being point-to-point and not dependent upon local road traffic conditions, but only just), possibly hanging wind turbine blades, and serving as low-speed military mass transport for troops or oversized cargo, since so much less fuel is required than jet aircraft reliant upon aerodynamic lift and high speeds for flight. Load distribution for the type of blimp in question is still very critical for maintaining positive control over the vehicle, since it's essentially a very large / very-high-aspect low-speed wing.
Offline
Like button can go here
For kbd512 re #3
Thanks for your assessment of the potential of 21st Century lighter than air aircraft.
The web page at the link below indicates the company is in no hurry...
https://www.designboom.com/technology/l … 9-13-2021/
2025 is the current target date for passenger service.
My impression is that a lighter-than-air vehicle may be as difficult to fly as the B1/B2 bombers .... It is possible that modern computer controls might be able to overcome the difficulties that GW Johnson listed.
The issue of dealing with atmosphere (as pointed out by both GW Johnson and kbd512) is challenging, but it may be possible to deal with atmosphere using modern control techniques..
The ** real ** test would be to send one of these out as a Hurricane Tracker.
Military aircraft are speciallly fitted with suitable engines and propellers to deal with the inside of hurricane walls.
I would expect a lighter-than-air version of such a vehicle would have to go with the flow of the eye wall, while crabbing toward the eye.
Still, that is an interesting challenge for the engineers.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Well you just added mass for the electrical need so unless it doubles as a structural need then its going to get heavier...
https://eijournal.com/news/industry-ins … challenges
Offline
Like button can go here
The current hurricane hunter aircraft are all Navy P-3's. Those are modified and refurbished 1950-vintage turboprop airliners called Lockheed Electra-2. It's the same engines and props on the P-3 as were on the Electra-2 (which I rode many times).
They had to solve a wing spar cracking problem in the 1960's to serve as airliners in the 1960's and early 70's, until jets took over. The "fix" must have worked, because the P-3's no longer shed wings, even when flying into hurricanes. There's not a one of these airframes less than 60 years old.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
For Gw Johnson re #6
Thanks for the background on the hurricane hunter aircraft! The Weather Channel often shows lengthy video of the crew operating these sturdy aircraft during hurricane season. Somewhere along the line, in watching one of those videos, I picked up the impression the propellers are designed for the mission.
They do not look like ordinary commercial propellers, but instead have a much deeper structure and more pronounced curvature.
If you happen to have run across any information about them, I'd be happy to see it, even though (as often happens) we hve drifted slightly off topic.
If a lighter-than-air vehicle ** is ** able to perform the hurricane hunter mission, I would imagine the propellers would be modeled on the ones used by the P-3's.
Update at 13:51 local time .... (after post by GW Johnson)
SearchTerm:propeller paddle wheel design for turboprop engines ... see GW Johnson below this post
SearchTerm:Paddle wheel propeller for hurricane hunter aircraft
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Those are just wide "paddle" blades. Some versions of the C-130 had them, too. They were pretty common on the large turboprop aircraft. The greater blade area raised disk solidity, letting it absorb more power for a given diameter. Those turboprop engines were a whole lot more powerful than the recip engines they replaced, pound for pound. I think the Canadair 215-415 family of fire-fighting seaplanes has similar engines and propellers.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
For lighter-than-air, weather is always the "killer" issue. Nearly every blimp or dirigible loss all the way back to WW1 traces in one way or another to weather, even the Hindenburg. Only a few were shot down.
There's winds, there's lightning strikes, and there's static electricity building up and arcing to cause fires (Hindenburg). But especially winds: the Macon, the Los Angeles, and many others.
When I was young, I used to see some military dirigibles and blimps flying around (US Navy stuff). They were still common in the 1950's. Not so much in the 1960's. Just the Goodyear blimps at the football games.
GW
One of my Grandmother's old friends, died several years back at over a hundred years old. I spoke to her shortly before she went into a nursing home. She had lived on the North Kent marshes all of her life and as a little girl she remembered seeing a Zeppelin flying up the Thames towards London. It is amazing how much has changed in 100 years.
Rigid airships rely upon non-pressurised gas cells containing hydrogen or helium to produce lift. These are tied at various points to a surrounding an aluminium alloy frame, which provides rigidity and maintains the shape of the ship. The frame is shrouded by an outer fabric cover. They have the advantage that they can be aerodynamic, with a low drag coefficient and don't distort when flying into the wind. But there were a lot of problems at the time due to materials limitations. Hydrogen is the most well known problem. Whilst the Americans used helium, for mass usage of the airship there really isn't any alternative to hydrogen. Helium is simply not abundant enough for more than a few proof of concept vehicles. Hydrogen can be vented from gas cells when they reach pressure height and simply topped up at the beginning of each journey. Helium must be conserved and expensively purified. No other gas can provide sufficient lift to be useful. So hydrogen it must be.
A bigger problem was that the aluminium frame had relatively high dead weight which consumed a lot of the static lift. This prompted attempts to reduce design factors, that ultimately led to the failure of many airships due to metal fatigue. This is how the Macron met its end. The British R101 attempted to substitute aluminium with high-strength steel. This reduced the fatigue problem but left the ship with too much structural weight to really be practical as anything other than a demonstration ship. The poor state of materials science in the 1930s, introduced a lot of problems that were intractable at the time. Polymers were new and not readily available. The outer covers of airships were made of cotton, as were the gas cells. This lost strength when wet and also tended to rot, making it unsuitable for an exterior cover that had to stand up to wind loadings. The gas cell were lined with Gold Beaters Skin, made from the intestinal linings of cattle. This reduced hydrogen leakage, but became brittle and leaked as it aged.
The R101 disaster occurred during a flight from England to India, during a stormy night. The wind ripped open the outer cover (which had rotted) and when pushed hydrogen out of the fwd gas cells, leading to a sudden loss of lift. The ship impacted the ground and caught fire when the diesel engines were pushed into body of the ship, igniting the gas cells.
The Hindenburg fire was caused when a bracing cable snapped during a sharp turn coming in to land. The cable slashed open a gas cell, releasing hydrogen which was then ignited by St Elmos fire (static electricity) on the outer casing when the ship was earthed to the ground.
Hydrogen filled rigid airships could make a limited come back as a means of passenger transportation as fossil fuels deplete. As a medium range transportation option, they compare to rail in terms of energy efficiency. Modern polymers, maraging steels, carbon and glass fibres, would all be useful in making the frames, gas cells and outer cover stronger and safer. The more intractable problem is low speed. Realistically, airships have a speed limit of 100mph, which is reduced substantially when the wind is against them. Low speed is an economic killer, because it means fewer passenger miles per year. An airship that is six times slower than a 747 therefore has a tough economic problem to overcome. They could usefully provide regional transportation over Europe or internal flights in North America. They do not require runways and can land on unimproved terrain. British efforts perfected the mooring tower.
The problem with using airships for trans-Atlantic travel is that typical crossing times for the Hindenburg were 48 hours. If people are on an aircraft that long, they want sleeping facilities, dining facilities and space to stretch their legs. That all adds up to a huge weight burden that would make a trans Atlantic airship flight considerably more expensive than Concord and about 15 times slower. A 747 gets there faster for less money. But if you needed to fly from London to Paris, say, or New York to Washington, a technologically upgraded rigid airship could do the job.
Not a workable option at all on Mars. No rigid airship could ever be light enough in the thin Martian atmosphere. However, high tensile polymer balloons filled with hydrogen, could be useful tools for exploring Mars. A one or two man team, equipped with electric motor bikes, could use a balloon to carry them to different locations on the planet, using the wind. No propulsion or fuel need be carried. Buoyancy could be adjusted by adding and venting hydrogen. The balloon need not be pressurised, but would need to be strong enough to resist buoyant forces.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-09-30 14:17:53)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
Flying on Mars using some kind of Aircraft, Helicopter, Dirigibles or Balloons this discussion is back in the socila media news with JPL NASA's Ingenuity Helicopter with Mystery Cloth Debris Stuck to Its Leg?
A Mars aircraft is a vehicle capable of sustaining powered flight in the atmosphere of Mars.
Ingenuity Mars helicopter soars on 32nd flight
https://www.space.com/mars-helicopter-i … -flight-32
The USA with JPL NASA was first to fly on Mars, Ingenuity, nicknamed Ginny, is a robotic coaxial rotor helicopter operating on Mars as part of NASA's Mars 2020 mission along with Perseverance Rover, no other craft has yet to fly on Mars.
Sky-Sailor was a concept for a robotic aircraft with embedded solar cells on its wings, conceived in 2004 by the Swiss.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg … n-on-mars/
Most aerobot concepts were based on aerostats, primarily balloons, but occasionally airships. Flying above obstructions in the winds, a balloon could explore large regions of a planet in detail for relatively low cost. Airplanes for planetary exploration were also proposed.
The Russian Soviets during the days of the USSR had a Vega program, two balloon aerobots were designed to float at 54 km (34 mi) from the surface, in the most active layer of the Venusian cloud system. A cooperative effort among the Soviet Union and Austria, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Federal Republic of Germany to explore Comets and the planet Venus, it seems to be a separate mission to the overall Venus exploration of the Soviet Venera program.
NASA's concept for the Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey (ARES) was a proposal by NASA's Langley Research Center to build a robotic, rocket-powered airplane that would fly one mile above the surface of Mars.
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocio/ittal … rNASA.html
Another spaceplane Aerial Vehicle for In situ and Airborne Titan Reconnaissance an idea developed in 2011 by a team of scientists at the University of Idaho. Development was suspended indefinitely and the original design called for a 120 kg (260 lb) airplane powered by an advanced Stirling radioisotope generator. http://www.universetoday.com/92286/avia … for-titan/
On another world Titan, closer to the nature of a Planet than a Moon, Dragonfly will fy. Dragonfly a planned spacecraft robotic NASA mission, which will send a robotic rotorcraft to the surface of Titan, it will expand upon the Cassini mission, Dragonfly will study and explore the largest Moon of the Saturn system.
Some other news items
Giant balloon to float through Martian atmosphere
http://new.www.esa.int/Enabling_Support … atmosphere
Back in 2001
'jimharris submitted a bunch of links about flying on Mars'
https://science.slashdot.org/story/01/1 … ng-on-mars
It's a beautiful challenge - how to fly in a situation where everything you "know" about flight is wrong.
Martian Balloons
https://scienceblogs.com/principles/200 … n-balloons
old news from 1999
A Zeppelin for Mars exploration proposed by the students at Alpbach Summer School 1999
https://sci.esa.int/web/mars-express/-/ … chool-1999
Students at the annual Alpbach Summer School on Space Research and Technology proposed the use of a Zeppelin as a highly versatile vehicle to explore Mars. Space scientists so far had concentrated their efforts on rovers, balloons or planes - i.e. systems that are bound to the surface, free-flying but not steerable or too fast for detailed local investigations.
The new idea of using a Zeppelin provides three-dimensional steering and a choice between sejourning at a given, interesting place and traveling for surveying the landscape or to go to another location. A Zepplin is specially useful to study the so-called Mars dichotomy, a seven kilometer high wall, which gives access for the study of many geological layers, which otherwise could only be studied by deep Martian drilling.
Old new mars forums discussion
'Hindenburg'
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=936
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-10-04 06:03:48)
Offline
Like button can go here
TARS or Tethered Aerostat Radar System
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assumed responsibility the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) project and its funding since fiscal year 2014.
pdf
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/si … ummary.pdf
Sky Dew or Tal Shamayim is a high altitude missile defense aerostat used by Israel Defence Forces
Balloons
safety issues?
Chilling moment man in hot air balloon admires view moments before falling 1,500ft to his death
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new … r-32389176
It’s hard to catch MeV gamma-ray signals from space! But the Electron-Tracking Compton Camera could the savior!
https://www.isas.jaxa.jp/home/research- … 2024/0226/
Image of cosmic MeV gamma-ray observation using a scientific balloon. The ETCC is mounted inside the gondola. At an altitude of about 40 km, various background events such as cosmic rays, their secondary particles, and atmospheric gamma rays enter the detector.
Offline
Like button can go here
This post is to report follow up on a report by RGClark about the results of a competition to create personal aircraft. The competition was sponsored by Boeing, and teams from around the world took part. The winning teams all used modern electric motors to move air rapidly. None used lighter-than-air technology.
Years ago I ran across a book that gave a history of flight, from the first balloons in France. Today I decided to see what might be available along that line, and found a book on offer from Amazon (a used library book), so I ordered a copy. I'll report more when the book arrives. I am hoping that at least one NewMars member will be interested in working out the details of how a modern set of electric equipment might be paired with the very early lighter-than-air airship designs, to provide a low cost, safe, reliable lighter-than-air vehicle that could stay aloft for hours or days if need be.
Here is a quote from the Amazon page:
In Stock
Quantity:
Quantity:1
Famous Dirigibles: The History and Legacy of Lighter than Air Vehicles from the Renaissance to TodayFamous Dirigibles: The History and Legacy of Lighter than Air Vehicles from the Renaissance to Today Paperback – Large Print, August 12, 2019
by Charles River Editors (Author)See all formats and editions
*Includes pictures
*Includes a bibliography for further readingThe Wright Brothers initially underestimated the difficulties involved in flying, and they were apparently surprised by the fact that so many others were working on solving the “problem of human flight” already. Decades before their own historic plane would end up in the National Air & Space Museum, Wilbur and Orville asked the Smithsonian for reading materials and brushed up on everything from the works of their contemporaries to Leonardo Da Vinci. Undeterred by the work, and the fact that several would-be pioneers died in crashes trying to control gliders, the Wright Brothers tested out gliding at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina for several years, working to perfect pilot control before trying powered flight.
In December 1903, the brothers had done enough scientific work with concepts like lift to help their aeronautical designs, and they had the technical know-how to work with engines. On December 17, the brothers took turns making history’s first successful powered flights. The fourth and final flight lasted nearly a minute and covered nearly 900 feet. The Wright Flyer I had just made history, and minutes later it would be permanently damaged after wind gusts tipped it over; it would never fly again.
A decade later, aircraft appeared in the skies over the battlefields of World War I, but they did not represent a complete novelty in warfare either, at least not during the early months of World War I. While airplanes had never before appeared above the field of war, other aerial vehicles had already been in use for decades, and balloons had carried soldiers above the landscape for centuries to provide a high observation point superior to most geological features. The French used a balloon for this purpose at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, and by the American Civil War, military hydrogen balloons saw frequent use, filled from wagons generating hydrogen from iron filings and sulfuric acid. The balloonist Thaddeus Lowe persuaded President Abraham Lincoln to use the airships for observation, communicating troop movements to the ground with a telegraph wire. Lowe himself reported, “A hawk hovering above a chicken yard could not have caused more commotion than did my balloons when they appeared before Yorktown.” (Holmes, 2013, 251). The Confederates agreed with this assessment: “At Yorktown, when almost daily ascensions were made, our camp, batteries, field works and all defenses were plain to the vision of the occupants of the balloons. […] The balloon ascensions excited us more than all the outpost attacks.”
Indeed, with advances in dirigible technology, many military thinkers and even aeronautical enthusiasts believed that blimps would remain the chief military aerial asset more or less forever. These men thought airplanes would play a secondary role at best, and that they might even prove a uselessly expensive gimmick soon to fade back into obscurity, leaving the majestic bulk of the dirigible as sole master of the skies. While this obviously did not prove true, dirigibles proved popular in a variety of different ways throughout the 20th century, and they continued to be complements even as airplane technologies rapidly advanced.
Famous Dirigibles: The History and Legacy of Lighter than Air Vehicles from the Renaissance to Today looks at the development of the balloons and airships, and how they were primarily used. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about dirigibles like never before.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Thanks to Calliban for Post #9, with details of how modern materials might help to improve the practicality of lighter-than-air vehicles.
The personal transport option does not seem to come up in this forum, for whatever reason. In the early days of human flight, personal transport was the ** only ** option. It was much later that entrepreneurs began building to try to earn income from these vehicles, and those efforts required much greater size than is needed for personal transport.
A lighter-than-air vehicle for use in the United States would have to pass the same certifications that the Goodyear Blimp must pass, and perhaps additional ones if passenger service is intended.
I like the sounds of some of kbd512's reports in advances in use of carbon to make fabrics and structural members.
The cautions of GW Johnson about wind and electricity are worth keeping in mind, for any developments along these lines.
A metal conducting body (such as those enclosing aircraft fuselage) appears to be a safety factor for electrical imbalance in the atmosphere. Perhaps an ultra-thin exterior covering of aluminum would protect a lighter-than-air vehicle from some electrical dangers.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
The Hindenburg did not catch fire and crash because of the hydrogen, it caught fire from a static spark near a thunderstorm, because its fabric covering was a nitrate (!!!) dope (mostly nitrocellulose in solution) whose colorant was a low-grade off-mixture thermite. The hydrogen just made the fire a bit brighter. But the same crash-and-burn would have occurred had it been filled with helium! And the insurance company in Germany that insured it, knew that, way back in 1937 right after the crash, but kept that secret for decades.
The US Navy had some big Hindenburg-class airships using helium: the Shenandoah, the Akron, and the Macon. All were eventually destroyed by the high winds associated with violent thunderstorms. Torn apart and crashed, but not burned. Such storms are common all over North America, one of the stormiest places there is, for such violent thunderstorms. But not the only place where they occur.
The Navy had a better track record with its semi-rigid and much-smaller blimps. Fewer of these were destroyed by storms, mostly by the simple expedient of staying the hell away from storms. The commercial Goodyear blimps are similar in size and construction.
The lesson of history there is two-fold: stay smaller with the semi-rigid blimp design which is more maneuverable, and (2) stay well clear of stormy weather.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
As a follow up to GW Johnson's post #14, I asked Google to see what it could find about Goodyear blimp flight planning. I was surprised to learn that (apparently) is is possible to schedule a flight with a blimp. The response makes clear how significant weather planning is for blimp pilots. While the subject did not come up in the report, I suspect that all Goodyear blimps are housed in hangers when they are not scheduled for a flight.
Goodyear blimp pilots plan each flight by meticulously monitoring weather conditions along their intended flight path, considering wind direction and speed as the primary factor, as blimps are highly dependent on wind for navigation, essentially "drifting" with it; they also need to account for the weight of passengers and cargo, adjusting ballast as needed, and coordinating with ground crews for take-off and landing locations, all while adhering to airspace regulations and limitations unique to airships.
Key elements of Goodyear blimp flight planning:Weather analysis: Detailed weather forecasting is crucial, focusing on wind speed and direction at different altitudes along the flight path to optimize the flight and avoid turbulent conditions.
Wind management: Pilots strategically use wind to their advantage, positioning the blimp to "ride" with the wind for efficient travel.
Payload adjustment: Calculating the total weight of passengers and cargo to ensure the blimp remains within safe lift capacity.
Flight path selection: Choosing a route that takes into account wind patterns, airspace restrictions, and desired landmarks for spectators.
Ground crew coordination: Communicating with ground crew to identify suitable take-off and landing sites, including wind direction at the landing area.Airspace coordination: Obtaining necessary air traffic control clearances for the blimp's unique flight profile.
Important points to remember about blimp piloting:Not like airplanes: Unlike airplanes, blimps cannot "fight" against strong winds, making weather awareness paramount.
Slow speed: Blimps travel at relatively slow speeds, meaning flight plans need to account for longer travel times.
Visual flight rules: Blimp pilots primarily rely on visual references for navigation, rather than complex instruments.
Passenger Guide - Goodyear Blimp
The Goodyear Blimp has a varying lift capacity (depending on weather conditions). Therefore the pilot may need to reconfigure pass...goodyearblimp.com
Inside the Goodyear Blimp - YouTube
we use a wheel. ... the pilot helps them out a little bit wearing radio contact via our headsets. ... so it's a huge coordinated e...youtube.com
Information About Blimps | Goodyear
The new Blimp has an "inverted Y" configuration at the tail, and the fin control surfaces operate in tandem as "ruddervators" for ...Passenger Guide - Goodyear Blimp
https://www.goodyearblimp.com › passenger-guide
Passengers must schedule their flight prior to the expiration date stated on the Blimp flight certificate. ... to pre-schedule the appropriate number of people ...
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
I asked Google how to fly on the Goodyear blimp.... it turns out that Goodyear ** does ** fly passengers, by invitation only.
In Quora, Google found a report by a gent who built his own airship, and was in the right place at the right time to catch a free ride:
Frank E. Rider
Built a 30,000 cu ft, twin engine, vectored thrust, single seat airship. SkyRider Airships.Author has 584 answers and 1.4M answer viewsUpdated 6y
It will be tough. They turn away millions of requests each year.About 25 years ago I was in Southern California and wanted to see the Goodyear Blimp. I drove out to Carson, parked the car and walked over near the office but did not go in. I stood on the edge of the landing field completely out of the way of anything or anyone. I was dressed in a suit. I never said a single word to anyone.
The blimp would come in and land and the staff would bring about eight people out of the office, escort them out to the landed airship, unload the current passengers and take them back to the office and load the new passengers. Then the blimp would take off for about a half hour trip.
I knew that Goodyear didn't give out rides so I wasn't even going to ask. I was content to watch the ground crew handle the airship. It is quite an operation. I had already been in about eight different airships, sat at the flight controls of all of them. I'd been in a Goodyear blimp three times. AND I had built and flown my own blimp, but no one there knew that.
I stood and watched the blimp come and go taking new passengers for over two hours still with no interaction with anyone. When suddenly a staff member came up to me put his hand on my shoulder and simply said "Today is your lucky day."
He said that one of the VIPs that was scheduled to ride had not shown up and I could take his place on the next flight in five minutes. I said "Thank you" and flew on the next flight. Those were the only two words I said until I got on the airship.
To answer your question, be intentional and lucky.
40.9K viewsView upvotesView 1 share
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
The web site at the link below shows one of the ships designed, built, flown and sold by Frank Rider.
https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads … verted.pdf
The images provided in this web site show what a minimal one person lighter-than-air vehicle would look like. According to the text at the site, the vehicle passed all FAA certifications and was sold to a customer in Tennessee. The vehicle remained registered for a number of years afterward.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here