Biplanes and Triplanes were the best !

[Alberto Panno-Peano]

I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.

I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !

I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alberto Panno-Peano" > wrote in message
om...
> I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.
>
> I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !
>
> I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !


Score on Trollmeter

1/10 - Very Poor Effort

Keith

[James Linn]

"Alberto Panno-Peano" > wrote in message
om...
> I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.
>
> I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !
>
> I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !

Saw an interesting documentary on Discovery channel called Great Military
Clashes. The episode focused on WWI, and started with the German Howitzer
versus the British 18 pounder field gun.

The second half was the Fokker triplane versus Sopwith Camel. In the end it
came down to speed - the drag of three wings of the triplane limited the
designs speed. It had an advantage in climb and turning, but speed is life.
The wings also made take off and landing difficult as they blocked the view
of the runway. The red baron was a superb pilot who could make the most of
his airplane.

Interestingly enough they speculated that the Fokker was inspired by an
earlier Sopwith Triplane, which didn't have as man vices in the visibility
department. But it was abandoned in favour of the biplane because of speed.

James Linn

[Alan Minyard]

On 18 Jan 2004 02:01:52 -0800, (Alberto Panno-Peano) wrote:

>I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.
>
>I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !
>
>I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !

That's nice.

Al Minyard

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Jan 2004 02:01:52 -0800, (Alberto Panno-Peano) wrote:
>
> >I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.

You should have just said were some of the best planes ever made. No
argument there. Lots of civilian pilots fly WW1 replicas and they are
crowd pleasers. My fave, contrary to what the RAM anti-German fanatics
think I will say, is NOT the Fokker D.VII. I always liked the Albatros
D.Va even with the annoying wing strut problem. If I had the money I'd
buy one today and paint it up the way they did back then.
> >
> >I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !

Sorry, not even Erich Hartmann with 352 kills would score with a
Me-109 today. We'll have to wait for WW3 and see if the Germans will
invent new aircraft firing "swarmers" (aka KKVs: Kinetic Kill
Vehicles) that will down 10-12 enemy aircraft at a time. Wouldn't that
be interesting? 35 missions and a new top ace is born!!! (Just a JOKE
guys, so don't even think about flaming)...
> >
> >I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !

The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.
>
> That's nice.

My God, YES it would be nice Al!
>
> Al Minyard

Rob

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2004 02:01:52 -0800, (Alberto Panno-Peano) wrote:
>
>>I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.
>>
>>I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !
>>
>>I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !
>
>That's nice.

Doesn't even produce a twitch of the trollometer needle. I don't
reckon this one has a bridge yet. Perhaps a culvert. Or a drain.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Stephen Harding]

robert arndt wrote:

> The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
> arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
> absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
> Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.

Especially traveling at mach 2!

Is there no end to advanced German technical achievement?


SMH

[sddso]

Closeup examination of the Dr.1 at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome indicates
that its main airfoils had far less wire bracing than any Sopwith design
(can't recall if Rhinebeck has a Camel or not at the moment). Were the
differences in parasitic drag enough to cause difference in max
attainable speed?

Memory suggests that Rhinebeck's airframes are as faithful to original
as can be found anywhere.

James Linn wrote:

> "Alberto Panno-Peano" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.
>>
>>I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !
>>
>>I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !
>
>
> Saw an interesting documentary on Discovery channel called Great Military
> Clashes. The episode focused on WWI, and started with the German Howitzer
> versus the British 18 pounder field gun.
>
> The second half was the Fokker triplane versus Sopwith Camel. In the end it
> came down to speed - the drag of three wings of the triplane limited the
> designs speed. It had an advantage in climb and turning, but speed is life.
> The wings also made take off and landing difficult as they blocked the view
> of the runway. The red baron was a superb pilot who could make the most of
> his airplane.
>
> Interestingly enough they speculated that the Fokker was inspired by an
> earlier Sopwith Triplane, which didn't have as man vices in the visibility
> department. But it was abandoned in favour of the biplane because of speed.
>
> James Linn
>
>

[James Linn]

"sddso" > wrote in message
...
> Closeup examination of the Dr.1 at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome indicates
> that its main airfoils had far less wire bracing than any Sopwith design
> (can't recall if Rhinebeck has a Camel or not at the moment). Were the
> differences in parasitic drag enough to cause difference in max
> attainable speed?
>
> Memory suggests that Rhinebeck's airframes are as faithful to original
> as can be found anywhere.
>

As discussed in the program, the wires did make the Sopwith more vulnerable
to enemy fire.

But the limiting factor in the design was the drag of three wings. Sopwith
had realised this and not gone into big production with their triplane.

Saw yesterday the same show regarding battle of Britain, and the same
visibility situations existed to an extent. The ME 109 had a blind spot
above the pilots head(fixed on later versions), where as the Spitfire had
excellent visibility.

The show basically had the contest as dead even - they preferred fuel
injection to the Spits carbs, and the ME-109's cannons(did an experiment
with aircraft aluminum at 200 yards, showing the big difference), but
penalised the 109 on visibility and range.

James Linn

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Alberto Panno-Peano" > wrote in message
om...
>> I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made.
>>
>> I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane !
>>
>> I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes !
>
>
>Score on Trollmeter
>
>1/10 - Very Poor Effort
>
>Keith
>
C'mon Keith!...he's just starting out, cut him some slack
here!...
--

-Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>

> >Score on Trollmeter
> >
> >1/10 - Very Poor Effort
> >
> >Keith
> >
> C'mon Keith!...he's just starting out, cut him some slack
> here!...

Than he should be using the practise forum, alt.disasters.aviation :)

Keith

[robert arndt]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
> > arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
> > absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
> > Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.
>
> Especially traveling at mach 2!
>
> Is there no end to advanced German technical achievement?
>
>
> SMH

Hey Steve,

Notice how I said "from around the world"? Here's a site with airship
companies around the world:

http://www.myairship.com/

Don' you feel like an ass? You should.

BTW, the Hindenburg predated the Concorde by 3 decades and although it
couldn't do Mach 2 it sure was the largest thing in the air-ever, with
a spectacular view and luxury accomodations that won't fit on any
airliner. The 747 and A380 are gnats compared to that giant. In fact,
the Hindenburg was taller than most skyscrapers of the time.
Many people around the world want a come-back for the huge airships
and Lockheed is rumored to already operate a massive stealth airship
for surveillance. So what's your problem Steve?
I actually would like to see both a new Concorde and the Zeppelin
return.

Rob

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
>Stephen Harding > wrote in message
>...
>> robert arndt wrote:
>>
>> > The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
>> > arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
>> > absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
>> > Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.
>>
>> Especially traveling at mach 2!
>>
>> Is there no end to advanced German technical achievement?
>>
>>
>> SMH
>
>Hey Steve,
>
>Notice how I said "from around the world"? Here's a site with airship
>companies around the world:
>
>http://www.myairship.com/
>
>Don' you feel like an ass? You should.
>
>BTW, the Hindenburg predated the Concorde by 3 decades and although it
>couldn't do Mach 2 it sure was the largest thing in the air-ever, with
>a spectacular view and luxury accomodations that won't fit on any
>airliner. The 747 and A380 are gnats compared to that giant. In fact,
>the Hindenburg was taller than most skyscrapers of the time.
>Many people around the world want a come-back for the huge airships
>and Lockheed is rumored to already operate a massive stealth airship
>for surveillance. So what's your problem Steve?
>I actually would like to see both a new Concorde and the Zeppelin
>return.

Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Mike Marron]

>"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
>the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
>opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
>proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!

My sentiments exactly. Air travel these days is an incredibly
dehumanizing experience.

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...

>
> Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
> the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
> opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
> proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!
>

Which was fine if you were one of the 1% of the population
who could afford the fare. That same 1% today travels in
pretty good style up in first class.

In the 30's we mere mortals would have been fortunate
to travel in steerage class packed like sardines for 6 days
instead of 6 hours.

Keith

[Jim Doyle]

"James Linn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sddso" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Closeup examination of the Dr.1 at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome indicates
> > that its main airfoils had far less wire bracing than any Sopwith design
> > (can't recall if Rhinebeck has a Camel or not at the moment). Were the
> > differences in parasitic drag enough to cause difference in max
> > attainable speed?
> >
> > Memory suggests that Rhinebeck's airframes are as faithful to original
> > as can be found anywhere.
> >
>
> As discussed in the program, the wires did make the Sopwith more
vulnerable
> to enemy fire.
>
> But the limiting factor in the design was the drag of three wings. Sopwith
> had realised this and not gone into big production with their triplane.
>

With the Dr-1 the wing structure was completely internal (it was a
cantilever design) which removed the conventional wire bracing and the
associated high drag. For this reason the Dr-1 had one of the best zero-lift
drag co-efficients of the war.



What's most important is the first use of thick aerofoil sections, based on
the work of Prandtl's Gotteingen laboratory in '17. These were proved
superior over the thin aerofoils used by the Allies, who were plagued with
the associated poor high-lift characteristics of slender aerofoils. The
Dr-1's thick aerofoil gave the lil' Fokker a tremendously high rate of climb
and enhanced manoeuvrability; Sopwith were just simply barking up the wrong
tree.



Anyway, Sopwith's preference for thin aerofoils is based on birds having
similarly slender wing cross-sections, so they weren't even barking.



The D-VII's excellent performance (also due to its high t/c) made it so
respected by the allies that it was the only aircraft to be specifically
listed in the armistice (article IV). Just goes to show how much a couple of
inches on the thickness of a main spar can go a long way!





Jim Doyle

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
>> the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
>> opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
>> proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!
>>
>
>Which was fine if you were one of the 1% of the population
>who could afford the fare. That same 1% today travels in
>pretty good style up in first class.
>
>In the 30's we mere mortals would have been fortunate
>to travel in steerage class packed like sardines for 6 days
>instead of 6 hours.

Spoilsport. One can always hope.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Stephen Harding]

robert arndt wrote:
> Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
>
>>robert arndt wrote:
>>
>>>The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
>>>arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
>>>absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
>>>Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.
>>
>>Especially traveling at mach 2!
>>
>>Is there no end to advanced German technical achievement?
>>
>
> Notice how I said "from around the world"? Here's a site with airship
> companies around the world:
>
> http://www.myairship.com/
>
> Don' you feel like an ass? You should.

I'm quite familiar with some plans in he US and UK to reintroduce
airships. I actually would like the plans to succeed. Seems like
a great way to fly.

As to feeling like an ass? Not particularly.

It's always difficult portraying humor in a NG when you refuse
to use little smiley faces to explicitly convey intent.

You clearly don't find what I wrote as amusing. C'est la vie.
Doesn't make me an ass because you don't recognize my sense of
humor.

> BTW, the Hindenburg predated the Concorde by 3 decades and although it
> couldn't do Mach 2 it sure was the largest thing in the air-ever, with
> a spectacular view and luxury accomodations that won't fit on any
> airliner. The 747 and A380 are gnats compared to that giant. In fact,
> the Hindenburg was taller than most skyscrapers of the time.
> Many people around the world want a come-back for the huge airships
> and Lockheed is rumored to already operate a massive stealth airship
> for surveillance. So what's your problem Steve?

Your lack of humor apparently. Or at least meshing with mine.

> I actually would like to see both a new Concorde and the Zeppelin
> return.

What's it going to cost?

We can travel to Europe via QE2 (guess that's QM2 now). It costs
a bundle. Similar service in the air won't be cheap. On the Concorde,
you paid top dollar for the speed. On the Hindenburg II, it will be
for the high level of service.

Will many be able to afford it, assuming they *want* it to begin with?
Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
airship trait. (Airships could get right into a city destination,
eliminating the drive from the airport, which can be attractive).

But just as there are ocean cruises that are the purpose all to
themselves, I suppose there could be airship "cruises" as well. It
would be neat if it isn't prohibitively expensive.

And lighten up, OK?


SMH

[Mike Marron]

> Stephen Harding > wrote:

>Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
>get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
>airship trait.

Why not commercial ground-effect vehicles (i.e: "Caspian Sea
Monsters") that theoretically could make transatlantic trips
at approximately .5 mach economically, safely and luxuriously?

http://www.att-nn.com/ENGL/MPE.htm

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> >Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
> >get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
> >airship trait.
>
> Why not commercial ground-effect vehicles (i.e: "Caspian Sea
> Monsters") that theoretically could make transatlantic trips
> at approximately .5 mach economically, safely and luxuriously?
>
> http://www.att-nn.com/ENGL/MPE.htm


Those ae fine in low wave states but the notion of doing that
speed in the North Atlantic is not attractive, a large wave
could have serious effects on your health.

Keith

[Mike Marron]

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>>>Stephen Harding > wrote:

>>>Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
>>>get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
>>>airship trait.

>>Why not commercial ground-effect vehicles (i.e: "Caspian Sea
>>Monsters") that theoretically could make transatlantic trips
>>at approximately .5 mach economically, safely and luxuriously?

>>http://www.att-nn.com/ENGL/MPE.htm

>Those ae fine in low wave states but the notion of doing that
>speed in the North Atlantic is not attractive, a large wave
>could have serious effects on your health.

I could be wrong, but aren't these humongous vehicles capable of
climbing out of ground effect?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

>
> >Those ae fine in low wave states but the notion of doing that
> >speed in the North Atlantic is not attractive, a large wave
> >could have serious effects on your health.
>
> I could be wrong, but aren't these humongous vehicles capable of
> climbing out of ground effect?
>
>

Maybe but I doubt they could get up to the sort of level
you need to avoid the effects of a decent winter storm.

Bumbling along at a 1000 ft or so in a force 8 is apt to
produce a lot of unpleasantness back in the bay
for self loading cargo :)

Keith

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>Bumbling along at a 1000 ft or so in a force 8 is apt to
>produce a lot of unpleasantness back in the bay
>for self loading cargo :)
>
>Keith
>
I've been there a bunch...it ain't real fun after about 12 hours
(looking at another 8 or so) :(

(The top fronts of your thighs get sore from smashing up against
the lap belt so you put your shoulder harness on tight to give
them some relief) I'm sure happy to be retired... :)
--

-Gord.

[Guy Alcala]

Stephen Harding wrote:

<snip>

> Will many be able to afford it, assuming they *want* it to begin with?
> Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
> get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
> airship trait. (Airships could get right into a city destination,
> eliminating the drive from the airport, which can be attractive).
>
> But just as there are ocean cruises that are the purpose all to
> themselves, I suppose there could be airship "cruises" as well. It
> would be neat if it isn't prohibitively expensive.

Such cruises have been mooted for travel over nature preserves (Africa, Amazon, etc.). The ability
to drift with motors off at low speed is a big advantage of LTA. In a way, that was one of the first
tourist uses of Zeppelins. The Graf Zeppelin's round the world flight was essentially a high cost
cruise, and well before then day excursions over the valley of the Rhine or the Alps were being done
(pre-WW1, IIRR). In the Graf's case, they went over a lot of unspoiled country. Given modern
technology, I imagine there'd be a market -- there's certainly never a shortage of people who want
rides on the various advertising blimps in the area. Who wouldn't want to breakfast or dine in the
rooftop (sic) restaurant of a modern zepp, drifting along with the wind while the sun rises or sets?
Modern materials and design should more than cancel out the lift disadvantage of using helium. And
with the rise of eco-resorts in places like the canopy of the Brazilian rainforest, there'd be no
need to provide overnight accomodations on board, allowing a larger number of pax.

Guy

[Stephen Harding]

The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
air vehicle.

Are there any for today's military mission and needs?

The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
bad it would be for airships!).

I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
as to what they could possibly have been.


SMH

[Keith Willshaw]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
> airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
> air vehicle.
>
> Are there any for today's military mission and needs?
>
> The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
> airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
> in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
> of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
> bad it would be for airships!).
>
> I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
> experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
> as to what they could possibly have been.
>

Airship Industries were trying to sell their products
for the AEW role. The platform was based on their
Sentinel 5000 product fitted with the radar system
from the E2-C Hawkeye .

http://www.aht.ndirect.co.uk/airships/Sentinel_5000/

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
> airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
> air vehicle.
>
> Are there any for today's military mission and needs?
>
> The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
> airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
> in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
> of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
> bad it would be for airships!).
>
> I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
> experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
> as to what they could possibly have been.

As Keith has already noted, they have been proposed for the AEW role with no
success to date, at least as far as free-flying blimps go--unpowered
aerostats are however used for the air surveillance role (ISTR we recently
sold Pakistan some AEW aerostats to assuage their concerns over the recent
purscahse of the Il-76/Phalcon AWACS from Russia/Israel, and they have
served this role in the drug war along the southern US approaches for many
years). I wonder if there are not further roles for aerostats--such as their
use for area security surveillance in an environment like we now find in
Iraq. As to blimps, you really have to have air superiority (or outright air
dominance) in order to make them viable; in such conditions, I'd think they
might be a decent platform for battlefield surveillance using a MTI radar
(sort of a long duration mini-JSTARS, more comparable to the current ARL-M)
or in the SIGINT role, where they can conduct their missions from a position
a few klicks to the rear of the FLOT.

Brooks
>
>
> SMH
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> As to blimps, you really have to have air superiority (or outright
> air dominance) in order to make them viable; in such conditions, I'd
> think they might be a decent platform for battlefield surveillance
> using a MTI radar (sort of a long duration mini-JSTARS, more
> comparable to the current ARL-M) or in the SIGINT role, where they
> can conduct their missions from a position a few klicks to the rear
> of the FLOT.

With modern construction techniques, a stealthy, ultra-lightweight blimp
with a sensor package should be able to perch up at 120,000 feet or
higher, be hard to find, harder to reach, and useful for direct ground
observation for hundreds of miles in any direction, reporting back with
a highly directional laser-based commlink.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Dave Holford]

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
> airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
> air vehicle.
>
> Are there any for today's military mission and needs?
>
> The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
> airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
> in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
> of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
> bad it would be for airships!).
>
> I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
> experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
> as to what they could possibly have been.
>
> SMH


It was only a few years ago that concerted efforts failed to destroy a
large ballon which managed to drift clear across the Atlantic despite
numerous holes being shot in it. I wonder if they really are all that
vulnerable?

Dave

[Mike Bandor]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> >
> > The comments concerning possible return of the commercial
> > airship makes me wonder about military uses of such an
> > air vehicle.
> >
> > Are there any for today's military mission and needs?
> >
> > The only thing that really comes to mind is possibly an
> > airship as a heavy lift vehicle (a really big Chinook?)
> > in support operations well behind battle lines or areas
> > of contention (if helicopters are vulnerable, think how
> > bad it would be for airships!).
> >
> > I vaguely recall some not too distant, military driven
> > experiments in the use of airships, but now have no clue
> > as to what they could possibly have been.
> >
> > SMH
>
>
> It was only a few years ago that concerted efforts failed to destroy a
> large ballon which managed to drift clear across the Atlantic despite
> numerous holes being shot in it. I wonder if they really are all that
> vulnerable?
>
> Dave

They've changed the aerostats so they now have burn wires built into the
main gas bag. If one escapes, rather than scrambling a plane they just
press a button and it quarters the main gas bag. No more chasing it across
the gulf or countryside.

Mike

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Mike Bandor"
> wrote:

> "Dave Holford" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

> > It was only a few years ago that concerted efforts failed to destroy a
> > large ballon which managed to drift clear across the Atlantic despite
> > numerous holes being shot in it. I wonder if they really are all that
> > vulnerable?
> >
> > Dave
>
> They've changed the aerostats so they now have burn wires built into the
> main gas bag. If one escapes, rather than scrambling a plane they just
> press a button and it quarters the main gas bag. No more chasing it
> across
> the gulf or countryside.
>
>

I wouldn't call it a military lighter-than-air vehicle, but I was
sufficiently shocked and awed while trying to get my rental car back to
the Colorado Springs airport, in the midst of a ballooning festival.
There is something especially surreal about having a 110-foot tall
Energizer Bunny fload gracefully over the road.

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Airship Industries were trying to sell their products
> for the AEW role. The platform was based on their
> Sentinel 5000 product fitted with the radar system
> from the E2-C Hawkeye .
>
> http://www.aht.ndirect.co.uk/airships/Sentinel_5000/

Cool!

When I become incredibly, fabulously wealthy, I may opt
for a 6-8 passenger personal airship rather than attempt
to convert a Global Hawk as my private aircraft.


SMH

[Ken Duffey]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > Airship Industries were trying to sell their products
> > for the AEW role. The platform was based on their
> > Sentinel 5000 product fitted with the radar system
> > from the E2-C Hawkeye .
> >
> > http://www.aht.ndirect.co.uk/airships/Sentinel_5000/
>
> Cool!
>
> When I become incredibly, fabulously wealthy, I may opt
> for a 6-8 passenger personal airship rather than attempt
> to convert a Global Hawk as my private aircraft.
>
> SMH

I have come into this thread late ............

Has anyone mentioned why they are called blimps????

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[B2431]

>From: Ken Duffey

>I have come into this thread late ............
>
>Has anyone mentioned why they are called blimps????
>
>Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast

The two most popular theories are:

1) some British officer thumped one and the sound returned was "blimp."

2) one of the early designations was "balloon, class B, limp" which was
shortened to blimp in conversation.

An interesting aside is the term "dirigible" which some people use to
differentiate between blimps and rigid airships. The term "dirigible" is from
Latin which means give direction to. In other words it's steerable which both
blimps and rigid airships are.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Andrew Chaplin]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

> The two most popular theories are:
>
> 1) some British officer thumped one and the sound returned was
"blimp."
>
> 2) one of the early designations was "balloon, class B, limp"
which was
> shortened to blimp in conversation.
>
> An interesting aside is the term "dirigible" which some people use to
> differentiate between blimps and rigid airships. The term "dirigible"
is from
> Latin which means give direction to. In other words it's steerable
which both
> blimps and rigid airships are.

From the OED:
blimp, n. [Of uncertain origin. Said to have been coined by the aviator
Horace Shortt (see quot. 1918) or by Lieut. A. D. Cunningham (1951
Aeroplane 5 Oct.), and to have been based on the adj. LIMP.]

1. A small non-rigid airship orig. consisting of a gas-bag with the
fuselage of an aeroplane slung underneath; in the war of 1939-45 the name
was sometimes applied to a barrage balloon.

1916 ROSHER In R.N.A.S. 11 Feb. 146 Visited the Blimps..this afternoon at
Capel. 1918 Illustr. Lond. News 27 July 96 Nobody in the R.N.A.S. ever
called them anything but 'Blimps', an onomatopic name invented by that
genius for apposite nomenclature, the late Horace Shortt. 1926 J. R. R.
TOLKIEN in Year's Wk. Eng. Stud. 1924 52 It is perhaps more in accordance
with their looks, history, and the way in which words are built out of
the suggestions of others in the mind, if we guess that blimp was the
progeny of blister + lump, and that the vowel i not u was chosen because
of its diminutive significancetypical of war-humour. 1928 GAMBLE North
Sea Air Station x. 149 The Submarine Scout non-rigid type. The name was
abbreviated to S.S. airships, but they were generally known as 'Blimps'.
1934 Discovery Jan. 14/2 Excellent photographs..could probably be secured
next summer from a small 'blimp' carrying a pilot and a photographer and
directed by wireless telephony. 1939 War Illustr. 29 Dec. 538/1 The term
'blimp' originated in the last war, when British lighter-than-air
aircraft were divided into A-rigid, and B-limp (i.e. without rigid
internal framework). The modern barrage balloon may therefore be classed
as a blimp. 1940 HARRISSON & MADGE War begins at Home v. 125 The
[barrage] balloons, so suitably called blimps, became a major symbol in
the first three months of the war.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Eric Moore]

Airships have also been used for testing Hyperspectral Imaging systems. See:

http://www.airship.flyer.co.uk/NewsArticles/News19dec02.htm