Wealthy people with environmental ideals are the biggest emitters

[SteamyTea]

23 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The biggest issue is the slow speeds

And parking them.

Hard to imagine then getting from Land's End International to the Isles of Scilly when the wind is 40MPH.

[sgt_woulds]

On 10/06/2026 at 17:30, Russdl said:

Fingers crossed that the AirLander makes it into production and ultimately zero emissions air travel comes to pass (probably not the easiest way to

get to Oz though!)
 

https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/news/overview/news/zeroavia-and-hav-sign-agreement-to-collaborate-on-zero-emission-airlander/

 

Not a chance.  I used to work as ground crew on one of the Goodyear Blimps  (considered the second most dangerous job in avaiation (after test pilot), as it is the only role where you are required to run towards a turning propellor!)

 

The Zepellins NT and Airlander are a world away from the crappy old balloons we used, but they still have most of the same problems:

 

Helium!

this is a finate resource, and desperately needed for medical and manufacturing purposes.  Won't be long until we have a world shortage.

Airships (even modern ones) leak like a teabag and it get worse when they get older. 

The lightship (BC A-60+) we had was end of life (the ballon was condemned and patched with aviation duct tape all the time I worked on it) and it leaked more than 90m3 per day of Helium per day!  

 

Speed

Unlike our blimp, Rigid and Semi-rigids like Airlander can make headway in higher wind conditions, but that ballon is a huge wetted area to drag through the sky and top speeds will always be limited.  Think of it more like a seagoing vessal than and aircraft. 

 

Air lander is a lift-body design with better aerodynamic controls, but even they cannot fly in the same conditions as a standard aircraft.  

 

Handling/Landing

Even the latest airships struggle in high winds, and once they are staionary they are effectively just kites.  Zeppelins and Airlander cannot land in higher wind speeds, or gusty conditions, despite their vectored thrust nacelles. 

Unliked fixed wing aircraft, loading/unloading (or just removing engines for maintenance) is an issue and needs careful ballasting.  Boyancy also changes with air pressure.

 

Putting them 'on-shed' is easier with these, due to their mast vehicles, but is required every time you do major maintenance, unlike fixed wings.  (Hands down one of the scariest things I've ever done in employment was try to put our blimp into the  Friedrichshafen hanger)   

 

Airspace

Airports shut when airships land due to the handling issues.  They have priority over all other craft except for emergency landings. 

 

They have limited ceiling height due to gas expansion (around 300 feet), limited by lift, air density, and envelope strength so airspace and landing slots will be vastly reduced.

 

 

 

I've seen concepts for giant solar powered airships proposing emmissions free travel. 

 

You'd still need to find a replacement for the Helium to make this true - nothing wrong with Hydrogen of course.  It was the airframe and fabrics that burnt on the Hindenburg, not the gas!  But try and convince the public of that...

 

You'd also need vastly more efficient flexible PV panels and lightweight batteries.

 

It won't happen in time to help with the climate emergency.

 

 

 

[sgt_woulds]

I meant to type 3000 - 10000ft ceiling height.  Our blimp was limited to 3000ft.  And less than 1300 feet after it was condemned.  Being shot full of holes did not help either...

 

(Watching the duct tape pop of the holes as we flew over the Alps was a sight I'll never forget) 

 

 

[Russdl]

Fabulous insight @sgt_woulds, sounds like you’ve had some interesting times, way too interesting on occasion!