Airships & Zeppelins

>>1085640
Nope. They are slow, very susceptible to weather and wind effects, and cannot lift as much as you think. Heavier than air flight is king for a reason.

File: blimptrain.jpg (129KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1024x768px

>>1085650
>very susceptible to weather and wind effects
This is indeed a problem. Maybe attaching it to a train could help.

>>1085650
what about a reaction control system? Like we have on rockets? We could use hydrogen as a propellant for that, or we could have the props be 3d maneuverable.

>>1085665
It doesn't matter. They're huge, slow, and cannot fly nearly as high as heavier than air craft. They just suck, brah.

>>1085667
It dosent matter if they are slow, that debate has passed which is why we arent using smaller faster jets, we are using as large of jets as we can. Its more efficient. And Airships, like the one darpa is making holds more tonnes of weight than the C-130. Also hydrogen is dirt cheap in comparison to jet fuel which is hecking expensive. Plus would you rather spend two days in your own personal room crossing the atlantic, living comfortably, or be trapped between two sweaty fatasses for 9 hours on your way to europe?

>>1085670
>WE R USIGN TEH BIGGEST JETS WE CAN MKAE
>Airbus super-jumbo program faltering, B747 deader than disco, B787 has a years-long backlog of orders, A330neo selling decently well, A&B narrow-bodies still selling like hotcakes

So, anon, what's it like to be brain-dead?

>>1085671
I was talking about the debate between jets like the concord. and jets like the 737. The only reason the A-380 and 747s are faltering is because most airports dont have the infrastructure for them. Larger planes that carry more passengers and are slower are the best because they save on fuel and weight, this applies to modern airships too.

so rather than misinterpreting my response like a tard, you should ask yourself what its like to be brain-dead.

;)

>>1085670
>Holds 50 tons of cargo
>Travels at 70 mph
Might as well just use trucks and trains.

File: russian road 33.jpg (31KB, 350x414px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 350x414px

>>1085689
Some countries still have issues with the term road.

File: russian road 25a.jpg (135KB, 950x713px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 950x713px

>>1085691

>>1085671
This, blimps are dead. People rather get somewhere fast then slow. No one cares too much about cost as is. Also, what about redundancy? And if hydrogen is so cheap, why haven't we made turbines that burn it?

>>1085691
>>1085692
If that's the road I think it is that was finally paved a few years ago. Although there are probably more than just one across the Siberian wastes.

>>1085670
You can make jets fly with hydrogen.

File: 1485623172227.jpg (207KB, 692x960px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 692x960px

>>1085670
New York to London is less than 7h by a plane. At 70 mph, it would take 50h. You really think anyone would rather spend 100h to go both ways, or around 14, where you can sleep most of that time if going overnight?

Besides, they wouldn't be less expensive. Jet fuel is only fraction of a picture. Paying professional crew (obviously a bigger one than that on an airplane) for 48 hours of constant work, plus all of the maintanence, the costs of once again developing and producing this abomination would be absurd. Not something that airlines couldn't afford obviously, but if it would be plausible in any way, they would have already done that.

>>1085692
>>1085691
If your country can't afford roads, it won't afford airtravel as an alternative.

>>1085650
Still faster than ship and sometimes even rail

>>1086764
Aren't we talking about cargo?

>>1086782
I think we are talking about both alternatively to claim the other's Anon ideas are shit.
Also now planes float thanks to jet fuel, so it's comparable to hydrogen price in blimps.

>>1086782
Both. So considering cargo - no sane man would put millions of dollars worth of cargo onto basicly a giant flying bomb.
>inb4 planes crash too
No cargo plane had any serious accident in the last 4 years

>>1086812
There are countless cargo plane accident every year just that they aren't widely reported
And bo one use hydrogen blimps anymore
>>1086808
Why are you guys keep talking about hydrogen?

>>1086813
Because helium is crap, expensive, getting rare, and "hydrogen is safe now".

>>1086818
Wait for commercialization of nuclear fusion that generate tons of helium byproduct™

>>1086826
How will we fly in the century long gap?

>>1086826
If we would have nuclear fusion, making any form of transportation energy-efficient would no longer be a concept

>>1085670
If you prefer a slow journey in your own personal room, you're better off going by ship. But don't expect to save any money - even on the water, a room is far more expensive than a seat on an aircraft. In the sky it would be costlier still.

>>1086838
You still need fuel for aircrafts as fusion reactors aren't small enough to be place on aircraft and battery technology would be needed to use fusion generated electricity for aircraft
>>1086832
Same as current