Sixty years after the end of the big airships,in what situation are we?
We have BLIMPS .They are better and better as years pass.But we have not one
bigger airship even of the size of the last GOODYEAR's ZPG 3W of 45 000 cubic
meter volume,several times less than the last ZEPPELINS!!
We have obvious NEEDS.In France we have obtained significant funds from the
FRENCH Ministry of TRANSPORT and Brussels for a full study of needs of heavy
industry,developing countries,international humanitarian organisations as RED
CROSS,UNO,FAO and so on....EPFL of LAUSANNE worked hard on it.The conclusions
converge with the studies realized by Cargolifter in GERMANY : there is a
potential and important demand for big airships.But there is a strong majority
asking for long range airships with vertical take off and landing
capacity in order to operate with a minimum of ground infrastructure .
We have many new technologies :your last convention as the precedents and the
meetings of AERALL and of the American association have, for the last thirty
years ,asembled many experts in research and industry.A very large panel of
solutions has
2.been explored and brilliant ideas discovered.Many projects too have been
presented..
BUT we have to CONSIDER that in the last fifty years not a big airship project
(I listed a minimum of twenty )has been really developed even as a prototype
.Not an aeronautic industry big firm (BOEING,LOCKHEED,NORTHROP,BAé,EADS..)has
invested for its own in the subject.Except at several periods WESTINGHOUSE
with funds of the Pentagone...These commercial companies have not been
convinced of the feasability of airships for technological and market
reasons.Their doubts have been so high that they did not even try to obtain
public credits or loans for research and development from their governments as
they always do for new technologies and projects.It must be pointed out that
BIG AIRSHIP PROJECTS have not yet reached CREDIBILITY.
GLOBAL STRATEGY of DEVELOPMENT is NECESSARY.
WHY? In my opinion the main reason is a lack of STRATEGY of DEVELOPMENT.
1.First of all, needs of the potential market lead to a technical
objective.The main potential users want vertical take off and landing which is
the natural superiority of airships compared with all other means of
transport.And a range and load capacity far above helicopter's.
2.TECHNOLOGICALLY ,as underlined above ,each project has brought several
solutions to the problems.So we have many pieces of the technical
PUZZLE.They are of different importance and quality in regards of the new
airships needs.They must be evaluated.LTA DEVELOPMENT requires a comprehensive
and impartial AUDIT of all these solutions:classical or new. The objective of
big airships complementary of present transport means demands fundamental and
basic research to answer crucial questions such as:
-structure and nature of envelopes and or gas cells:it seems to exist for
non-rigid airships some kind of "technological wall" above one
hundred thousand cubic meters volume.Accurate data must be gathered to prove
that this wall can be broken.
-economical regulation of weight during flight
-easy and rapid exchange of ballast and cargo
-flight control specially at proximity of the ground
-modes of fabrication:modularity,necessity of costly hangars,maintenance costs.
The basic research task can thus be defined :to evaluate each piece of the
puzzzle to check its interest in regards of the general aim;to select the good
pieces of technology of each project that failed in the past.and to decide
some specific research programs to fill the eventual gaps.
From this audit will EMERGE either a negative advice on feasability of these
machines or a GENERAL CONCEPT of a coherent and safe airship.This general
concept will come from a COMBINATION of some clear solutions on the
fundamental items as upper cited. On this skeleton the use of many
different specific solutions of the "puzzle " will be obviously
allowed and optimized for the best performance.Big aircrafts have a very
similar shape and structure.They have different performances due to diverse
technical choices on each part of the aircraft(winglets,materials,flight
control...)
3.Thirty years observation of the topics and ten years participation in the
boards of the French aeronautic industry, brought me to believe strongly that
this first step of the STRATEGY is imperative .It has to be conducted under
the leadership of the public research institutions.For some years we have
worked hard to convince the french ones to accept and ask credits to do this
job.Some studies have already been conducted.Discussions are presently
in progress to go further..In my opinion ,Governments have the duty to help to
determine if the advantages of airships can be obtained for general interest
of the society.Is airship renaissance really a chance for humanity?
4.If a general concept is well defined,specific LTA firms will work with a
limited risk.They will attract private risk money on the basis of realistic
business plans.I have no doubt that industrial aeronautic companies will look
seriously at the subject ,because they cannot without good reasons be absent
on such a market.I think they will not at first invest directly under their
own name in the fabrication of airships.But they will take stakes in the
capital of the specialized firms in which technical solutions and business
plan they believe.They will help these firms to obtain public and private
credits for development.That is the second step.Presence of big firms is in my
point of view obviously necessary for two reasons:technical development needs
important teams and equipment existing only in those firms;time necessary to
obtain the certification of the airship by the public authorities is very long
and consequently very costly.It is useful to remind that initial investment in
a new car is roughly a billion of dollars,and in a new Boeing or Airbus ,five
to ten times more.Then speaking of some hundred millions of dollars to set up
a range of big airships is reasonable.
5.People often say that this kind of approach is not normal in our
industrialized countries.And that commercial interests will impede the
realization of the general audit under the leadership of public research
institutions.That is not true in the field of big aeronautics that include
helicopters and laarge airships.Nobody may deny ,specially the representants
of the major aeronautics companies that ,in all developed countries,all kinds
of flying objects and research on them is under the authority of the Defense
Ministers .The public funds they distribute are at the origin of all
significant or great realizations.Hard discussions led to an
international agreement on that subject between United States and Europe..;So
there is no shame to ask credits for our technical audit which purpose is to
open a credible "window" for the development or modern ,powerful and
safe airships.Then if the audit is positive ,industrial and commercial
development will be possible.
COORDINATION of the efforts of the AIRSHIP COMMUNITY would be very useful.
I believe in the utility of a common approach of our two associations on the
subject.I think that the stategy I just described does not disturb the
positive neutrality of our two institutions.Global scientific audit benefits
to everyone working on airship renewal.Time has come to put an end to the long
series of project failures.
Président d'AERALL
Jean René FONTAINE (AERALL Octobre 2003)
