At 124 meters long, the Pathfinder 1 is currently the largest aircraft in the world. This modern take on the airship concept started to take shape with the construction of the first prototypes in 2016. Filled with helium and powered by 12 electric motors, the Pathfinder 1 has also fly-by-wire controls, not unlike those of a modern airliner.
Although this was not the first public flight of the Pathfinder 1, the recent renewal by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the airship’s Special Airworthiness Certificate has allowed LTA Research to operate within an expanded flight envelope in the Bay Area.
What exactly is the use-case for this sort of transport? It's slower than any other form of large-scale transport, limited in carrying capacity, and energetically expensive to navigate in anything...
What exactly is the use-case for this sort of transport? It's slower than any other form of large-scale transport, limited in carrying capacity, and energetically expensive to navigate in anything but still air. Pretty much the only niche I can see it filling is for slow, luxury cruising, and I could see the novelty of that wearing off long before the market covers R&D.
I'm as big a fan of the retro-futurist Sky Captain aesthetic as the next nerd, but I'm skeptical that the numbers support this ever being anything but a cool proof of concept.
Just from a cursory internet search, they tend to have lower emissions than airplanes and are more environmentally friendly. This article has multiple people strongly support using it for cargo....
To that end, I could also see it being a good alternative for air travel in the same vein as trains, at least for domestic travel routes. Air Nostrum plans to start using ten airships in 2026 for routes in Spain. One big plus is just the comfort since they're not trying to cram hundreds of people into a tiny plane. I think some people would be happy to fly for four hours with adequate leg room instead of one hour in a tiny cramped seat.
I think it might be useful for cargo in certain remote areas that aren't accessible in any other way? Maybe compare the cost and cargo capacity to a helicopter.
I think it might be useful for cargo in certain remote areas that aren't accessible in any other way? Maybe compare the cost and cargo capacity to a helicopter.
Seems like the cost would always be way higher than a helicopter. You need a specialized, massive hangar to house it, special mooring equipment to land it, it wouldn't be able to fly in high winds...
Seems like the cost would always be way higher than a helicopter. You need a specialized, massive hangar to house it, special mooring equipment to land it, it wouldn't be able to fly in high winds like a helicopter, it can't really hover in one spot like a helicopter, it's slower than a helicopter, and I don't know what the aircraft itself would cost, but I imagine it's many times more expensive than even the biggest cargo helicopters.
There's are pretty good reasons we don't use airships anymore, and it has very little to do with the Hindenburg. Heavier than air aircraft have advantages in basically every single area, and once manufacturing and aerospace science got to the point where they could produce cheap, large rotary and fixed wing aircraft, airships stopped making financial sense.
These projects only ever pop up every so often because of some wealthy benefactor, since airships are neat.
From the article:
What exactly is the use-case for this sort of transport? It's slower than any other form of large-scale transport, limited in carrying capacity, and energetically expensive to navigate in anything but still air. Pretty much the only niche I can see it filling is for slow, luxury cruising, and I could see the novelty of that wearing off long before the market covers R&D.
I'm as big a fan of the retro-futurist Sky Captain aesthetic as the next nerd, but I'm skeptical that the numbers support this ever being anything but a cool proof of concept.
Just from a cursory internet search, they tend to have lower emissions than airplanes and are more environmentally friendly. This article has multiple people strongly support using it for cargo. For one that's a bit less heavy on jargon, this article goes into a lot of the pros of airships.
To that end, I could also see it being a good alternative for air travel in the same vein as trains, at least for domestic travel routes. Air Nostrum plans to start using ten airships in 2026 for routes in Spain. One big plus is just the comfort since they're not trying to cram hundreds of people into a tiny plane. I think some people would be happy to fly for four hours with adequate leg room instead of one hour in a tiny cramped seat.
I think it might be useful for cargo in certain remote areas that aren't accessible in any other way? Maybe compare the cost and cargo capacity to a helicopter.
Seems like the cost would always be way higher than a helicopter. You need a specialized, massive hangar to house it, special mooring equipment to land it, it wouldn't be able to fly in high winds like a helicopter, it can't really hover in one spot like a helicopter, it's slower than a helicopter, and I don't know what the aircraft itself would cost, but I imagine it's many times more expensive than even the biggest cargo helicopters.
There's are pretty good reasons we don't use airships anymore, and it has very little to do with the Hindenburg. Heavier than air aircraft have advantages in basically every single area, and once manufacturing and aerospace science got to the point where they could produce cheap, large rotary and fixed wing aircraft, airships stopped making financial sense.
These projects only ever pop up every so often because of some wealthy benefactor, since airships are neat.
I believe the main attraction is cost. They're supposed to be much less expensive to build, maintain, and operate than airliners.