Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:29:42.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of non-rigid airships operating in the neutral buoyancy condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

G. E. Dorrington
G. E. Dorrington*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The feasibility of using neutrally-buoyant (or fully-buoyant) airships for passenger and cargo transportation is investigated. The drag coefficients of rigid and non-rigid airships are deduced from flight data. Comparisons are made with empirical drag formulas and previous wind tunnel data. Some general trends for airship drag are derived. The mass breakdown of non-rigid airships with hull volumes up to 35,000m3 is analysed using parametric equations. The maximum feasible airspeed and useful load carrying capacity of projected airships are calculated. ‘Specific productivity’ is found to be lower than values achievable with fixed-wing aircraft, but ‘fuel-specific productivity’ is found to be competitive, confirming results of a previous NASA study. The use of gaseous hydrogen and fuel cells is briefly discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 111 , Issue 1116 , February 2007 , pp. 89 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Green, J.E., Greener by design: the technology challenge, Aeronaut J, 2002, 106,(1056), pp 57–113.Google Scholar
2. Dowling, A.P. and Hynes, T., Towards a silent aircraft, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110,(1110), pp 487–494.Google Scholar
3. Ardema, M.D., Feasibility of modern airships: preliminary assessment, J Aircr, November 1977, 14, (11), pp 1140–1148.Google Scholar
4. Joner, B.A., Grant, D.T., Rosenstein, H. and Schneider, J.J., Feasibility study of modern airships, Phase 1 final report, May 1975, NASA CR-137691.Google Scholar
5. Lancaster, J.W., Feasibility study of modern airships, Phase 1 final report, Parametric analysis, August 1975, NASA CR-137692(2), 2.Google Scholar
6. Lancaster, J.W., Feasibility study of modern airships, Phase 1 final report, Appendices, August 1975, NASA CR-137692(4), 4.Google Scholar
7. Lancaster, J.W., Feasibility study of modern airships, Phase 2 final report, Executive summary, November 1977, Goodyear Aerospace Corp, NASA CR-2922.Google Scholar
8. Engineering Sciences Data Unit, Profile drag of axi symmetric bodies at zero incidence for subcritical Mach numbers, July 1978, ESDU 78019, amended, 1998.Google Scholar
9. Torenbeek, E., Synthesis of Subsonic Aircraft Design, 1976, Delft University Press.Google Scholar
10. Paterson, J.H., Macwilkinson, D.G. and Blackerby, W.T., A survey of drag prediction techniques applicable to subsonic and transonic aircraft design, Aerodynamic Drag, October 1973, AGARD conference proceedings, 124.Google Scholar
11. Schlicting, H., Boundary Layer Theory, 1955, First English edition pp 431–461, Pergamon, London.Google Scholar
12. Hoerner, S.F., Fluid-dynamic drag, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, 1965, Bakerfield, California.Google Scholar
13. Dorrington, G.E., The drag of a spheroid-cone shaped airship, J Aircr, March-April 2006, 43,(2), pp 363–372.Google Scholar
14. Nash, J.F. and Bradshaw, P., The magnification of roughness drag by pressure gradients, Aeronaut J, January 1967, 71,(673), pp 44–46.Google Scholar
15. Engineering Sciences Data Unit, Simplified method for the prediction of aerofoil excrescence drag magnification factor for turbulent boundary layers at subcritical Mach numbers, 1991, ESDU 91028.Google Scholar
16. Ower, E., Some aspects of the mutual interference between parts of aircraft, June 1932, ARC R & M 1480.Google Scholar
17. Abbott, I.H., The drag of two streamline bodies as affected by protuberances and appendages, September 1932, NACA Report 451.Google Scholar
18. Cornish, J.J. III and Boatwater, D.W., Application of full scale boundary layer measurements to drag reduction of airships, Aerophysics Department Research Report, 18 January 1960, 28, Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
19. Curtiss, H.C., Hazen, D.C. and Putnam, W.F., LTA aerodynamic data revisited, J Aircr, November 1976, 13,(11), pp 835–844.Google Scholar
20. Cebeci, T. and Bradshaw, P., Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers, 1977, First Edition, pp 251–253, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
21. Cebeci, T., Mosinskis, G.J., and Smith, A.M.O., Calculation of viscous drag in incompressible flows, J Aircr, October 1972, 9,(10), pp 691–692.Google Scholar
22. Goldschmied, F.R., Integrated boundary layer control and propulsion of submerged bodies, J Hydronautics, 1967, 1,(1), pp 2–11.Google Scholar
23. Parsons, J.S., Goodson, R.E. and Goldschmied, F.R., Shaping of axysm-metric bodies for minimum drag, J Hydronautics, 1974, 8,(3), pp 100–107.Google Scholar
24. Goldschmied, F.R., Comments on ‘LTA Aerodynamic data revisted’, J Aircr, June 1977, 14, pp 607–608.Google Scholar
25. Pake, F.A. and Pipitone, S.J., Boundary layer control for airships, 1974, Interagency Workshop on Lighter than Air Vehicles, Monterey, CA, September 1974, pp 147–155.Google Scholar
26. Lambert, M. (Ed). Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1993-1994, 1994, Jane’s Information Group, Coulsdon, UK.Google Scholar
27. Pannell, J.R., Preliminary experiments on non-rigid airship ‘S.S.E.3 100,000,’ with a consideration of the performance data of various types of SS Airship, March 1920, ARC R&M 693.Google Scholar
28. Anon. LZ N07 Multimission airship description, 1996, Report 002-03-96, Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH, Friedrichshafen.Google Scholar
29. Bridgman, L. (Ed). Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft 1958-1959, 1959, pp 530–532, Samson Low, London.Google Scholar
30. Pannell, J.R. and Bell, A.H., Experiments on rigid airship R29, January 1920, ARC R&M 675.Google Scholar
31. Pannell, J.R., Experiments on rigid airship R32, October 1919, ARC R&M 668.Google Scholar
32. Pannell, J.R., Frazer, R.A. and Bateman, H., Experiments on rigid airship R32, Part III measurements of resistance and airspeed, June 1921, ARC R&M 813.Google Scholar
33. Frazer, R.A. and Gadd, A.G., The prediction of the resistance of rigid airship R33, July 1922, ARC R&M 827.Google Scholar
34. Schirmer, M., Zeppelin-Luftschiffe, no date recorded, donated to the Zeppelin Museum, Friedrichshafen, 1991, ref: F/91/91-24.Google Scholar
35. Schirmer, M., Aerodynamische Modellversuche an Deutschen und Auslaendischen Luftschiff-Baumustern im Windkanal des Luftschiffbau Zeppelin in Friedrichshafen, July 1942, Dissertation, Technischen Hochschule Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig.Google Scholar
36. Jones, R. and Williams, D.H., Tests on two streamlined bodies in the compressed wind tunnel, April 1936, ARC R&M 1710.Google Scholar
37. Abbott, I.H., Airship model tests in the variable density wind tunnel, 1931, NACA Report 394.Google Scholar
38. Lavan, C.K. and Drummond, C.K., Applications of similitude, J Aircr, 1987, 24, 4, pp 287–288.Google Scholar
39. Kemp, J.D., Propulsion of airships, Aeronaut J, March 1981, 85,(842), pp 88–90.Google Scholar
40. Glauert, H., The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory, 1947, Second Edition, pp 203–206, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
41. Dorrington, G.E., Performance of battery powered airships, to be published in J Aerospace Eng. IMechE.Google Scholar
42. Theodorsen, T., Theory of Propellers, 1948, pp 98–103, McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
43. Mclemore, H.C., Wind tunnel tests of a 1/20-scale airship model with stern propellers, January 1962, NASA TN-D-1026.Google Scholar
44. Roskam, J., Airplane Design, Part V: Component Weight Estimation, 1985, Roskam Aviation, Ottawa, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
45. Lancaster, J.W. and Bailey, D.B., Naval airship program for sizing and performance (NAPSAP), J Aircr, August 1981, 18,(8), pp 677–682.Google Scholar
46. Bailey, D.B. and Rappoport, H.K., Maritime patrol airship study, J Aircr, September 1981, 18,(9), pp 775–779.Google Scholar
47. Jackson, P., Munson, K. and Peacock, L., Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 2005-2006, 2005, Jane’s Information Group, Coulsdon, UK.Google Scholar
48. Brooks, P.W., Zeppelin: Rigid Airships 1893-1940, 1992, Putnam, London.Google Scholar
49. Liebeck, R.H., Design of the blended wing body subsonic transport, J Aircr, January-February 2004, 41,(1), pp 10–25.Google Scholar
50. Houmard, J.E., Maximum size of a nonrigid airship, 1986, AIAA-86-2736, AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aircraft Systems, Design & Technology Meeting, 20-22 October 1986, Dayton, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
51. Cannon, M.D., Static longitudinal and lateral stability and control data obtained from tests of a 1/15-Scale model of the Goodyear XZP5K airship, 1957, NACA RM SL56A11.Google Scholar
52. Gregory, N.A. and Walker, W.S., Wind tunnel tests on the use of distributed suction for maintaining laminar flow on a body of revolution, 1960, ARC R&M 3145.Google Scholar
53. Gregory, N.A. and Walker, W.S., Experiments on the use of suction through perforated strips for maintaining laminar flow: transition and drag measurements, 1958, ARC R&M 3083.Google Scholar
54. Head, M.R., History of research on boundary layer control for low drag in UK, Boundary Layer and Flow Control, 1961, Lachmann, G.V. (Ed), 1, pp 104–121, Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
55. Goldschmied, F.R., Aerodynamic hull design for HASPA LTA optimization, J Aircr, September 1978, 15,(9), pp 634–638.Google Scholar
56. Goldschmied, F.R., Wind tunnel demonstration of an optimized LTA system with 65% power reduction and neutral stability, 1983, Lighter Than-Air Systems Conference, Anaheim, 27 July 1983, A83-1981.Google Scholar
57. Onda, M., Ford, M.L., Matsuuchi, K., Eguchi, Y., Yamamura, N. and Adachi, T., Aerodynamic considerations for a high-altitude, long endurance LTA platform, 1996, Second International Airship Conference, 3–4 July 1996, pp 35–43, Stuttgart/Friedrichshafen, Institut für Statik and Dynamik der Luft–und Raumfahrtkonstruktionen, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
58. Dorrington, G.E., Feasibility of remotely-piloted, station-keeping solar-electric powered airship platforms, 1994, 11th Bristol RPV International Conference, Bristol University, UK.Google Scholar
59. Haglind, F., Hasselrot, A. and Singh, R., Potential of reducing the environmental impact of aviation by using hydrogen, Parts 1-3, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110,(1110), pp 533–565.Google Scholar
60. Howe, D., The feasibility of a large freight airship, March 1971, Cranfield Report Aero No 5, Cranfield Insititute of Technology.Google Scholar
61. Hagenlocher, K.G. Reply to Sir Arthur Clarke, C., ‘Hydrogen for Airships?’, Scientific American, Letters to the editors, March 2000, 282,(3), pp 4.Google Scholar
62. Sun, A.G., Shen, Y.N., Chen, B. and Gan, Z.H., Experimental study on the safety of helium and hydrogen mixtures, 2003, International Conference on Cryogenics and Refrigeration, Zheijang University, Hangzhou, China.Google Scholar
63. Karim, G.A. and Panlilo, V.P., Flame propagation and extinction within mixtures involving hydrogen and diluent inert gases in air, Int J Hydrogen Energy, 1993, 18,(2), pp 157–161.Google Scholar
64. Gerrish, H.C. and Foster, H.H., Hydrogen as an auxillary fuel in compressionignition engines, 15 April 1935 (published 1936), NACA Report 535.Google Scholar
65. Hacohen, Y. and Sher, E., Fuel consumption and emission of SI engine fueled with H2-enriched gasoline, 1989, 24th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, IECEC-89, 5, pp 2485–2490.Google Scholar
66. Dorrington, G.E., Some general remarks on the design of airships, AIAA 99-3915, 1999, 13th Lighter-Than-Air Systems Technology Conference, 28-30 June 1999, Norfolk VA, USA.Google Scholar
67. Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, www.fai.org/records, August 2006.Google Scholar
68. De France, S.J. and Burgess, C.P. Speed and deceleration trials of the USS Los Angeles, 1929, NACA Report 318.Google Scholar
69. Lutz, Th., Leinhos, D. and Wagner, D., Theoretical investigations of the flowfield of airships with a stern propeller, 1996, International Airship Convention and Exhibition, 5–7 July 1996, Bedford, UK.Google Scholar
70. Payne, K.G., Materials for airship construction, Aeronaut J, March 1981, 85,(842), pp 85–87.Google Scholar
71. Bradley, P., Airship materials, Airship Technology, 1999, pp 141–164, Khoury, G.A. and Gillett, J.D. (Eds), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar