News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread title sorta says-it-all, but same thread started recently in thread here re the Toronto Islands airport (and Porter Airlines):
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...rport-(Porter-Toronto-Port-Authority)/page258

(And in that thread referenced even earlier attempt at rational though but relegated to "soapbox" here:)
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/20465-FLYING-around-Toronto-(For-fun-and-for-profit-)

In truth, any "GTA Airships" ("GTA Zeppelins"?) wouldn't REALLY need to takeoff/land at the Tor. Islands airport of course, any clear area should work? ... but as an area already close to downtown Toronto with existing facilities already underutilized... and no runway extensions necessary (smile).

Would be glad to hear any feedback/thoughts here (plus any fear and ignorance most welcome as well!)

Cheers
Lock
 
Hehe... Just noticed in that previous thread this idea re zeppelin tourism described as sci-fi. So, "science fiction" for a technology that's been around over 100 years, including in regular "bus" service between cities, and is today already produced by companies like Lockheed Martin.
 
I don't see how there would be sufficient long-term demand to make this profitable.


So... Ya wouldn't go for a ride for a regular TTC fare (currently $2+ or something)???

How `bout $10? $20 (for a 1-2hr. ride)? Lets say $20 for one seat for one 2hr. trip (from A to A hehe)

Say... 40 passengers x 2 trips per day x 6 days per week x 50 weeks per year = ballpark 1/2 million bucks per year. (No idea of costs to operate, cost to buy, life of vehicle to amortize over... insurance... misc. other stuff. Also, "revenue" as a promotional device for the City.)
 
Airship News

(Like the news about electric cars sorta "flooding in" these days, thought I post just one message in this thread about "airships in the news" that I can add to/update over time)

"Lockheed sees buyer for hybrid cargo airship in 2015"
(From late 2014):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/us-lockheed-cargo-idUSKCN0J52BL20141121

Includes:
"(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) expects to reach an agreement next year with a launch customer for a giant new hybrid airship that would revolutionize the way oil and mining companies haul equipment to the Arctic and other remote areas without roads.

The initial version of the airship, filled mostly with helium, would carry 20 tons of cargo, but could easily be scaled to roughly the size of a football field with 500 tons of capacity,"

So, even a "baby sized" airship otta carry 40 "normal sized" passengers? Hehe... and end of that article:
"He said the airships would likely cost tens of millions of dollars, making their cost comparable to what operators now pay to truck cargo via seasonal ice roads, but about five to 10 times cheaper than much cheaper than transport via helicopters."

"tens of millions". Say for example $30 million, good for... 60 years? So 1/2 mill. p.a. plus/minus. (Apart from cost for ticket, food and bevs served? Promo sold eg "Buy a Seat" sales?

**************************************************************

"Second Goodyear airship being built at Wingfoot Lake blimp base"
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/seco...ng-built-at-wingfoot-lake-blimp-base-1.560961

Includes:
"“It is pretty neat. The technology behind putting the airship together is a lot different from the airship technologies of the past,” Bradley said. “It’s a pretty big leap forward.”

Besides having a lightweight internal frame, the new helium-filled airships also are noticeably longer and faster than the traditional nonrigid GZ20A blimps that they will replace. The NT models can carry two pilots and 12 passengers."

... so a tire company has a bigger promo budget than the City of Toronto. Apparently.

**************************************************************************

"The British airship manufacturer making a rapid ascent"
http://www.grant-thornton.co.uk/Thinking/The-British-airship-manufacturer-making-a-rapid-ascent/

Includes stuff like:
"“There is more demand for air transportation now than there has ever been. At the same time there is a concern for the environment and so Airlander, as a practical and green flight technology, fits the bill.”

Airlander is the company’s key product – a new generation of airship that can (in the case of the 50 model) travel for 2,600 miles and carry a substantial 50 tonnes of cargo in the form of six standardised shipping containers. The surveillance spin-off can stay airborne at 16,000ft for five days solid. Passenger versions are even mooted for the future. But the big question with airships is: are they safe?"

Hehe... goes on to describe helium as "safer" than hydrogen, failing to point out that helium is a finite resource. Leaked out, disappears off into space never to return.

*****************************************************************************

"Hawaii attorney wants to use airship to shuttle people over lava if molten rock blocks highway"
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/29663fbabf67484da90ab60f6bf10b69/HI--Hawaii-Volcano-Airships

Includes:
"A gondola attached to a buoyant ship called a SkyFlyer would carry about 25 passengers at a time over the lava, Steve Strauss told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald. Each trip would take about five minutes and cost about $15 one way."
 
Last edited:
The airships would need to be filled with helium (since hydrogen can explode (note the Hindenburg)). Unfortunately, helium is expensive these days (minus subsidies) (and most helium is used to cool MRI machines, not fill balloons).
 
Hehe... As noted above, helium gas supply is finite, and bound to get more expensive. And yes, hydrogen gas (plentiful) does need to be handled properly (Technology of one hundred years ago may have improved some). Today we are presumably more informed about lightning and weather patterns.

BTW "Hydrogen and Helium in Rigid Airship Operations":
http://www.airships.net/helium-hydrogen-airships

BTW. For purposes of this exercise, lets assume incendiary and explosive ammunition NOT a concern? Hehe... More re airships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

...and seen here:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/18995/let_us_re_visit_the_idea_of_ai.html

in part:
"Let us re-visit the idea of airship (lighter than air) transport. The scale of fast and dirty jet transport is unsustainable

The idea of using large lighter than air dirigibles was thrown out thanks mainly to bad publicity from one crash. The Hindenberg flew safely until it's spectacular crash in 1937 scared the world into abandoning the whole idea of airships.
I think this was a big mistake and has left the cheapest and most efficient lifting gas, Hydrogen, with a undeserved bad reputation."
 
Last edited:
in part:
"... The idea of using large lighter than air dirigibles was thrown out thanks mainly to bad publicity from one crash. The Hindenberg flew safely until it's spectacular crash in 1937 scared the world into abandoning the whole idea of airships.
I think this was a big mistake and has left the cheapest and most efficient lifting gas, Hydrogen, with a undeserved bad reputation."

Yep, hydrogen, one prominent use of which since the days of that "one crash" has been in a compressed liquified form known as rocket fuel, suffers from an "undeserved bad reputation", not from extreme combustibility.
 
Hehe... At a guess, insurance to cover air travel by hydrogen gas (w/ pro skipper and crew and maintenance and weather forecasting, etc, etc.) probably cheaper than car insurance. A LOT cheaper.

EDIT: Folks with "concerns" maybe don't like the odds of buying lottery tickets. :) (I don't actually buy those tickets myself - father used to describe lottery tickets as a "tax on stupidity".) And of course, airplane travel is perfectly safe. Folks may wish to consider the "up side" to a "world class" tourist biz for Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Hehe... At a guess, insurance to cover air travel by hydrogen gas (w/ pro skipper and crew and maintenance and weather forecasting, etc, etc.) probably cheaper than car insurance. A LOT cheaper.

EDIT: Folks with "concerns" maybe don't like the odds of buying lottery tickets. :) (I don't actually buy those tickets myself - father used to describe lottery tickets as a "tax on stupidity".) And of course, airplane travel is perfectly safe. Folks may wish to consider the "up side" to a "world class" tourist biz for Toronto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbcE9BXZNfk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top