http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...saster/100292/

harry wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...saster/100292/

The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many
survived!

Tim

In article ,
Tim+ writes:
harry wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...saster/100292/

The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many
survived!

because the hydrogen went straight up in the air, leaving the ground
clear (except for the burning cover and frame which fell down).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Was this the one where the only reason they were using hydrogen was a US ban
on supplying helium?

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...saster/100292/

The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many
survived!

Tim

On Sep 6, 4:08*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Was this the one where the only reason they were using hydrogen was a US ban
on supplying helium?

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user."Tim+" wrote in message

...



harry wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...ce-the-hindenb....

The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many
survived!

Tim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown.
Even the ones with helium they weremessing with a few years back have
disappeared.

harry pretended :
I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown.
Even the ones with helium they weremessing with a few years back have
disappeared.

No, they modern ones still seem to be on the go.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:16:33 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Even the ones with helium they weremessing with a few years back have
disappeared.

No, they modern ones still seem to be on the go.

Yep, wasn't the latest use as a aerial camera platform over some event in
the Deep South?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 06/09/2012 08:09, harry wrote:
....
I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown.
Even the ones with helium they were messing with a few years back have
disappeared.


Helium filled Zeppelins can still be seen still flying over Friedrichshafen.

Colin Bignell

On 05/09/2012 21:25, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:03:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Tim+ writes:
harry wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...saster/100292/

The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many
survived!

because the hydrogen went straight up in the air, leaving the ground
clear (except for the burning cover and frame which fell down).
and the burning diesel fuel from the engines. This last caused most of
the casualties, AIUI.

I'm surprised there was much left after a long crossing against strong
headwinds.

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 06/09/2012 08:09, harry wrote:
...
I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown.
Even the ones with helium they were messing with a few years back have
disappeared.


Helium filled Zeppelins can still be seen still flying over Friedrichshafen.

Colin Bignell

ISTR that someone investigated this fire and there was a component of
the fabric balloon gas enclosure that was very flammable in itself.

The theory went that Hydrogen should be almost invisible when burning
but the airship fire was anything but....


--
Tony Sayer

Brian Gaff wrote:
Was this the one where the only reason they were using hydrogen was a US ban
on supplying helium?

something like that.

Brian



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:08 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Was this the one where the only reason they were using hydrogen was a US ban
on supplying helium?

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user."Tim+" wrote in message

...



harry wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...ce-the-hindenb...
The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many
survived!
Tim- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -


I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown.
Even the ones with helium they weremessing with a few years back have
disappeared.

yes. There is a limit to how big or strong an airship could be on helium.

the US had a couple of big ones that got torn apart by bad weather. ISTR
that in one case they 'free ballooned' half of it to a reasonable
landing somewhere.

Yep, that was the USS Shenandoah.

Similar bit not quite was the loss of the USS Akron in 1932.


By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. The only real final
USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in reconnaissance
and anti-sub patrols.

Bit like the passing of the Empire Flying boats. Once you had better
range and runways, the ability to hop fro river to river was not a huge
advantage, the the drag associated with flying a boat a huge disadvantage.

Which is why airships today are small and used mainly to 'hover' as
mobile camera platforms, and little else.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 06/09/2012 08:09, harry wrote:
...
I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown.
Even the ones with helium they were messing with a few years back have
disappeared.

Helium filled Zeppelins can still be seen still flying over Friedrichshafen.

Colin Bignell

ISTR that someone investigated this fire and there was a component of
the fabric balloon gas enclosure that was very flammable in itself.


yes. At that time standard aircraft construction was doped linen over a
aluminium or wooden frame. It wasn' the gas bags that went up first, it
was the hull.

Anyone who has set fire to doped fabric can tell you what happens.


The theory went that Hydrogen should be almost invisible when burning
but the airship fire was anything but....


Correct. Even the aluminium burnt.

But the hydrogen DID burn and helped to make it hot enough for that to
happen.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:31:59 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 06/09/2012 08:09, harry wrote:
...
I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown. Even the ones with
helium they were messing with a few years back have disappeared.


Helium filled Zeppelins can still be seen still flying over
Friedrichshafen.

Colin Bignell

ISTR that someone investigated this fire and there was a component of
the fabric balloon gas enclosure that was very flammable in itself.

The theory went that Hydrogen should be almost invisible when burning
but the airship fire was anything but....

Mythbusters recreated the disaster in scale, and (IIRC) concluded that
the doped fabric accelerated the burning.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:58:41 +0100 (BST)
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:16:33 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Even the ones with helium they weremessing with a few years back
have disappeared.

No, they modern ones still seem to be on the go.

Yep, wasn't the latest use as a aerial camera platform over some
event in the Deep South?


There are various tourist trips that can be taken using these small
modern airships, I have seen a series of photos of San Francisco taken
from one. I'm sure there must be others, and the Goodyear 'Blimp' is
still around, even if it is on its umpteenth iteration.
Google 'airship trips' and see what comes up.
--
Davey.

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:31:59 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 06/09/2012 08:09, harry wrote:
...
I think the Nazis used it as an excuse. However helium is denser than
hydrogen and the thing would hardly have flown. Even the ones with
helium they were messing with a few years back have disappeared.


Helium filled Zeppelins can still be seen still flying over
Friedrichshafen.

Colin Bignell
ISTR that someone investigated this fire and there was a component of
the fabric balloon gas enclosure that was very flammable in itself.

The theory went that Hydrogen should be almost invisible when burning
but the airship fire was anything but....

Mythbusters recreated the disaster in scale, and (IIRC) concluded that
the doped fabric accelerated the burning.

As have others. Someone found a piece of the fabric and showed how
inflammable what it was made of could be. The fire started in the
fabric for sure. If you watch the video the airship is well on fire
before the gas bags go up and it starts to come down.

If the gasbags stayed intact it would have gone up as bits (and people)
dropped off and material was converted to carbon dioxide and water vapour.

I can't say that the petrol was an issue or not in the overall fire. I
cant recall it being stated as a major factor.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:06:45 GMT, Jethro_uk
wrote:

Mythbusters recreated the disaster in scale, and (IIRC) concluded that
the doped fabric accelerated the burning.

More or less a variation of paint-on Thermite, iirc.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. The only real final
USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in
reconnaissance and anti-sub patrols.

Bit like the passing of the Empire Flying boats. Once you had better
range and runways, the ability to hop fro river to river was not a
huge advantage, the the drag associated with flying a boat a huge
disadvantage.

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.


I am afraid that the world is full of people who know a little, but not
nearly enough.

Hence all these hare-brained schemes - like trying to generate reliable
electricity with 14th century technology dressed up to look 'modern' -
gain traction.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
Tim Streater writes:

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.

After all, it's nice and straight, no bridges to worry about,
no other craft in the way. For some reason, I can picture
Boris taking off, and bashing his head on the bottom of each
bridge as he tries to gain height...

There are only three options:

Expand heathrow.
Build a new airport to take over from heathrow (significantly bigger).
Remain closed for business to the world's developing markets.

This is a time when we really need another Terminal 5 type project
too - something that is substantial and with a rapid return on
investment, and necessary to keep the country open for business.
We can't afford a new airport to take over from heathrow, or the
time it would take to come into service, nice though that might
be in other financial circumstances.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. The only real final
USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in reconnaissance
and anti-sub patrols.

Bit like the passing of the Empire Flying boats. Once you had better
range and runways, the ability to hop fro river to river was not a
huge advantage, the the drag associated with flying a boat a huge
disadvantage.

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.

Son of Spruce Goose I assume. I can remember a Saunders-Roe flying boat
jet fighter being proposed, but has anyone managed to build a jet engined
flying boat? There are a few small prop ones.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. The only real final
USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in reconnaissance
and anti-sub patrols.

Bit like the passing of the Empire Flying boats. Once you had better
range and runways, the ability to hop fro river to river was not a
huge advantage, the the drag associated with flying a boat a huge
disadvantage.

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.

Son of Spruce Goose I assume. I can remember a Saunders-Roe flying boat
jet fighter being proposed,

Ive seen the prototype somewhere. Duxford?


but has anyone managed to build a jet engined
flying boat? There are a few small prop ones.

Jet engines take even less kindly to salt spray..

And imagine maintenance. lowering a jet engine into a boat to service
it. Yeuch!

I THINK there are turboprop flying boats, but the thing about water take
off's is you need a LOT of thrust at low speeds which jets are pretty
poor at.

http://www.surclaro.com/photo10178.html

Id say today one would build ether a hydrofoil or a hovercraft to get it
that critical first few inches..

BUT is all ******** anyway..you have to bring the thing to a dock and
get the passengers ashore. Makes no sense.

Jet airline massively threw piston engines out because they were fast
and needed less maintenance = more trips per maintenance hour and more
annualised rerun on capital.


EVERYTHING about flying boats says 'expensive'





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

charles wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. The only real final
USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in reconnaissance
and anti-sub patrols.

Bit like the passing of the Empire Flying boats. Once you had better
range and runways, the ability to hop fro river to river was not a
huge advantage, the the drag associated with flying a boat a huge
disadvantage.

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.

Son of Spruce Goose I assume. I can remember a Saunders-Roe flying boat
jet fighter being proposed, but has anyone managed to build a jet engined
flying boat? There are a few small prop ones.


I found one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P6M_SeaMaster


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. The only real
final USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in
reconnaissance and anti-sub patrols.

Bit like the passing of the Empire Flying boats. Once you had better
range and runways, the ability to hop fro river to river was not a
huge advantage, the the drag associated with flying a boat a huge
disadvantage.

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames
itself as the new runway.

Son of Spruce Goose I assume. I can remember a Saunders-Roe flying
boat jet fighter being proposed, but has anyone managed to build a jet
engined flying boat? There are a few small prop ones.


I found one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P6M_SeaMaster

I note what a success it was ;-)
and in the last 50+ years, no-one has tried again.

says it all really.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. The only real
final USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in
reconnaissance and anti-sub patrols.

Bit like the passing of the Empire Flying boats. Once you had better
range and runways, the ability to hop fro river to river was not a
huge advantage, the the drag associated with flying a boat a huge
disadvantage.
Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames
itself as the new runway.
Son of Spruce Goose I assume. I can remember a Saunders-Roe flying
boat jet fighter being proposed, but has anyone managed to build a jet
engined flying boat? There are a few small prop ones.


I found one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P6M_SeaMaster

I note what a success it was ;-)
and in the last 50+ years, no-one has tried again.

says it all really.

I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed heavy
structures and short service lives on them.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed heavy
structures and short service lives on them.

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by
design, they never got very far above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed heavy
structures and short service lives on them.

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by
design, they never got very far above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

Colin Bignell

Well the whole point is they fly ABOVE the water. And look where the
engines are.


So spray is low.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 06/09/2012 15:17, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater writes:

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.

After all, it's nice and straight, no bridges to worry about,
no other craft in the way. For some reason, I can picture
Boris taking off, and bashing his head on the bottom of each
bridge as he tries to gain height...

There are only three options:

Expand heathrow.
Build a new airport to take over from heathrow (significantly bigger).
Remain closed for business to the world's developing markets.

This is a time when we really need another Terminal 5 type project
too - something that is substantial and with a rapid return on
investment, and necessary to keep the country open for business.
We can't afford a new airport to take over from heathrow, or the
time it would take to come into service, nice though that might
be in other financial circumstances.


I wonder where we could find new passenger capacity near London? I seem
to remember seeing something about there being airports at Luton, and
Stansted. But like everyone else I don't want to go there...

They have capacity, but no demand. Why do people think Sheerness would
fair any better?

Andy

In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 06/09/2012 15:17, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater writes:

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.

After all, it's nice and straight, no bridges to worry about,
no other craft in the way. For some reason, I can picture
Boris taking off, and bashing his head on the bottom of each
bridge as he tries to gain height...

There are only three options:

Expand heathrow.
Build a new airport to take over from heathrow (significantly bigger).
Remain closed for business to the world's developing markets.

This is a time when we really need another Terminal 5 type project
too - something that is substantial and with a rapid return on
investment, and necessary to keep the country open for business.
We can't afford a new airport to take over from heathrow, or the
time it would take to come into service, nice though that might
be in other financial circumstances.


I wonder where we could find new passenger capacity near London? I
seem to remember seeing something about there being airports at Luton,
and Stansted. But like everyone else I don't want to go there...

They have capacity, but no demand. Why do people think Sheerness would
fair any better?

Somebody mentioned Northolt in a *throwaway remark* on radio.

Also Manston has a nice long runway.

Luton is upsetting the local press with proposals for a huge increase in
flights over the next 10 years.

I believe Stansted has the land for a new runway but needs better links
to central London.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Tim Lamb writes:
In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 06/09/2012 15:17, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater writes:

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats,
meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself
as the new runway.

After all, it's nice and straight, no bridges to worry about,
no other craft in the way. For some reason, I can picture
Boris taking off, and bashing his head on the bottom of each
bridge as he tries to gain height...

There are only three options:

Expand heathrow.
Build a new airport to take over from heathrow (significantly bigger).
Remain closed for business to the world's developing markets.

This is a time when we really need another Terminal 5 type project
too - something that is substantial and with a rapid return on
investment, and necessary to keep the country open for business.
We can't afford a new airport to take over from heathrow, or the
time it would take to come into service, nice though that might
be in other financial circumstances.


I wonder where we could find new passenger capacity near London? I
seem to remember seeing something about there being airports at Luton,
and Stansted. But like everyone else I don't want to go there...

They have capacity, but no demand. Why do people think Sheerness would
fair any better?

Somebody mentioned Northolt in a *throwaway remark* on radio.

Also Manston has a nice long runway.

Luton is upsetting the local press with proposals for a huge increase in
flights over the next 10 years.

I believe Stansted has the land for a new runway but needs better links
to central London.

This is missing the point that business traffic needs to all
come in to a hub airport, and heathrow is the only one with
the business connections, carriers, interconnections, etc.
There will only be a handful of hub airports across Europe,
and if Heathrow fails to keep up, we won't have one in the UK,
and that means a load of business won't happen in the UK
anymore.

The others are all fine for holidays, but you won't spread
the business traffic across them. No one is interested in
landing at Luton for an onward flight from Gatwick, or
having a dozen company directors from around the world arrive
for a meeting, at 4 different airports. Companies will simply
move their European HQ's to other countries which do understand
the importance of a hub airport to business.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,

[Snip]

Somebody mentioned Northolt in a *throwaway remark* on radio.

single runway - unexpandabe.

Also Manston has a nice long runway.

just the one

Luton is upsetting the local press with proposals for a huge increase in
flights over the next 10 years.

I believe Stansted has the land for a new runway but needs better links
to central London.

you've listened to Fascinating Aida and "Cheap Flights", haven't you?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 06/09/2012 20:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed heavy
structures and short service lives on them.

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by
design, they never got very far above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

Colin Bignell

Well the whole point is they fly ABOVE the water. And look where the
engines are.


So spray is low.

They still show that it is possible to build a successful jet engined
flying boat.

Colin Bignell

In message , charles
writes
In article ,

[Snip]

Somebody mentioned Northolt in a *throwaway remark* on radio.

single runway - unexpandabe.

Also Manston has a nice long runway.

just the one

Luton is upsetting the local press with proposals for a huge increase in
flights over the next 10 years.

I believe Stansted has the land for a new runway but needs better links
to central London.

you've listened to Fascinating Aida and "Cheap Flights", haven't you?

No. But I have noticed that if you fly Easyjet to Madeira in the winter,
you take off from Stansted and fly over Luton Airport!

On Stansted, my sister had some connection with the owner of the
farmland threatened with CP.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


This is missing the point that business traffic needs to all
come in to a hub airport, and heathrow is the only one with
the business connections, carriers, interconnections, etc.
There will only be a handful of hub airports across Europe,
and if Heathrow fails to keep up, we won't have one in the UK,
and that means a load of business won't happen in the UK
anymore.


OK., like the time I flew into Atlanta hub, and my sole contribution to
the local economy was a coke and a packet of malboro before I got on my
plane to san Jose?


Yeah Right. American passengers landing at Heathrow to go to Paris on
business are REALLY going to make a difference to the UK economy.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 20:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed
heavy
structures and short service lives on them.

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by
design, they never got very far above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

Colin Bignell

Well the whole point is they fly ABOVE the water. And look where the
engines are.


So spray is low.

They still show that it is possible to build a successful jet engined
flying boat.


An ekranoplane is not a flying boat.

Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 06/09/2012 20:16, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed heavy
structures and short service lives on them.

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by
design, they never got very far above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

Colin Bignell


I think "seem" is the right word. Salt water and jet engines don't get
on, where a build-up of salt within engines seriously degrades performance.

You'll notice that they've tried to minimise salt spray entering the
engines by placing them as far forward as possible.

On 06/09/2012 23:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 20:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed
heavy
structures and short service lives on them.

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by
design, they never got very far above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

Colin Bignell

Well the whole point is they fly ABOVE the water. And look where the
engines are.


So spray is low.

They still show that it is possible to build a successful jet engined
flying boat.


An ekranoplane is not a flying boat.

While it does not fly in the normal sense of the word and there has been
discussion about whether it should be counted as a boat or as an
aircraft, it does do what a flying boat needs to do; it takes off and
lands on water and is airborne in between.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:


This is missing the point that business traffic needs to all
come in to a hub airport, and heathrow is the only one with
the business connections, carriers, interconnections, etc.
There will only be a handful of hub airports across Europe,
and if Heathrow fails to keep up, we won't have one in the UK,
and that means a load of business won't happen in the UK
anymore.


OK., like the time I flew into Atlanta hub, and my sole contribution to
the local economy was a coke and a packet of malboro before I got on my
plane to san Jose?


Yeah Right. American passengers landing at Heathrow to go to Paris on
business are REALLY going to make a difference to the UK economy.

Still missing the point...

In the past, if you wanted to fly to any business city in the
world, you went to Heathrow and took it for granted you could
fly there. That's only true for a handful of airports across
Europe - the hub airports. If you are anywhere else, you will
likely have to fly to a hub airport first, which for many
countries, means no direct flights to business destinations
(or very few, and only to obscure airports at the other end).

Now, with many new emerging markets around the world, such as
China and South America, these are linking into the European
hubs, but Heathrow has no capacity. For these rapidly growing
business desintinations, you will struggle to fly from
Heathrow, and you may have to fly to another European hub
airport first. This will rapidly take away business momentum
from Heathrow, and it will lose its hub status, which very
many other countries and airports would love to grab.
This is extremely important because this directly influences
who those emerging markets will preferentially do business
with, where they will setup their European headquarters,
where they will look for business to supply them,
etc. and it will be within one of the countries with a hub
airport. If that's not us, we will be very severely
handicapped, and you will likely also see existing
companies move their HQ out too, to one of the hub
countries.

Many EU countries have built substantial large new airports
over the last ~20 years, knowing this is essential to
attract and retain global business. We haven't made that
investment, and we're now out of capacity in our hub.
Yesterday, I heard Paris has got 6 times more flights to
the business destinations in China, and people here are
having to fly to Paris to get on flights to China.
China will have 70 new airports in the next 3 years.
Where are growing Chinese companies more likely to setup
their European HQ and operations? Somewhere they can
easily fly to.

Don't under-estimate the importance of a business hub
airport in the UK - it's absolutely essential, and
leaving it to fall behind the rest of Europe will
very quickly result in loss of hub status, and the
enormous amount of business that generates for us.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 23:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 20:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar
problems
are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds
(and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed
heavy
structures and short service lives on them.

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by
design, they never got very far above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

Colin Bignell

Well the whole point is they fly ABOVE the water. And look where the
engines are.


So spray is low.

They still show that it is possible to build a successful jet engined
flying boat.


An ekranoplane is not a flying boat.

While it does not fly in the normal sense of the word and there has been
discussion about whether it should be counted as a boat or as an
aircraft, it does do what a flying boat needs to do; it takes off and
lands on water and is airborne in between.


Thers a bit more to being an aircraft than that actually.

Colin Bignell



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

This is missing the point that business traffic needs to all
come in to a hub airport, and heathrow is the only one with
the business connections, carriers, interconnections, etc.
There will only be a handful of hub airports across Europe,
and if Heathrow fails to keep up, we won't have one in the UK,
and that means a load of business won't happen in the UK
anymore.

OK., like the time I flew into Atlanta hub, and my sole contribution to
the local economy was a coke and a packet of malboro before I got on my
plane to san Jose?


Yeah Right. American passengers landing at Heathrow to go to Paris on
business are REALLY going to make a difference to the UK economy.

Still missing the point...

In the past, if you wanted to fly to any business city in the
world, you went to Heathrow and took it for granted you could
fly there. That's only true for a handful of airports across
Europe - the hub airports. If you are anywhere else, you will
likely have to fly to a hub airport first, which for many
countries, means no direct flights to business destinations
(or very few, and only to obscure airports at the other end).

Now, with many new emerging markets around the world, such as
China and South America, these are linking into the European
hubs, but Heathrow has no capacity. For these rapidly growing
business desintinations, you will struggle to fly from
Heathrow, and you may have to fly to another European hub
airport first. This will rapidly take away business momentum
from Heathrow, and it will lose its hub status, which very
many other countries and airports would love to grab.
This is extremely important because this directly influences
who those emerging markets will preferentially do business
with, where they will setup their European headquarters,
where they will look for business to supply them,
etc. and it will be within one of the countries with a hub
airport. If that's not us, we will be very severely
handicapped, and you will likely also see existing
companies move their HQ out too, to one of the hub
countries.


********


Many EU countries have built substantial large new airports
over the last ~20 years, knowing this is essential to
attract and retain global business.

But not hubs

We haven't made that
investment, and we're now out of capacity in our hub.
Yesterday, I heard Paris has got 6 times more flights to
the business destinations in China, and people here are
having to fly to Paris to get on flights to China.
China will have 70 new airports in the next 3 years.
Where are growing Chinese companies more likely to setup
their European HQ and operations? Somewhere they can
easily fly to.

Don't under-estimate the importance of a business hub
airport in the UK - it's absolutely essential, and
leaving it to fall behind the rest of Europe will
very quickly result in loss of hub status, and the
enormous amount of business that generates for us.

********


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 6, 10:48*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

yes. There is a limit to how big or strong an airship could be on helium.

the US had a couple of big ones that got torn apart by bad weather. ISTR
that in one case they 'free ballooned' half of it to a reasonable
landing somewhere.

Yep, that was the USS Shenandoah.

Similar bit not quite was the loss of the USS Akron in 1932.

By that time the advantages of airships - range and altitude - were
being challenged by conventional aircraft anyway. *The only real final
USP was the duration possible - that made them useful in reconnaissance
and anti-sub patrols.

What made them dangerous was the weather:

With an early morning class at CalTech, Krick took a nap each night
during the five hours of little flying activity when the IIO-miles-an-
hour Fokker F-IOs flew from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas.

As he turned in, he remarked to the radio operator, "I'm glad we're
not flying off the coast of New Jersey tonight. There's a cold front
coming down from the north-east and a warm front coming up from the
south-west. When the two meet there is going to be one awful mix-up.
It'll be very violent."

Krick was no sooner asleep than he was shaken awake by the radioman.
"My God, the Akron just went down in the Atlantic off Bamegat Light,
right where you said all that rough weather was coming!".

The Akron large enough to accommodate five airplanes aboard. Seventy-
three men died in the disaster.

Krick sought out Dr. Theodore von Karman, chairman of CalTech's
Guggenheim Aeronautics Laboratory, which later was to spawn the world-
famous Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Von Karman also headed the Goodyear
Airship Institute at Akron, Ohio.

"The Akron never had a chance," Krick said. "The wind shear set up by
these two opposing air masses blowing in opposite directions was bound
to destroy the ship. She should never have been flown into this kind
of weather."

http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter2.htm