NationStates Jolt Archive

RNN Report:

Yes, the rumors are true, and this new bit of Raysian Engineering has finally shown itself as it paraded over the skies of Raysia's Captiol of Vancouver today.

Using a frame similar to the 5-Million-Pound [lift capacity] airships that can be seen transporting heavy objects such as the Mk III Sky Cleaners, Raysia Aerospace has constructed their first practical Aircraft Carrier Airship.

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/carrier.jpg

Much different from the Flying RT-1907 UCAV carriers, as it is much larger, and can land Carrier Take-off planes as well.

Some basic stats:

The Raysian Aerospace RT-3307 "Sky Base"
Type: Mobile Command Center/Dirigible
Length: 290m
Lift: 2 Helium/Hot Air "Ballons" (5,900,000 lbs force upwards at 20,000 feet)
Hull: Balloons and Balonettes encased in 6" LiquidMetal with Aluminum reinforcements
Propulsion: 2 Raysian Electric PJ-1002 Golaith Pulse Detonation/Jet Hybrid Powerplants, rated at 700,000 lbs of thrust each
Crew: 40 Operating, 22 C&C, 22 Gunners, 36 Pilots, 72 Mechanics
Armament: 6 Reloading QAAM Launchers (12 missiles each)
Chaff, Flare, and other Countermeasures
2 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
16 Flak Cannons,
22 50 Cal Guns, Wired
Dry Weight: 1,400,000 lbs
Max Weight: 5,500,000 lbs
Carrier Capacity: Up to 36 Average Carrier Take-Off craft, or 72 UCAVs, or some mix of them. Should have enough lift ability remaining to hold extra ammo and fuel for the fighters. Runway is entire length of airship, and has catapults and catch wires where needed. For the most part though, the planes land while the Zeppelin is in motion, and simply match speeds with the deck while a remote-controlled tether locks them down onto a slot-car-like mechanism that tows the plane to a bay off to the side, where the pilot may exist the vehicle and lower the aircraft on the elevator to a lower deck.
Max Speed: 600 km/h
Ceiling: At normal weight (4,800,000 lbs) 35,000 ft

Price to build [Not for sale yet]: 2.3 Billion

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rsig1.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=78939)
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rsig5.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88120)

ooc: Yes, I did do my math... despite the possibility of me guessing something wrong and this is just a really huge and potentially dangerously flimsy structure, it should be realistic..

ooc: I know you get a lot of images from Ace Combat 4...but damn...where do you find these! Nice image 8)

ooc: that pic is amazing! i want to know too where you found that!

FOUND?!?! BAH, I MADE IT!

No seriously, I really did... I made the airship 100% myself, stole the cloud background, and copy and pasted a bunch of my RF-23s as well as some E-types ;) It is ALL MY TECH :)

FOUND?!?! BAH, I MADE IT!

No seriously, I really did... I made the airship 100% myself, stole the cloud background, and copy and pasted a bunch of my RF-23s as well as some E-types ;) It is ALL MY TECH :)

ooc: wow man, you got skills. What program do you use??

ooc: if i was still in game dev, i'd hire you to do graphics. that's amazing!

ooc: if i was still in game dev, i'd hire you to do graphics. that's amazing!

OOC: Damn man...i gotta get u to design something for me.......

IC: The USSP watches, as the new Aeriel Aircraft Carrier is unveiled. One citizen comments "Technology has outdone itself this time"

*cackles*

My Ego: "Hey man, hear that? You rock, man. You're the man, man!"

Me: hehehehehehe

Thanks guys... I don't have much talent really, just knowledge of how to guess at how Lightwave 3d works, and how to throw random crap on the image to make it look cool :P

Haven't you guys seen any of the stuff I did under the name Capsule Corporation??

The Phoenix Milita formally annouces disgust and revulsion at Raysia for creating this new airship. A statement by Phoenix Dynamix CEO John Specito will be made later today.

The Phoenix Milita formally annouces disgust and revulsion at Raysia for creating this new airship. A statement by Phoenix Dynamix CEO John Specito will be made later today.?!?!?!

Umm... are you calling us crazy? Or are you saying "Why the eff didn't we think of that first?" :P

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I like Raysia's...but then again I'm a huge Ace Combat 4 fan.

heh... this is actually some sort of Ironic joke, really.

When Phoenix Dynamix first came out with a flying airstrip, I yelled godmod LOL

Now look at me *blushes* oh well, I made up for it with a kick-booty pic, no? :)

EDIT: Was wrong, was PD, not TPM... grr

The Phoenix Milita formally annouces disgust and revulsion at Raysia for creating this new airship. A statement by Phoenix Dynamix CEO John Specito will be made later today.?!?!?!

Umm... are you calling us crazy? Or are you saying "Why the eff didn't we think of that first?" :P
Offical Reponse from John Specito, General in the TPM air force, as well as Phoenix Dynamix CEO:
You have forgotten already that it is we who have first designed and pioneered airships for the modern battlefield. We are further disgusted by the fact that your government is now dening knowlege of Phoenix Dynamix Airship designs. Do Raysian aerospace engineers also forget laughing in the face of PD executives when we aproched them on a joint project to build another airborne carrier using the double ballon scheme of your previous airships and the idea of the Trojan Aircraft Carrier? We do not find this to be a coincidence of any kind, instead simple, underhanded corprate corruption. Your own engineers have said it would be"impossible" to construct such a craft. We are seriously offended by this "new" craft that Raysia has designed.

I like Raysia's...but then again I'm a huge Ace Combat 4 fan.heh... just for saying that, you get one free Sky Cleaner (Stonehenge gun)

:P

(j/k)

The Phoenix Milita formally annouces disgust and revulsion at Raysia for creating this new airship. A statement by Phoenix Dynamix CEO John Specito will be made later today.?!?!?!

Umm... are you calling us crazy? Or are you saying "Why the eff didn't we think of that first?" :P
Offical Reponse from John Specito, General in the TPM air force, as well as Phoenix Dynamix CEO:
You have forgotten already that it is we who have first designed and pioneered airships for the modern battlefield. We are further disgusted by the fact that your government is now dening knowlege of Phoenix Dynamix Airship designs. Do Raysian aerospace engineers also forget laughing in the face of PD executives when we aproched them on a joint project to build another airborne carrier using the double ballon scheme of your previous airships and the idea of the Trojan Aircraft Carrier? We do not find this to be a coincidence of any kind, instead simple, underhanded corprate corruption. Your own engineers have said it would be"impossible" to construct such a craft. We are seriously offended by this "new" craft that Raysia has designed.Official Reply:

This is OUR first aircraft carrier Airship :)

OOC response: Can I see your storefront? I called godmod for some reason... I'm trying to remember what it was...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

ooc: You seemed at one time to think that dirigibles are lighter than air, when they are in fact heavier than air aircraft

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65638&highlight=

Sniper: My bad, wrong phoenix, I meant this guy: :)
EDIT: BAH! They are the same!

ooc: You seemed at one time to think that dirigibles are lighter than air, when they are in fact heavier than air aircraft

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65638&highlight=Yeah, umm well, err... Mine's bigger, and actually has stats... I have no idea how big yours is, because you put "length=Many feet" :P Anyway, sorry for sort-of ripping you off, but I didn't really, I got the idea from Crimson Skies.

From the looks of your pic, it looked as though it couldn't possibly do what you said it could... but then, it was just a sketch, and I was too quick to yell at you lol sorry man

Phoenix Dynamix is a company in TPM and the same as meh..

When I approched you to make a new airship, basically likethe one you have now you said it would be impossible. If you rember the other airship u made some time ago, I mentioned that the configuration would be ideal for an airborne airship..

btw your aircraft carrier goes to fast, and I doubt is has enough volume to hold the helium PLUS the aircraft in the ballon areas

IC: Phoenix Dynamix has determined that the time is right to rush the Trojan Mk2 into deployment and offer it for sale on the open market.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Yeah, umm well, err... Mine's bigger, and actually has stats... I have no idea how big yours is, because you put "length=Many feet" :P Anyway, sorry for sort-of ripping you off, but I didn't really, I got the idea from Crimson Skies.

From the looks of your pic, it looked as though it couldn't possibly do what you said it could... but then, it was just a sketch, and I was too quick to yell at you lol sorry man

Crimson Skies is an awesome game. Too bad I never got a good enough joystick to really get into it... :? keyboard controlled flight SUCKS.

o_O

Are you claiming that can go .8 mach?

And WHY build something like this? You already have carriers for mobile aircraft, and they can stay out in the ocean for longer periods of time without resupplying...

Unless you're going to also include airborne destroyers, frigates, etc, all you have is a very large target :)

LOL sorry PD, but I just felt, that since NOW i finally have the tech to make huge airships, I should probably take this next step... About the speed thing... I dunno... it seems right... it's slower than most jetliners today, but it is most definately faster than yours, but that's because it has two freaking massive fuel-guzzling engines ;)

o_O

Are you claiming that can go .8 mach?

And WHY build something like this? You already have carriers for mobile aircraft, and they can stay out in the ocean for longer periods of time without resupplying...

Unless you're going to also include airborne destroyers, frigates, etc, all you have is a very large target :)Jeez, is Mach 0.8 really that unrealistic? Fine, I'll lower it to mach 0.5.

As for WHY, DUH! This is for quick reactions. Why wait several days for a carrier to reach an opponent when you can have it there in hours? It is far more practical.

And besides, not like we are building a fleet of these, just one or two.

Unless you're going to also include airborne destroyers, frigates, etc, all you have is a very large target :)

I like that idea. It'd still be modern/slight future tech, just that nobody in RL has done it. :idea:

Someone has done it in ns at least...


<----

OK, speed edited.

Oh, and for those who don't know what me and PD are talking about, this was my original "command airship"

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/defender.jpg

Someone has done it in ns at least...


<----*smiles* maybe I should create one of my own...hehe... continue our little rivalry ;)

We can build it Better, Faster, Harder, Stronger, and there is nothing you can do about it ;)

Go capitalizm!
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/mrgreen.jpg

Someone has done it in ns at least...


<----*smiles* maybe I should create one of my own...hehe... continue our little rivalry ;)

We can build it Better, Faster, Harder, Stronger, and there is nothing you can do about it ;)

Go capitalizm!

I'd like to see the end product of a little competition... I might even be interested in a bit of shopping. :P

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd applauds this achievement and looks forward for the availability of this aircraft in the international market.

OOC:
Translation:
The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd has a small army and has no navy. However, what it lacks in either it makes up for a massive, technologically up-to-date airforce. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103726) Billions of dollars are poured into the maintenance and expansion of the infamous airforce.

My point is,

GIMME, I WANT, I WILL CONQUER THE WORLD'S SKIES.

Ahem, sorry, I meant I want it to be the standard for carrying my horde of aircraft into the battlefield.

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd applauds this achievement and looks forward for the availability of this aircraft in the international market.

OOC:
Translation:
The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd has a small army and has no navy. However, what it lacks in either it makes up for a massive, technologically up-to-date airforce. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103726) Billions of dollars are poured into the maintenance and expansion of the infamous airforce.

My point is,

GIMME, I WANT, I WILL CONQUER THE WORLD'S SKIES.

Ahem, sorry, I meant I want it to be the standard for carrying my horde of aircraft into the battlefield.I don't -really- think you want this as a mainstay craft... this is simply a reaction force carrier, for like rangers or scouts or something.

What keeps the liquid metal a liquid? The only way I know to keep to have liquid metal is to have it super heated and the only use for the stuff is a coolant for nuclear reactors.

P.S what is it with you and pulse detonation engines?

What keeps the liquid metal a liquid? The only way I know to keep to have liquid metal is to have it super heated and the only use for the stuff is a coolant for nuclear reactors.

P.S what is it with you and pulse detonation engines?LiquidMetal (one word) is only called that because when it -does- melt, it is very moldable, and can be poured like a liquid into molds and casts easily. It's lighter than alumninum, more elastic than titanium, and exists in real life. (Go ahead, search "liquidmetal" on google)

And me and Pulse-det/jet hybrid engines? Umm... they're the latest tech, and they are more efficient than normal jet engines... what is wrong with me using them on this scale? yeah, it would probably burn hotter, but its not like I would have the pulse-det part on all the time... it's called a hybrid for a reason ;)

Seems interesting, but I gotta to ask, how do these carriers launch carrier aircraft exactly? You do know that without a catapult a carrier aircraft still needs a long runway to take-off (longer than 290m)? Even by recovering it, the only way to recover it is if you keep a few arrestor hooks.

Seems interesting, but I gotta to ask, how do these carriers launch carrier aircraft exactly? You do know that without a catapult a carrier aircraft still needs a long runway to take-off (longer than 290m)? Even by recovering it, the only way to recover it is if you keep a few arrestor hooks.

He did mention catapults and hooks, but consider that moving at normal flight speeds, recovery would probably be very easy, and takeoff could also be assisted provided that the plane takes off towards the rear. Also on takeoff, if this thing is high enough, it has no water to worry about falling into like a water-borne carrier.

Seems interesting, but I gotta to ask, how do these carriers launch carrier aircraft exactly? You do know that without a catapult a carrier aircraft still needs a long runway to take-off (longer than 290m)? Even by recovering it, the only way to recover it is if you keep a few arrestor hooks.

He did mention catapults and hooks, but consider that moving at normal flight speeds, recovery would probably be very easy, and takeoff could also be assisted provided that the plane takes off towards the rear. Also on takeoff, if this thing is high enough, it has no water to worry about falling into like a water-borne carrier.
If so, I simply don't see how it is possible to carry catapults on it. If he's using a steam one, he'll of course, need the steam from nuclear reactors/conventional turbines to do it (no, not the radioactive ones, that's basically where steam catapults get their steam from: nuclear reactors/steam turbines). If he's using an electromagnetic one, he certainly need a power source.

Seems interesting, but I gotta to ask, how do these carriers launch carrier aircraft exactly? You do know that without a catapult a carrier aircraft still needs a long runway to take-off (longer than 290m)? Even by recovering it, the only way to recover it is if you keep a few arrestor hooks.Yeah, umm, I'm pretty sure I said something about catapults and those arrestor hooks... I didn't know what the latter was called, but I put it on there for sure.

Either way, you could push a plane off the edge and it would get airborne by the time it hit ground :P

And if it's moving fast enough, you could almost land vertically on the deck.

EDIT: On your mention of steam, we're talking about a zep with 2 goliath Pulse-det/jet hybrid engines... bound to give off enough heat to beg for a coolant system. When a catapult IS needed, you can simply get the steam from the collant system for the 2 huge engines.

Seems interesting, but I gotta to ask, how do these carriers launch carrier aircraft exactly? You do know that without a catapult a carrier aircraft still needs a long runway to take-off (longer than 290m)? Even by recovering it, the only way to recover it is if you keep a few arrestor hooks.

He did mention catapults and hooks, but consider that moving at normal flight speeds, recovery would probably be very easy, and takeoff could also be assisted provided that the plane takes off towards the rear. Also on takeoff, if this thing is high enough, it has no water to worry about falling into like a water-borne carrier.
If so, I simply don't see how it is possible to carry catapults on it. If he's using a steam one, he'll of course, need the steam from nuclear reactors/conventional turbines to do it (no, not the radioactive ones, that's basically where steam catapults get their steam from: nuclear reactors/steam turbines). If he's using an electromagnetic one, he certainly need a power source.

I would assume the big ass engines on the sides could also power generators for the catapults.

Yeah, umm, I'm pretty sure I said something about catapults and those arrestor hooks... I didn't know what the latter was called, but I put it on there for sure.
Sorry, my mistake, see the last post I've made.
Either way, you could push a plane off the edge and it would get airborne by the time it hit ground :P
True, that's basically how a carrier aircraft takeoff works. But you'll need enough steam/power to push the aircraft off (especially fully loaded ones) in an extreme speed :P
And if it's moving fast enough, you could almost land vertically on the deck.
That's more like STOVL/VTOL aircraft. In case of ones designed for carrier operation, they would still glide down without the hook catching onto the wire.

Seems interesting, but I gotta to ask, how do these carriers launch carrier aircraft exactly? You do know that without a catapult a carrier aircraft still needs a long runway to take-off (longer than 290m)? Even by recovering it, the only way to recover it is if you keep a few arrestor hooks.

He did mention catapults and hooks, but consider that moving at normal flight speeds, recovery would probably be very easy, and takeoff could also be assisted provided that the plane takes off towards the rear. Also on takeoff, if this thing is high enough, it has no water to worry about falling into like a water-borne carrier.
If so, I simply don't see how it is possible to carry catapults on it. If he's using a steam one, he'll of course, need the steam from nuclear reactors/conventional turbines to do it (no, not the radioactive ones, that's basically where steam catapults get their steam from: nuclear reactors/steam turbines). If he's using an electromagnetic one, he certainly need a power source.

I would assume the big ass engines on the sides could also power generators for the catapults.steam... we're talking about a zep with 2 goliath Pulse-det/jet hybrid powerplants... bound to give off enough heat to beg for a coolant system. When a catapult IS needed, you can simply get the steam from the collant system for the 2 huge engines.

Yeah, umm, I'm pretty sure I said something about catapults and those arrestor hooks... I didn't know what the latter was called, but I put it on there for sure.
Sorry, my mistake, see the last post I've made.
Either way, you could push a plane off the edge and it would get airborne by the time it hit ground :P
True, that's basically how a carrier aircraft takeoff works. But you'll need enough steam/power to push the aircraft off (especially fully loaded ones) in an extreme speed :P
And if it's moving fast enough, you could almost land vertically on the deck.
That's more like STOVL/VTOL aircraft. In case of ones designed for carrier operation, they would still glide down without the hook catching onto the wire.The planes could nearly match speed and land... it'd be like a frikkin wind tunnel on the deck anyway ;)

ooh, that could be a problem :S

If this airship is moving at 600 kph any conventional air craft would simply need to be un-thetered or unhooked from the deck and it would be come instantly airborne, as for landing it would have to match the airships speed at a few inches above the strip and then slowy lower altitde until it makes contact and is secured, then the engines would simply need to be shut down. The take off speed for most jets is between 140 and 170 knots.

If this airship is moving at 600 kph any conventional air craft would simply need to be un-thetered or unhooked from the deck and it would be come instantly airborne, as for landing it would have to match the airships speed at a few inches above the strip and then slowy lower altitde until it makes contact and is secured, then the engines would simply need to be shut down. The take off speed for most jets is between 140 and 170 knots.thank you for unintentionally answering the question in the back of my mind... "how the heck do i keep these things from floating off?" lol That seems simple enough, tethers.

If this airship is moving at 600 kph any conventional air craft would simply need to be un-thetered or unhooked from the deck and it would be come instantly airborne, as for landing it would have to match the airships speed at a few inches above the strip and then slowy lower altitde until it makes contact and is secured, then the engines would simply need to be shut down. The take off speed for most jets is between 140 and 170 knots.thank you for unintentionally answering the question in the back of my mind... "how the heck do i keep these things from floating off?" lol That seems simple enough, tethers.

A track-mounted tether system on the deck would be great, the planes catch to the tethers, and are led along like slot cars on a track to the storage bays. They wouldn't handicap the flight deck any, as they'd be pretty low-profile tracks.

If this airship is moving at 600 kph any conventional air craft would simply need to be un-thetered or unhooked from the deck and it would be come instantly airborne, as for landing it would have to match the airships speed at a few inches above the strip and then slowy lower altitde until it makes contact and is secured, then the engines would simply need to be shut down. The take off speed for most jets is between 140 and 170 knots.thank you for unintentionally answering the question in the back of my mind... "how the heck do i keep these things from floating off?" lol That seems simple enough, tethers.

A track-mounted tether system on the deck would be great, the planes catch to the tethers, and are led along like slot cars on a track to the storage bays. They wouldn't handicap the flight deck any, as they'd be pretty low-profile tracks.Sounds good to me.

new stuff: I am not going to make a full-on battleship for the air, that would be dumb, as it would be nothing more than a big flimsy target.

BUT, I do think I will make a transporter zep, that'll look something like this:
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/coruscant5_bg.jpg

It'll be big enough to transport whole big chunks of army at once ;)

new stuff: I am not going to make a full-on battleship for the air, that would be dumb, as it would be nothing more than a big flimsy target.

BUT, I do think I will make a transporter zep, that'll look something like this:
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/coruscant5_bg.jpg

It'll be big enough to transport whole big chunks of army at once ;)

Heh, reminds me of something I heard about the Empire State building or Chrysler Building, not sure which. Apparently, the designers considered putting in a zepplin port at the very top. :shock:

new stuff: I am not going to make a full-on battleship for the air, that would be dumb, as it would be nothing more than a big flimsy target.

BUT, I do think I will make a transporter zep, that'll look something like this:
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/coruscant5_bg.jpg

It'll be big enough to transport whole big chunks of army at once ;)

Heh, reminds me of something I heard about the Empire State building or Chrysler Building, not sure which. Apparently, the designers considered putting in a zepplin port at the very top. :shock:ooc: actually, its from star wars :P

A few things...

-You would need substantial AA measures. You have 16 flak guns and 50 MGs listed for a 280 meter ship. As this is literally a flying payload, you may want to consider raising that number.
-Flight crews would not be able to work on the flight deck due to a few things. 1) Intense wind 2) Extremely low pressure 3) sub-zero temperatures.
-As a plane lands on an object carrying momentum, it inherits that objects momentum once it reaches the surface of the object. So as you said, if a plane lands "vertically," it will be immediately given a tremendous boost once it contacts the surface of the ship, sending it off
-Due to the wind, how would planes taxi along the runway, especially when turning.
-The wake of such a ship would tremendously affect any aircraft attempting to land.

As to not be a total pain, I have a few solutions to these issues. Dramatically increase the AA defense. Essentially create a hanger along the runway with large doors at either end (dramatically slanted to lower wind resistance). The crews could move the planes into place and then clear out of the runway and open the doors for takeoff. Similarly, the rear door could be opened up for landing. Lastly, put on one hell of a catching mechanism.

LiquidMetal (one word) is only called that because when it -does- melt, it is very moldable, and can be poured like a liquid into molds and casts easily. It's lighter than alumninum, more elastic than titanium, and exists in real life. (Go ahead, search "liquidmetal" on google)

And me and Pulse-det/jet hybrid engines? Umm... they're the latest tech, and they are more efficient than normal jet engines... what is wrong with me using them on this scale? yeah, it would probably burn hotter, but its not like I would have the pulse-det part on all the time... it's called a hybrid for a reason ;)

I have heard of the Soviets using LiquidMetal to cool nuclear reactor on subs but they needed to be attacked to speical heating equiped when the reactor was shut off so it didn't set. What kind of system do you use to stop this from happening?

A pulse-det engine isn't fuel efficeient really, Currently they have a Thrust specific fuel consumption of around 1.0 while a Turbofan has 0.5. But if you mean more efficeint then an afterburner then yes they are better.


Johnified America have you heard of the relativity law? Simple put, IF a train is travelling at the speed of light and you walk from one end to the other you ARE NOT walking after than light. The same applies for a jet, When you jump from an aerospane your forward speed is 0 and that why you need to be dropped almost directly over your target(you need to abjust to wind). To take off, if a plane was just dumped over the edge it would instanlty stall and going into a nose dive because it would have no airspeed, a takeoff is still required.

A few things...

-You would need substantial AA measures. You have 16 flak guns and 50 MGs listed for a 280 meter ship. As this is literally a flying payload, you may want to consider raising that number.
-Flight crews would not be able to work on the flight deck due to a few things. 1) Intense wind 2) Extremely low pressure 3) sub-zero temperatures.
-As a plane lands on an object carrying momentum, it inherits that objects momentum once it reaches the surface of the object. So as you said, if a plane lands "vertically," it will be immediately given a tremendous boost once it contacts the surface of the ship, sending it off
-Due to the wind, how would planes taxi along the runway, especially when turning.
-The wake of such a ship would tremendously affect any aircraft attempting to land.

As to not be a total pain, I have a few solutions to these issues. Dramatically increase the AA defense. Essentially create a hanger along the runway with large doors at either end (dramatically slanted to lower wind resistance). The crews could move the planes into place and then clear out of the runway and open the doors for takeoff. Similarly, the rear door could be opened up for landing. Lastly, put on one hell of a catching mechanism.Sounds good. As the pic notes, there are aready some sort of hangar doors already in place. Taxis would be automated, using a "slot car" type thing, which will catch the plane, drag them to the hangar doors, and bring them inside. The Envelopes of the zeppelin, just inside the bay doors, do have elevators that can bring the planes down to a lower level.

I guess there isn't an issue then!

A way to help stop the plane land is to install, upwards openning flaps as to help make the wings less effecive and lower the lift they create.

LiquidMetal (one word) is only called that because when it -does- melt, it is very moldable, and can be poured like a liquid into molds and casts easily. It's lighter than alumninum, more elastic than titanium, and exists in real life. (Go ahead, search "liquidmetal" on google)

And me and Pulse-det/jet hybrid engines? Umm... they're the latest tech, and they are more efficient than normal jet engines... what is wrong with me using them on this scale? yeah, it would probably burn hotter, but its not like I would have the pulse-det part on all the time... it's called a hybrid for a reason ;)

I have heard of the Soviets using LiquidMetal to cool nuclear reactor on subs but they needed to be attacked to speical heating equiped when the reactor was shut off so it didn't set. What kind of system do you use to stop this from happening?

A pulse-det engine isn't fuel efficeient really, Currently they have a Thrust specific fuel consumption of around 1.0 while a Turbofan has 0.5. But if you mean more efficeint then an afterburner then yes they are better.


Johnified America have you heard of the relativity law? Simple put, IF a train is travelling at the speed of light and you walk from one end to the other you ARE NOT walking after than light. The same applies for a jet, When you jump from an aerospane your forward speed is 0 and that why you need to be dropped almost directly over your target(you need to abjust to wind). To take off, if a plane was just dumped over the edge it would instanlty stall and going into a nose dive because it would have no airspeed, a takeoff is still required.Umm... first off, quit calling them that, they are pulse-det/jet turbofan HYBRIDS... they are both... just in case you didn't notice that.

And second, the speed of light is a constant, so that's not really a good example to use. I've seen people land planes on the back of pick up trucks before. If this Zepp is going 400 km/h, then the plane would merely have to match speed, fly towards it, position itself, then gently set down. if you tilted up to try to stall, then you would blow away backwards, because you would not be able to catch up with the zepp. And taking off, when moving, you would merely have to untether yourself and you would fling off the deck, like in a wind tunnel (so make sure you have your engines on!).

Now, if the zep is stopped or below aircraft stall speed, then yes, landing and taking off would obviously be different, thus the catapults and catch wires. not like you would need the catapults though, because at the right altitude, you could simply fall off the edge into a stall, then pick up speed with a little thing we scientists call "gravity" :)

If the zep if flying at 400km/h them how would a pliot be able to stand on it and walk down the ladder off the plane without gettign blown away?
Plus why would ANYONE try to stall in landing? Thats just stupid. You lift the nose to lower the speed of decent so you don't get a rough landing

For takeoff if you just untether yourself you will have a flight speed of 0 and as soon as the runway ran out you would fall. this is extremly dangerous and stupid at the same time. When aircraft do stall they are very hard to control and stalling on pupose is very dangerous and stalling on takeoff is suicide.

If the zep if flying at 400km/h them how would a pliot be able to stand on it and walk down the ladder off the plane without gettign blown away?
Plus why would ANYONE try to stall in landing? Thats just stupid. You lift the nose to lower the speed of decent so you don't get a rough landing

For takeoff if you just untether yourself you will have a flight speed of 0 and as soon as the runway ran out you would fall. this is extremly dangerous and stupid at the same time. When aircraft do stall they are very hard to control and stalling on pupose is very dangerous and stalling on takeoff is suicide.i didn't suggest stalling, I thought you did somewhere... and as for taking off, if you have your engines on when you untether, you can simply pull up, and you will fly off the deck, because you already have an airspeed of 400 km/h. You are speaking as if Air is not a factor... the air is moving around the plane at 400 km/h, just as if it were in a wind tunnel or in the open air itself.

And stalling on take-off? how would that be suicide from 15-20,000 feet in the air??

As for a pilot standing on the deck, perhaps you should read the frikkin thread? We have the plane towed off the deck on the slot-car thing that one guy (sorry) suggested, and then they get out of the plane once below deck.

i didn't suggest stalling, I thought you did somewhere... and as for taking off, if you have your engines on when you untether, you can simply pull up, and you will fly off the deck, because you already have an airspeed of 400 km/h. You are speaking as if Air is not a factor... the air is moving around the plane at 400 km/h, just as if it were in a wind tunnel or in the open air itself.

And stalling on take-off? how would that be suicide from 15-20,000 feet in the air??

As for a pilot standing on the deck, perhaps you should read the frikkin thread? We have the plane towed off the deck on the slot-car thing that one guy (sorry) suggested, and then they get out of the plane once below deck.

Your speed wouldn't be 400km/h but the lift created you be equal to 400km/h this presents a problem becuase when you try to pull up the g-load on the wings would be enough to pull them off. You would have to keep the plane extremly still until it actually develops airspeed. Although the aircraft would think it was going 400km/h it isn't. Same this as when your parachuting.

Having a giant flying airship is an extremly stupid idea. It just won't work. For 1 thing to lift any sizable amount of weight in a airship requires a huge amount of hygroren or helium and make the things so big it would be so easy to shoot that even a granny his no eyes could hit it

Actually, Crimson Skies got the idea from Real Life.

The US Air Force actually had Carrier Airships in the 1930s- if you've seen Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade you have a pretty good idea how they work.

Most of them were configured for Boeing P-26 fighters, IIRC... The idea was dropped before World War II owing to costs and the fact that Airships were embarrisingly prone to small arms fire...

i didn't suggest stalling, I thought you did somewhere... and as for taking off, if you have your engines on when you untether, you can simply pull up, and you will fly off the deck, because you already have an airspeed of 400 km/h. You are speaking as if Air is not a factor... the air is moving around the plane at 400 km/h, just as if it were in a wind tunnel or in the open air itself.

And stalling on take-off? how would that be suicide from 15-20,000 feet in the air??

As for a pilot standing on the deck, perhaps you should read the frikkin thread? We have the plane towed off the deck on the slot-car thing that one guy (sorry) suggested, and then they get out of the plane once below deck.

Your speed wouldn't be 400km/h but the lift created you be equal to 400km/h this presents a problem becuase when you try to pull up the g-load on the wings would be enough to pull them off. You would have to keep the plane extremly still until it actually develops airspeed. Although the aircraft would think it was going 400km/h it isn't. Same this as when your parachuting.

Having a giant flying airship is an extremly stupid idea. It just won't work. For 1 thing to lift any sizable amount of weight in a airship requires a huge amount of hygroren or helium and make the things so big it would be so easy to shoot that even a granny his no eyes could hit itDude, I know all that stuff in the last paragraph. I know this thing's pros and cons.

As for the first... I lost you somewhere... how is your speed not 400 km/h? Scenario: The Zepp is moving 400km/h, and you are tethered to the deck. You engage your engines to full throttle, and release tethers. At this point, you should simply be able to move forward, already floating above the deck. It is not like parachuting, because you don't have wings when parachuting. It is not like going light speed because, well, that's obvious. It's more like dropping a glider from a bigger plane... only the glider has engines...

Actually, Crimson Skies got the idea from Real Life.

The US Air Force actually had Carrier Airships in the 1930s- if you've seen Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade you have a pretty good idea how they work.

Most of them were configured for Boeing P-26 fighters, IIRC... The idea was dropped before World War II owing to costs and the fact that Airships were embarrisingly prone to small arms fire...First off, if you noticed, 6 inch Liquidmetal hull... small arms wouldn't do all that much. As for dropping planes, yeah, this is a little different, since this is actually moving at lift speeds, and we're talking about 35 ton jets here, not 2 ton crates ;)

As for the first... I lost you somewhere... how is your speed not 400 km/h? Scenario: The Zepp is moving 400km/h, and you are tethered to the deck. You engage your engines to full throttle, and release tethers. At this point, you should simply be able to move forward, already floating above the deck. It is not like parachuting, because you don't have wings when parachuting. It is not like going light speed because, well, that's obvious. It's more like dropping a glider from a bigger plane... only the glider has engines...

It's one of the laws of Physics.
The shit if moving at 400km/h but the plan is not, when your travelling on an airplane your speed is 0 while the planes is around MACH.9.

IF your did untether yourself the wings would create lift for a short time but the plane will still be traveling with no speed and if the engines arn't strong enough to get it moving forward intime it will stall and fall.

It's exacly the same as jumping from a plane, the speed of the plane is not given to you.


P.S the lift the empty airship(YOUR DRY WEIGHT) would require around 510,000 Square meters of Helium. Where are you going to get that much helium?

As for the first... I lost you somewhere... how is your speed not 400 km/h? Scenario: The Zepp is moving 400km/h, and you are tethered to the deck. You engage your engines to full throttle, and release tethers. At this point, you should simply be able to move forward, already floating above the deck. It is not like parachuting, because you don't have wings when parachuting. It is not like going light speed because, well, that's obvious. It's more like dropping a glider from a bigger plane... only the glider has engines...

It's one of the laws of Physics.
The shit if moving at 400km/h but the plan is not, when your travelling on an airplane your speed is 0 while the planes is around MACH.9.what? You're leaving something out.... how the eff do you get mach 9?

IF your did untether yourself the wings would create lift for a short time but the plane will still be traveling with no speed and if the engines arn't strong enough to get it moving forward intime it will stall and fall. how would it stall if it is moving forward at an airspeed of 400 km/h???

It's exacly the same as jumping from a plane, the speed of the plane is not given to you.what?


P.S the lift the empty airship(YOUR DRY WEIGHT) would require around 510,000 Square meters of Helium. Where are you going to get that much helium?Dude, look at the freakin size of the thing... 250 meters long. That is 1.25 MILLION cubic meters of envelope space, of which about 2/3 of that would be helium. I did the math... now quit bugging me, unless you can come up with something better.

Dam your stupid.

MACH .9 I put in the point for a reason

Youtr DON'T have a forward airspeed of 400km/h READ THE POST.

IF i just from a plan that is traveling at 200km/h, my speed would be 0km/h. the same thing would happen with the plane.

290M by what?

Dam your stupid.

MACH .9 I put in the point for a reason

Youtr DON'T have a forward airspeed of 400km/h READ THE POST.

IF i just from a plan that is traveling at 200km/h, my speed would be 0km/h. the same thing would happen with the plane.

290M by what?Whoa, calm down... just because I don't understand what you are saying doesn't make me stupid.

Now, explain to me (don't just tell me, EXPLAIN HOW) your speed would be zero? Keep in mind, by speed, I mean speed relative to the ground and air, not the deck... it would appear to be zero to an observer, yes.

EDIT: And 290 x 50 x 50 per balloon (or was it 290? I forget, lemme check the first page) So correction, that is 1,450,000 cubic meters of envelope volume.

Whoa, calm down... just because I don't understand what you are saying doesn't make me stupid.

Now, explain to me (don't just tell me, EXPLAIN HOW) your speed would be zero? Keep in mind, by speed, I mean speed relative to the ground and air, not the deck... it would appear to be zero to an observer, yes.

And 250 x 50 x 50 per balloon (or was it 290? I forget, lemme check the first page)

It's the law of relativity. If i driving in my car at 100km/h only my car has a speed of 100km/h not me, the same is said about the plane, the airship is the car and the plane is me. The planes is not "given" speed by the airship. Thats how it happens.



Plus if the size of the bag is 290x50x50 and it's a circular cross section(apears to be) them the total internal size of the shit is 1138250(becuase you have 2) if you filled 2/3 of this with healium the weight(of JUST the helium) would be 5795013.912lbs. And this alone is more than the max takeoff in your stats. If you wanna know this would give you 3729090.162lbs to work with before it would weigh as much as air.


nothing personnal but i just really really hate airships.

Whoa, calm down... just because I don't understand what you are saying doesn't make me stupid.

Now, explain to me (don't just tell me, EXPLAIN HOW) your speed would be zero? Keep in mind, by speed, I mean speed relative to the ground and air, not the deck... it would appear to be zero to an observer, yes.

And 250 x 50 x 50 per balloon (or was it 290? I forget, lemme check the first page)

It's the law of relativity. If i driving in my car at 100km/h only my car has a speed of 100km/h not me, the same is said about the plane, the airship is the car and the plane is me. The planes is not "given" speed by the airship. Thats how it happens. WRONG. As far as I know, YOU are going 100 km/h, because YOU are travelling 100 km/h. Granted, if you were to jump out of the car, you would stop quickly, but that is because; a. Your legs can't run that fast, and b. friction on the ground. In the air, this is not the case. You are confusing relativity with frame of reference.



Plus if the size of the bag is 290x50x50 and it's a circular cross section(apears to be) them the total internal size of the shit is 1138250(becuase you have 2) if you filled 2/3 of this with healium the weight(of JUST the helium) would be 5795013.912lbs. And this alone is more than the max takeoff in your stats. If you wanna know this would give you 3729090.162lbs to work with before it would weigh as much as air.Hmm... I didn't think of that. I guess I forgot to actually add the weight of the helium into the mix :P *smacks head* Unless of course, what you are telling me is -not- the case.


nothing personnal but i just really really hate airships.Calling me "stupid" is personal.

Kravoli.. you are traveling at 100km/h.. and if the vehicle stopped suddenly.. abruptly.. like say.. a car accident.. would you not get thrown with the impact.. not because of the impact but because of the process of being halted so abruptly while traveling at such high speeds?..

an object in motion stays in motion.. inertia isnt it? i think.. im confused.. its 2 am in the morning i need sleep :oops:

Thank you Doujin.

Kravoli, while you might be right about the helium, I will look into it. But as for this relativity crap, well, I don't think you know what you are talking about... so for now, I will keep this whole thing as is, sort of a cancelling out.

I will go and recheck my math source, to see if I must factor in the lighter-than-air gas.

OK, I just checked on the helium thing, yeah, this guy has NFC what he talking about.

One cubic foot of helium will lift about 28.2 grams

Yeah, so you don't factor the weight of the helium in, because it has NEGATIVE weight... something us college kids call "Lift" :)

So, I was right, Kravoli was wrong, and on both counts.

So please, unless you can actually support your claim... respectfully shut up :)

compressed helium has a weight yes.. as its in liquid form, but when released it doesn't... take a hellium tank. its filled with hellium in liquid form. depress the nozzle and the hellium comes out as a gas. a gas lighter than air. but in the tank, it is one heavy effer. im just blabering on, tryin to help out.. :oops: :oops:

compressed helium has a weight yes.. as its in liquid form, but when released it doesn't... take a hellium tank. its filled with hellium in liquid form. depress the nozzle and the hellium comes out as a gas. a gas lighter than air. but in the tank, it is one heavy effer. im just blabering on, tryin to help out.. :oops: :oops:heh, thanks, I knew that. Well, OK, I dont think it is a -liquid-.... are you sure about that? Changing to liquid would require EXTREME cold, and you wouldn't be able to store it in your garage ;)

*tag*
Cool Ship :wink:

*tag*
Cool Ship :wink:thank you :)

I don't -really- think you want this as a mainstay craft... this is simply a reaction force carrier, for like rangers or scouts or something.

Well then, can you modify it to satisfy our needs? We can not use naval carriers as there are too many icebergs in the vicinity of the United Socialist States of Zvarinograd to maintain a navy (we will have to put stock into a constant patrol of icebreakers to clear our waters enough for the construction of a port, much less enough space to manuever our ships).

I have a question. What's the intended operational altitude for this carrier? Because if it's anything around or below the ceiling for your average fighter, what's to stop me from spamming the skies with SAM fire and bringing it down in a matter of minutes once it enters range?

I have a question. What's the intended operational altitude for this carrier? Because if it's anything around or below the ceiling for your average fighter, what's to stop me from spamming the skies with SAM fire and bringing it down in a matter of minutes once it enters range?

Strategically, I think this type of vessel would deploy the fighters just outside the range of enemy defenses, but it does have some defensive measures as he mentioned. Definitely NOT a craft to bring into the heart of combat though.

Yes, this is not intended to be dragged into a combat area, but it can defend itself.as far as a SAM, yeah, it probably would hurt ut, but this isn't hydrogen or anything.... you'd have to fire a lot of SAMs to hurt this thing...

But if this thing ever got wind of a couple of anti-ship missiles, or a few shots from a 16" gun, then yeah, you'd have a problem

Yes, this is not intended to be dragged into a combat area, but it can defend itself.as far as a SAM, yeah, it probably would hurt ut, but this isn't hydrogen or anything.... you'd have to fire a lot of SAMs to hurt this thing...

But if this thing ever got wind of a couple of anti-ship missiles, or a few shots from a 16" gun, then yeah, you'd have a problem

6 inches of armor isn't exactly a lot. A couple of SAMs, maybe even one or two, would be capable of bringing that thing down, especially if you modified them so the warheads were delayed. And if a lone 16 inch shell, not a few, somehow did find it's way up to it, it would be completely over for it. The shell would rip a tremendous hole in it, and either keep going and rip and exit hole, or explode, ripping a bigger hole.

Yes, this is not intended to be dragged into a combat area, but it can defend itself.as far as a SAM, yeah, it probably would hurt ut, but this isn't hydrogen or anything.... you'd have to fire a lot of SAMs to hurt this thing...

But if this thing ever got wind of a couple of anti-ship missiles, or a few shots from a 16" gun, then yeah, you'd have a problem

6 inches of armor isn't exactly a lot. A couple of SAMs, maybe even one or two, would be capable of bringing that thing down, especially if you modified them so the warheads were delayed. And if a lone 16 inch shell, not a few, somehow did find it's way up to it, it would be completely over for it. The shell would rip a tremendous hole in it, and either keep going and rip and exit hole, or explode, ripping a bigger hole.

Yes, this is not intended to be dragged into a combat area, but it can defend itself.as far as a SAM, yeah, it probably would hurt ut, but this isn't hydrogen or anything.... you'd have to fire a lot of SAMs to hurt this thing...

But if this thing ever got wind of a couple of anti-ship missiles, or a few shots from a 16" gun, then yeah, you'd have a problem

6 inches of armor isn't exactly a lot. A couple of SAMs, maybe even one or two, would be capable of bringing that thing down, especially if you modified them so the warheads were delayed. And if a lone 16 inch shell, not a few, somehow did find it's way up to it, it would be completely over for it. The shell would rip a tremendous hole in it, and either keep going and rip and exit hole, or explode, ripping a bigger hole.Umm, first off, helium isn't all that flamable, and the Envelope is not what holds the helium... they are in sets of balloons inside the envelope. You would have to both puncture the hull AND the balloons inside it, and a heck of a lot of them, to be able to bring this thing down.

Oh, and second, Like I said, you would NOT want to take this into full on combatm that would be stupid. This is for long range scouts and ranger forces, not for war... sheesh, try reading the whole thread.

OK, I just checked on the helium thing, yeah, this guy has NFC what he talking about.

One cubic foot of helium will lift about 28.2 grams

Yeah, so you don't factor the weight of the helium in, because it has NEGATIVE weight... something us college kids call "Lift" :)

So, I was right, Kravoli was wrong, and on both counts.

So please, unless you can actually support your claim... respectfully shut up :)

Yes i was wrong on the motion. I have no idea what i was on.

But it DOES NOT have a negative weight. The reason it floats up(has lift) is because it is less dense than normal air and less dense thinks always want to be on top. Air weights 1.25kg/Mcubed and Helium 0.1785kg/mcubed. It does have a weight.

It is impossibel to have a negative weight but when you no under the influence of gravity you have no weight. If you think something can have a hegative weight no way are you in college.

Helium DOES NOT have a negaltive weight, The reason it floats is becuase it has a much lower desnisty than air.

What keeps the liquid metal a liquid? The only way I know to keep to have liquid metal is to have it super heated and the only use for the stuff is a coolant for nuclear reactors.

P.S what is it with you and pulse detonation engines?LiquidMetal (one word) is only called that because when it -does- melt, it is very moldable, and can be poured like a liquid into molds and casts easily. It's lighter than alumninum, more elastic than titanium, and exists in real life. (Go ahead, search "liquidmetal" on google)

And me and Pulse-det/jet hybrid engines? Umm... they're the latest tech, and they are more efficient than normal jet engines... what is wrong with me using them on this scale? yeah, it would probably burn hotter, but its not like I would have the pulse-det part on all the time... it's called a hybrid for a reason ;)
Except...
1. It's expensive.
2. It's yield strength is pretty bad.

Probably not very impact resistant either...

OK, I just checked on the helium thing, yeah, this guy has NFC what he talking about.

One cubic foot of helium will lift about 28.2 grams

Yeah, so you don't factor the weight of the helium in, because it has NEGATIVE weight... something us college kids call "Lift" :)

So, I was right, Kravoli was wrong, and on both counts.

So please, unless you can actually support your claim... respectfully shut up :)

Yes i was wrong on the motion. I have no idea what i was on.

But it DOES NOT have a negative weight. The reason it floats up(has lift) is because it is less dense than normal air and less dense thinks always want to be on top. Air weights 1.25kg/Mcubed and Helium 0.1785kg/mcubed. It does have a weight.

It is impossibel to have a negative weight but when you no under the influence of gravity you have no weight. If you think something can have a hegative weight no way are you in college.

Helium DOES NOT have a negaltive weight, The reason it floats is becuase it has a much lower desnisty than air.If you add the lift (what I called negative weight... incorrect term) of helium to the equation, you have the ship's mass of 5 million minus the displacement of the helium mass. Essentially, since the helium pulls you in the opposite direction of gravity, it has -negative- weight. While that may not be the correct term, the science is still right.

What keeps the liquid metal a liquid? The only way I know to keep to have liquid metal is to have it super heated and the only use for the stuff is a coolant for nuclear reactors.

P.S what is it with you and pulse detonation engines?LiquidMetal (one word) is only called that because when it -does- melt, it is very moldable, and can be poured like a liquid into molds and casts easily. It's lighter than alumninum, more elastic than titanium, and exists in real life. (Go ahead, search "liquidmetal" on google)

And me and Pulse-det/jet hybrid engines? Umm... they're the latest tech, and they are more efficient than normal jet engines... what is wrong with me using them on this scale? yeah, it would probably burn hotter, but its not like I would have the pulse-det part on all the time... it's called a hybrid for a reason ;)
Except...
1. It's expensive.
2. It's yield strength is pretty bad.

Probably not very impact resistant either...It is elastic, so it will dent instead of break... something good when you don't want puncture wounds too easily. Plus, it is lightweight.

And as for it being expensive, you are partially right... but we massively produce the stuff, and it is a major export... so it isn't really as expensive as in RL, not by any means.

Its yield strength is akin to stainless steel. Not exactly something you want to build your aircraft out of...

Its yield strength is akin to stainless steel. Not exactly something you want to build your aircraft out of...

Oh, but it would be so SHINY! Think of the SHININESS! :P :wink:

If you add the lift (what I called negative weight... incorrect term) of helium to the equation, you have the ship's mass of 5 million minus the displacement of the helium mass. Essentially, since the helium pulls you in the opposite direction of gravity, it has -negative- weight. While that may not be the correct term, the science is still right.

No you dodn't. The weight of the ship is the weight of the metal.etc AND the helium. The reason it lifts is becuase it is less dense than air. Helium has a weight of 0.1785kg/m3.

You have some of the sciense right but the weight of the ship is the weight of the ship, crew etc PLUS the weight of the helium. Helium lifts up becuase it is less densy(weights less) than air and less dense (Lighter) thing want to go on top. The reason oil floats on water is becuase it's density is lower than that of water but more than air.

To calculate weight you MUST add the weight of helium

Another random comment from "some guy" to clarify what Kravoli was attempting to say. The issue lies within air resistance. While an object is riding on something going 400 km/h an hour, it inherits that velocity. Yet the reason that it can go that fast is because it is also inheriting the force that the airship carries. Once the plane is separated from the airship, it will almost immediately lose every bit of that velocity due to the incredible air resistance. The plane is then left to its own means to create that force required to push past the air resistance.

A simple example would be if you held an apple out of the window of a car, it would fall back almost instantly. If you were to do the same thing in a vacuum (ie - space), ignoring the presence of gravity, the apple would continue on next to the car.

Of course, as you said, the plane would have its thrusters on, so there wouldn't be a problem.

Just a little clarification...

If you add the lift (what I called negative weight... incorrect term) of helium to the equation, you have the ship's mass of 5 million minus the displacement of the helium mass. Essentially, since the helium pulls you in the opposite direction of gravity, it has -negative- weight. While that may not be the correct term, the science is still right.

No you dodn't. The weight of the ship is the weight of the metal.etc AND the helium. The reason it lifts is becuase it is less dense than air. Helium has a weight of 0.1785kg/m3.

You have some of the sciense right but the weight of the ship is the weight of the ship, crew etc PLUS the weight of the helium. Helium lifts up becuase it is less densy(weights less) than air and less dense (Lighter) thing want to go on top. The reason oil floats on water is becuase it's density is lower than that of water but more than air.

To calculate weight you MUST add the weight of helium*sigh* Helium does not have any positive weight, but it has mass. You are confusing mass with weight. If you put a helium balloon on a scale, it will not register... if it does register, it will be negative.

Do not confuse mass with weight... just an important tip ;)

Its yield strength is akin to stainless steel. Not exactly something you want to build your aircraft out of...Why not? And remember, it is only the envelope's hull... the entire infrastructure is aluminum... the thing MOST planes are made of ;)

Another random comment from "some guy" to clarify what Kravoli was attempting to say. The issue lies within air resistance. While an object is riding on something going 400 km/h an hour, it inherits that velocity. Yet the reason that it can go that fast is because it is also inheriting the force that the airship carries. Once the plane is separated from the airship, it will almost immediately lose every bit of that velocity due to the incredible air resistance. The plane is then left to its own means to create that force required to push past the air resistance.

A simple example would be if you held an apple out of the window of a car, it would fall back almost instantly. If you were to do the same thing in a vacuum (ie - space), ignoring the presence of gravity, the apple would continue on next to the car.

Of course, as you said, the plane would have its thrusters on, so there wouldn't be a problem.

Just a little clarification...Thank you :)

I say we disregard any comments this Kravoli guy makes from her on out... he has lost all credibility as a scientific resource :P

Its yield strength is akin to stainless steel. Not exactly something you want to build your aircraft out of...Why not? And remember, it is only the envelope's hull... the entire infrastructure is aluminum... the thing MOST planes are made of ;)

But is that as shiny as the stainless steel? And as easy to clean, and oh so polishable? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Its yield strength is akin to stainless steel. Not exactly something you want to build your aircraft out of...Why not? And remember, it is only the envelope's hull... the entire infrastructure is aluminum... the thing MOST planes are made of ;)

But is that as shiny as the stainless steel? And as easy to clean, and oh so polishable? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:Steel is effin heavy!

Its yield strength is akin to stainless steel. Not exactly something you want to build your aircraft out of...Why not? And remember, it is only the envelope's hull... the entire infrastructure is aluminum... the thing MOST planes are made of ;)

But is that as shiny as the stainless steel? And as easy to clean, and oh so polishable? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:Steel is effin heavy!

So then the aluminum ISN'T shiny, stain-resistant, and polishable? What kind of scam are you running here? :x

I bow to your pictures dude.

Its yield strength is akin to stainless steel. Not exactly something you want to build your aircraft out of...Why not? And remember, it is only the envelope's hull... the entire infrastructure is aluminum... the thing MOST planes are made of ;)

But is that as shiny as the stainless steel? And as easy to clean, and oh so polishable? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:Steel is effin heavy!

So then the aluminum ISN'T shiny, stain-resistant, and polishable? What kind of scam are you running here? :xyou don't see the aluminum, you see the shiny liquidmetal ;)

I bow to your pictures dude.^_^ Thanks!!

you don't see the aluminum, you see the shiny liquidmetal ;)

:shock: Egad! I'll take 5,674,326 of them as soon as possible! No time to haggle over cost, I want me shiny! :twisted:

Helium does not have any positive weight, but it has mass. You are confusing mass with weight. If you put a helium balloon on a scale, it will not register... if it does register, it will be negative

100% WRONG

Air has a weight but on a scale it doesn't register, does that mean it was a negative weight? NO.

Helium has a weight. You can't put a helium balloon on a scale because it will float up, but if you put a light bulb that it 100% empty on a scale it will weigh a certain amount, it you them filled it with helium it would weigh more.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have negative weight and the ONLY way to get no weight is to have no gravity acting upon you.

In not getting anything mixed up, your just don't knwo what the hell your talking about.

Helium has a weight and that it 0.1785kg/m3.

One last comment from me after looking at your pictures one more time (and great pictures they are...). You may want to provide more of a "point" to the helium canisters to lessen some of the air resistance. As they are, I think that anyone within 30 miles would think that their house was collapsing due to the noise. :wink:

Of course, no one should really care too much. It just depends on how much realism you are aiming for, and then how much time that would take to change.

One last comment from me after looking at your pictures one more time (and great pictures they are...). You may want to provide more of a "point" to the helium canisters to lessen some of the air resistance. As they are, I think that anyone within 30 miles would think that their house was collapsing due to the noise. :wink:

Of course, no one should really care too much. It just depends on how much realism you are aiming for, and then how much time that would take to change.

Plus, then it would be pointy as well as shiny. And then this thing would look like two giant, pointy, shiny things in the sky! Do you see what I'm getting at here, do ya, DO YA?!? :D

Helium does not have any positive weight, but it has mass. You are confusing mass with weight. If you put a helium balloon on a scale, it will not register... if it does register, it will be negative

100% WRONG

Air has a weight but on a scale it doesn't register, does that mean it was a negative weight? NO.

Helium has a weight. You can't put a helium balloon on a scale because it will float up, but if you put a light bulb that it 100% empty on a scale it will weigh a certain amount, it you them filled it with helium it would weigh more.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have negative weight and the ONLY way to get no weight is to have no gravity acting upon you.

In not getting anything mixed up, your just don't knwo what the hell your talking about.

Helium has a weight and that it 0.1785kg/m3.THAT IS MASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass is in grams, weight is in lbs. DO NOT mess that up in science class ;)

*gives up arguing with a high school kid*

One last comment from me after looking at your pictures one more time (and great pictures they are...). You may want to provide more of a "point" to the helium canisters to lessen some of the air resistance. As they are, I think that anyone within 30 miles would think that their house was collapsing due to the noise. :wink:

Of course, no one should really care too much. It just depends on how much realism you are aiming for, and then how much time that would take to change.LOL didn't think about aerodynamics ;) good point!

Helium has a weight and that it 0.1785kg/m3.
That would be density good sir.

Helium has a weight and that it 0.1785kg/m3.
That would be density good sir.Yes, that is... mass divided by volume... but it is most certainly not weight ;)

I was actually referring to Kravoli. You just beat me to it. :D

Fuck your a stupid shit.

Mass is in grams, weight is in lbs. DO NOT mess that up in science class
No that the metric and imperial system. 99% of countries don't even use lb's.
And if you want to get technicall wieght is in Newtons.


HELIUM HAS A WEIGHT, IF YOU THINK IT DOESN'T YOUR A STUPID ****

f--- your a stupid shit.

Mass is in grams, weight is in lbs. DO NOT mess that up in science class
No that the metric and imperial system. 99% of countries don't even use lb's.
And if you want to get technicall wieght is in Newtons.


HELIUM HAS A WEIGHT, IF YOU THINK IT DOESN'T YOUR A STUPID c---Wow dude... maybe I should call a modalert for this :)

f--- your a stupid shit.

Mass is in grams, weight is in lbs. DO NOT mess that up in science class
No that the metric and imperial system. 99% of countries don't even use lb's.
And if you want to get technicall wieght is in Newtons.


HELIUM HAS A WEIGHT, IF YOU THINK IT DOESN'T YOUR A STUPID c---Wow dude... maybe I should call a modalert for this :)

English System - POUNDS
Metric System - NEWTONS

They are two different designations for the same measurement which would be weight. Getting technical, they are both weight.

English System - POUNDS
Metric System - NEWTONS

They are two different designations for the same measurement which would be weight.Yes. BUT, MASS IS ALWAYS MEASURED IN GRAMS

jeez... what do you think, should I call a modalert on this Kravoli guy?

Actually not always. The english system uses slugs for mass, you just don't hear about it. I'm just trying to point out that this guy doesn't know anything...

Raysia it's very obviouse that your not in college. NO college student would think that helium doesn't have a weight.

Actually not always. The english system uses slugs for mass, you just don't hear about it. I'm just trying to point out that this guy doesn't know anything...lol ok... but still, he's flaming and trolling...

Raysia it's very obviouse that your not in college. NO college student would think that helium doesn't have a weight.What is the difference between mass and weight? You obviously think they are the same thing. Weight is in pounds or newtons, mass is in kilograms.

The only reason im flaming is becuase you can't get it past your head that helium has a weight.

The reason why you think it doesn't is becuase you think that air doesn't have a weight. They both have weigh something(What do you think air pressure is?)

The only reason im flaming is becuase you can't get it past your head that helium has a weight.

The reason why you think it doesn't is becuase you think that air doesn't have a weight. They both have weigh something(What do you think air pressure is?)What is the difference between mass and weight? You obviously think they are the same thing. Weight is in pounds or newtons, mass is in kilograms.

What is the difference between mass and weight? You obviously think they are the same thing. Weight is in pounds or newtons, mass is in kilograms.

Weight is the force of gravity that is acting upon an object, on earth at sea level Mass and Weight are equal.

Helium does have weight. But it's displacement overcome that. Thus helium floats up. It you tie it to a scale you'll end up going negative becuase ot's pulling the opposite way, due to it's low density and being surround by a more dense oxygen.

What is the difference between mass and weight? You obviously think they are the same thing. Weight is in pounds or newtons, mass is in kilograms.

Weight is the force of gravity that is acting upon an object, on earth at sea level Mass and Weight are equal.*sigh* can we please stop arguing about this? you're spamming my thread with your nonsense.

Get it through your head, that mass and weight are two completely different things, especially when dealing with lighter than air vehicles.

Helium does have weight. But it's displacement overcome that. Thus helium floats up. It you tie it to a scale you'll end up going negative becuase ot's pulling the opposite way, due to it's low density and being surround by a more dense oxygen.

Thank you, finally somethign with a brain.

Helium does have weight. But it's displacement overcome that. Thus helium floats up. It you tie it to a scale you'll end up going negative becuase ot's pulling the opposite way, due to it's low density and being surround by a more dense oxygen.exactly what I have termed "negative weight." it still has mass, but that "negative weight" is called "lift"

Helium does have weight. But it's displacement overcome that. Thus helium floats up. It you tie it to a scale you'll end up going negative becuase ot's pulling the opposite way, due to it's low density and being surround by a more dense oxygen.

Thank you, finally somethign with a brain.?!?!?!?! HE SAID EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, ONLY WITH BIGGER WORDS!

sigh* can we please stop arguing about this? you're spamming my thread with your nonsense.

Get it through your head, that mass and weight are two completely different things, especially when dealing with lighter than air vehicles.

It's not nonsense, It's the truth.

I know mass and weight are different.

AND EVEN A BABY KNOWS THATS HELIUM HAS A WEIGHT

sigh* can we please stop arguing about this? you're spamming my thread with your nonsense.

Get it through your head, that mass and weight are two completely different things, especially when dealing with lighter than air vehicles.

It's not nonsense, It's the truth.

I know mass and weight are different.

AND EVEN A BABY KNOWS THATS HELIUM HAS A WEIGHT*bangs head on wall*

Kravoli, he's only calling the lifting effect produced by the varying densities "negative weight". Essentially it's just his own term for saying what we've been saying.

[quote="Raysia"}exactly what I have termed "negative weight." it still has mass, but that "negative weight" is called "lift"[/quote]

Lift is not having a negative weight.

READ THE FIRST THING HE WROTE. Helium has a weight. The reason it rises is becuase it's less dense than air. Air has a weight and so does Helium.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

Kravoli, he's only calling the lifting effect produced by the varying densities "negative weight". Essentially it's just his own term for saying what we've been saying.

If hes being going on and on about definision he should spend a little time getting that 1 term correct.

exactly what I have termed "negative weight." it still has mass, but that "negative weight" is called "lift"

Lift is not having a negative weight.

READ THE FIRST THING HE WROTE. Helium has a weight. The reason it rises is becuase it's less dense than air. Air has a weight and so does Helium.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?I understand :)

Now please, stop spamming.

I think he fianally gets the point it has both mass and weight. But he's only using is own termonoligy.

Kravoli, he's only calling the lifting effect produced by the varying densities "negative weight". Essentially it's just his own term for saying what we've been saying.

If hes being going on and on about definision he should spend a little time getting that 1 term correct.I believe I said in the beginning of this argument, that I KNEW "negative weight" was not a real term, I was merely trying to explain to you that if something pulls in the opposite direction of gravity, it will have a weight in the negative numbers if you put it on a gravity scale.

If you study aeronautics and flight engineering most schools will call it Negative Weight, however that is just nomenclature. You both are right!

If you study aeronautics and flight engineering most schools will call it Negative Weight, however that is just nomenclature. You both are right!wow, i made up a term that people actually use? wow :)

That's news to me... I majored in aerospace engineering and I don't recall ever hearing "negative weight" used as a technical term.

Weight is the force of gravity that is acting upon an object, on earth at sea level Mass and Weight are equal.

No it isn't. One of Newton's laws - weight = mass(gravity)

weight = 1 kg(9.8m/s*s)
weight = 9.8 N
1 kg = 9.8 N

Bear in mind, once you move away from sea level, the gravity does drop. I think you're just slightly confused in that respect. :wink:
__
Anyway, this is distracting from the original point of this thread!

Weight is the force of gravity that is acting upon an object, on earth at sea level Mass and Weight are equal.

No it isn't. One of Newton's laws - weight = mass(gravity)

weight = 1 kg(9.8m/s*s)
weight = 9.8 N
1 kg = 9.8 N

Bear in mind, once you move away from sea level, the gravity does drop. I think you're just slightly confused in that respect. :wink:
__
Anyway, this is distracting from the original point of this thread!yeah, the last 3 pages have been arguing about this, lets get back on topic.

I'm gonna redo the model with pointier tips, k?

If you study aeronautics and flight engineering most schools will call it Negative Weight, however that is just nomenclature. You both are right!

what kind of schools do you go to? One set up in a shed?

Pointier... better? I think so:

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/carrier2.jpg

If you study aeronautics and flight engineering most schools will call it Negative Weight, however that is just nomenclature. You both are right!

what kind of schools do you go to? One set up in a shed?ok, the argument ended. Now please, if you don't have anything to say about the topic, please leave.

Pointier... better? I think so:

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/carrier2.jpg

Yes, i wouldn't make it any more pointier. The real airships didn't have big points did they.

Looks good.

Pointier... better? I think so:

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/carrier2.jpg

Yes, i wouldn't make it any more pointier. The real airships didn't have big points did they.well, ""Real"" airships never went 600 km/h ;)

Looks good.K, replacing original pic.