Introduction

The UPship™ project to design and build improved airships started 35 years ago.  We are designing and will manufacture and operate innovative, unique and practical semi-rigid dirigible airships with battery electric propulsion for various applications such as tourism, advertising, passenger services and cargo transport.

OUR AIRSHIPS

Our 33 meter version from the beginning will be able to  demonstrate and perfect our control, mooring, and cargo delivery systems and can be easily scaled-up to the 8 seat Type Certified tourism airship (including a rear observation balcony!) and then the 80 seat or 8 ton capacity passenger and/or cargo version.  This can include a unique active de-icing system that makes it the ONLY airship for practical cold weather operation.  Notice that our 11,000 is just slightly larger than Umberto Nobile’s N1 Norge and N3 Italia semi rigid airships that reached the North Pole in 1926 and 1928.  This could also operate with hydrogen fuel cells and fewer batteries, for longer range.  Unlike some other projects, we build on history rather than ignore it.  With this experience, a later twice scale version of this could deliver near 60 tons of cargo to anywhere, using hydrogen fuel cells for long range operations, and hydrogen for lift.  

Here are the basic specifications for the 3 proposed versions.

Specifications in Detail::

UPship™ Model                      3300              5500              11,000

• Seating:                                 2                      8                     80
• Length:                              33 m                55 m               110 m
• Diameter:                          6.9 m              10.8 m             21.6 m
• Fineness (L/D)                  4.7                     5.0                  5.0
• Total volume:                  740 m³           3,018 m³           24,140 m³
• Helium fill 85/81/81%:  630 m³           2,444 m³           19,554 m³
• Empty weight:                 420 kg           1,400 kg           11,000 kg
• Takeoff weight:                620 kg           2,400 kg           19,000 kg
• Useful load:                      200 kg            1000 kg            8,000 kg
• Propulsion power:            12 kW             68 kW              540 kW
• Battery capacity:              30 kWh          180 kWh           1500 kWh
• Useful battery 80%:         24 kWh           144 kWh           1200 kWh
• Top speed kph/mph:         80/50           105/65             132/82
• Range UPship 3300 
  8 hours/400 km/250 miles at 50 kph
  2 hours/160 km/100 miles at 80 kph
• Range UPship 5500
  20 hours/1000 km/600 miles at 50kph
  8 hours / 600 km / 375 miles at 80 kph
• Range UPship 11,000
  40 hours/2,000 km/1,250 miles at  50 kph
  10.5 hours/840 km/525 miles at 80 kph
  4.5 hours/450 km/280 miles at 100 kph

We aim to provide customers and buyers with the most unique and enjoyable way to travel, and provide a practical means of transport for remote areas with little infrastructure.  Our location in Costa Rica gives us access to markets in two continents. The simplicity of our time-tested design and starting with an efficient and economical 2 seat airship as our Minimum Viable Product both speeds our path to profits and lowers risks to investors compared to other projects that are starting without knowledge of airships and planning huge high-risk airships with low efficiencies. Our patents will solve several problems that they are not addressing, and can be licensed to our competitors, or to joint ventures.  Very unlike our competitors, our first airship can be built for well under $1 million, and can be used profitably from the beginning for flight training.

We welcome future purchase or investor inquiries, just contact jesseblenn@davincicostarica.com (jesseblenn@gmail.com) or Telephone +506-8372-4113.   

STAY INFORMED!

You can stay informed of our progress by subscribing to our UPship Free news list.   Or, help advance our project by becoming a member of our UPship LTA Support Group.  Group members will be given progress reports, insider information, a guided tour of our project as it advances, and a $50 discount on pilot training flights once and if we start tourist flight operations in Costa Rica.  (Legal Disclaimer: These last two are conditional on our success of course, so are nonbinding, and are limited to one discount per flight.)  All this is for a $10 yearly subscription.  Just click here:

Membership Account

For an incomplete yet excellent history of the UPship™ airship project, see here:

https://lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/UPship-converted.pdf

 

Natural Gas Airships for Brazil
(250 and 440 meters)

By Jesse Blenn

Airship Design Specialist

jesseblenn@gmail.com

Teléphone: +506-8372-4113
August 2, 2012
.

Basic Program

The basic program will be to build and operate very large airships to pick up and deliver natural gas (NG) from offshore wells to offshore pipeline connections or to shore, being distances of up to 300 kilometers. The goal is to use the NG itself as both the lifting gas and propulsion fuel. This is done in the interest of saving the cost and logistics of helium filling, which would not be practical on the scale needed. Also for over-sea low altitude operations unmanned control by GPS is considered safe and practical. It is expected that for mooring and loading operations full control by Radio Control transmitters will allow visual supervision of the more complex operations. Obviously if successful in Brazil the same and similar systems could be used worldwide both over waters and over land where pipelines are not economically viable or not yet functional, or as emergency supply vehicles in the event of damaged pipelines. We expect some very important patents in these mooring and NG transfer systems that could give us a monopoly on NG airship operations worldwide.

Tentative specifications and a design approach are here given for two versions. First is a 250 meter test airship that can be assembled in the existing Zeppelin hangar at Santa Cruz, with a NG delivery capacity of near 200,000 cubic meters of NG. Second is a 440 meter airship that can deliver about one million cubic meters of NG. The 250 meter test airship would use Helium for lift to allow more NG delivery capacity and to eliminate the danger of flammable NG in the hangar during assembly. The 420 meter airship would rely 100% on the lift of NG for economy of filling, less restrictions on the fabric used, and to be independent of volatile world Helium prices. Important to note is that the carrying capacity goes up as the cube of the length, and thus a 10% increase in length gives a 33% increase in capacity, but only a 21% increase in needed power. Very large airships can be VERY energy efficient transport.

Different size airships can be made by easily scaling the basic design as needed, and as we will see the proposed outer fabric has enough strength to be used on airships at least 440 meters length. Analysis shows that the limiting condition for fabric strength is at high angles of pitch due to increased pressures from the gas lift. It is proposed that the airships be constructed in six sections for ease of handling and replacement of any damaged sections. The NG payload would be carried in the center four sections. Overall, the concept appears to be very valid.

NG Airship Specifications

Length 250 meters & 440 meters     Diameter 50 meters & 88 meters
Fineness  (Length/Diameter) 5.0  & 5.0
Total Volume 304,340 cubic meters & 1,659,200 cubic meters
Volume 2/3 power  4525 square meters & 14,015 square meters
Surface Area (*6.5) 29,775 square meters & 92,220 square meter
Helium fill (27 %) 82,000 cubic meters & Not/Applicable
NG fill @ 63%/90% 190,000 cubic meters & 1,493,000 cubic meters
He lift @ 1 kg/m3 82,000 kilograms & Not /Applicable
NG lift @ 400 g/m3 76,000 kilograms & 597,000 kilograms
Empty wt. 25%/33% 76,000 kilograms & 197,000 kilograms
NG lift over weight 30,400 kilograms & 400,000 kilograms
Ballast water needed 35,000 liters & 420,000 liters
NG delivery 180,000 cubic meters & 1,000,000 cubic meters
Internal sections 6   Tail fins 4 in “X”
Fins area @ 30% V2/3 1936.5 square meters & 3440 square meters
Power 2 x 1500 HP & 4 x 1500 HP       2238 kW Total &  4476 kW Total
Speed cruise 100 kph 96 kph

Design Considerations

Length to Diameter. In the interest of maximizing internal volume per surface area and also adding good resistance to bending from gusts without adding aerodynamic drag, it is highly recommended to use a length to diameter (fineness) ratio of about 5 as the best combination of low drag and low weight and cost. The fabric weight would be excessive with a higher fineness ratio. It is true that some large rigid airships used a ratio of near 8; in fact the LZ-127 Graf Zeppelin had a length of 236.5 meters and diameter of 30.5 meters, giving a fineness of 7.75. However this was to keep the diameter within an existing hangar and was not the optimum.  Most non-rigid airships or blimps use a fineness of about 4 to minimize fabric weight but that increases aerodynamic resistance.

Size. See the above Specifications. Because the goal of the larger version is to depend on NG lift for the lift of the airship at all times, it is necessary to calculate carefully the lifts and weights involved. Using the recommended mathematically-defined shape, and doing the basic profile calculations we easily calculate shape, surface areas, volumes, etc. in Excel Spreadsheets. These include the two-thirds power of the volume (Volume 2/3) which is a convenient input for fabric, power,
and control calculations. The 440 meter size is preferable because it allows independence from the use of helium.

Envelope Weight. Outer envelope areas are 6.58 times the Volume 2/3 in square meters of each airship. Outer envelope weight is 1.1 kg per m2 plus a 5% addition for seams. Additional internal lightweight fabric of 200 grams/m2 for dividers and gas cells is described below, and weighs about 17% that of the outer fabric. The total envelope weight for the 440 meter airship is a little over 120,000 kilograms, as shown in the “Envelope Calculations” Excel spreadsheet.

NG Payload and Helium. Use of Helium as lifting gas in the 250 meter version will allow inflation in the Santa Cruz hangar without fire danger to the historic structure. This will also reduce the volume dedicated to lifting gas and so increase the available volume for NG delivery. However any large number of such airships could affect the limited world supply of helium and greatly increase prices. Also much more expensive fabrics are needed to retain helium. The 440 meter version uses NG as lifting gas to stay independent of world helium supplies and prices, as well as to use cheaper and more readily available fabrics.

Practical considerations/hangar. It is hoped that we can use the Zeppelin hangar at Santa Cruz for assembly of the first 250 meter airship. For the larger 440 meter size, a full-size hangar to construct the NG airship would be extremely expensive and is not absolutely necessary, especially if a site protected from winds can be used. Given the weight of the airship, it will be very necessary to build it in sections. Because six internal sections are planned and given the weight of the airship, it can be built and transported in six sections, joined together before final inflation. It could also be advantageous to use a relatively small inflated semi-circular fabric covering (cobertura inflavel) where it can be partially inflated during construction just enough to install internal components. This inflatable structure should be aligned with the prevailing winds. Once the airship is complete, the inflated covering would be removed and the airship inflated with air and NG at the same time, while attached to the mooring anchor, which will be an inflated fabric dome to avoid all danger to the envelope fabric. This dome would inflate and rise upward as the airship is inflated.

Gasbags Design. Nearly all present airships use the outer envelope as a single lifting gas reservoir with internal air bags called ballonets to adjust for lifting gas volume changes, and to adjust for pitch trim changes, These air bags are attached inside and near the bottom of the envelope, and allowed to basically pile up there when partially full or empty of air. Given the high percentage volume changes of enclosed NG in this design proposal it is recommended to use a system more like that used with past rigid airships and in fact of simpler construction. The NG delivered would be carried only in the center four sections of the envelope which do not have any internal metal framework. In this case inner gas bladders would be made with the same shape as the bottom half of the outer envelope and with divider “end caps” of semi-circle shape at the ends of each section, where there would be a full circular lateral divider also.

The division into sections is necessary to avoid NG surging in which – if free to do so- gas will naturally flow to the higher end of the airship making longitudinal pitch control and stability nearly impossible. For this reason normal airships do not have ballonet lengths of over about 20% of the airship length, and in our case 6 divisions give 16.6% each division. Being in the form of the lower 50% of the envelope, by inverting they will also allow complete evacuation of the outer envelope sections when needed during initial NG inflation and possible future maintenance. These internal gasbag and lateral dividers carry very low stresses and can likely be of 70 denier urethane-coated Nylon taffeta with a weight of about 200 grams per m2 and cost of near $8 per m2, likely less in such large quantity. Diagonal bracing webs can carry loads and prevent distortions.

Internal Suspensions. Given the reduced lift of NG compared to helium the envelope distortion due to lift will also be less relative to the airship size (about 40% as much), but still be high due to the great size of the airships. This tendency to distort will also vary greatly with the percentage of fill with and without payload, and it will be absolutely necessary to maintain shape and distribute lift via internal suspensions that maintain a nearly circular cross-section independent of gas lift. The variations in cross-sections can be calculated graphically, simulated by computer, and/or modeled accurately with a water model of about 1/75^th scale (3.33 or 5.87 meters length). This is made of the actual envelope materials to be used, hung inverted and filled with water to the same percentages as NG to simulate distortions, and can be excellent hands-on practice for engineers and workers. Based on these investigations simple internal top suspension curtains (catenaries) running between the dividers in the top one-half of the airship will minimize changes in cross-section. The number (likely three to six) and location of suspensions will be chosen based on the simulations. At their lowest points they connect to internal framing or water ballast loads which they carry up to the lifting gas.

Fabric Stresses. Fabric stresses are only in the form of tensions (including sometimes diagonal tensions) because fabric gives under compression. Tensions can be from internal pressures and gas lifts, or from aerodynamic or static loads. Hoop (circumferential) stress is normally twice that of plug (longitudinal) stress except in the much curved sections near the bow and to a lesser extent the stern. Aerodynamic forces are mostly in the form of bending from wind gusts which will increase the stress or tension on one side of the airship and reduce it on the other. Thus plug stress tensions can vary during aerodynamic loading much more than hoop stress tensions. Normally sufficient internal pressure (around 40 mm water column) is maintained to assure that tension never reaches zero.

Fabric stresses are found by multiplying the internal pressure by the local radius to find hoop stress, then dividing by two to get normal (no gusts) plug stress. A safety factor of four is normally used for passenger airships. One kg per square meter of pressure gives 1 mm water column pressure, and rarely if ever do airships use over 50 mm water column pressure = 50 kgs/m2. We have fabric tension strength of 900 kgs per 5 cm width or 18,000 kgs per meter. For our larger airship maximum radius of 44meters maximum radius we then have 18,000 kgs / 44 meters = 409 mm water column pressure at rupture, giving a very good Safety Factor for horizontal flight.

We will see on the Excel sheet that the limiting condition is local high gas pressure at high angles of pitch, but even then a Safety Factor of over 3 is maintained during a strong gust at maximum speed of 100 kph and 30 degrees inclination, an extremely rare occurrence. The gas pressure component is independent of the air inflation pressure, so is added to it. The necessary internal pressure is calculated in Excel based on Transport Airship Requirements certification rules. However, based on millions of kilometers experience in Goodyear airships, a pressure of about 70% of the TAR result should be adequate, which would be 0.7 x 47 = 33 mm water column, which again increases the fabric Safety Factor. In reality a large part of this increased pressure with inclined flight will be carried and thus reduced by the lateral dividers, probably enough to keep a Safety Factor of 4, but not enough to allow a much larger airship. This effect will need to be investigated, which will be easy with the mentioned inverted water model. However it is expected that an airship design of near 1 million cubic meters NG delivery capacity is near the maximum safely built with the mentioned fabric.

Water Ballast and NG Transfer. While filling with NG payload the airship will want to rise and tanks will be filled with water ballast by surface-mounted water intakes and air-powered pumps. These fabric tanks should be in the form of modified cones at each of the five lateral divisions. Their top points would be attached to the lower points of the internal suspensions at each division. Multiple cones would be fused laterally across each of the lateral divisions.

With the extreme size of the airship, standard ducts if used to move the NG and air would have to be extremely large because volume increases as the cube of dimensions but cross-section of ducts increasing only as the square. Thus ducts are not practical and we propose simply opening large valves in the upper half of the lateral dividers to allow the upper half of the airship to act as a duct. These transfer valves are then closed for flight. Air-powered fans and valves in the lower envelope sides – probably 2, 4, 6, 6, 4, and 2 in each of the sections 1 to 6 – will move air in and out as necessary. The filling and emptying of each section will be adjusted by varied operation of the different air valves and fans. The time to transfer will be calculated but twenty minutes would be a reasonable time. Logically during this load or unload time a corresponding quantity of sea water will be pumped into or released from the ballast tanks.

Semi-Rigid Framing. A large percentage of historic airships (with over 70 built in Italy, others in France, Russia, and the USA) were fitted with simple frames along or inside only the bottom of the envelope to reduce distortions and distribute loads. The lifting gas itself pressurizes the upper envelope portion so it tends to keep its shape much better. Semi-rigid framing allows distribution of concentrated mooring, landing, propulsion, and control loads into large areas of the airship envelope. However, in the interest of ease of manufacture, reduced cost, and increased safety it is recommended that only minimal framing be used to distribute these loads and only near the bow and stern, in sections 1 and 6. The tail fins structures in section 5 can be all external to the envelope to not interfere with gas capacity. As a rough estimate of framing strength and weight, we can assume a longitudinal compressive force of about 10,000 kgs for each side frame, as explained below.

Inflated Strengthening Tubes. Longitudinal tubes at 45 degrees both sides of the bottom centerline can provide the necessary rigidity over much of the length (from lateral dividers 1 to 5) to handle occasional compression loads and to mount systems to conduct ballast water and control connections throughout the ship. These air-filled tubes also will allow safe internal access to large areas of the airship during construction and maintenance. Similar inflated tubes at the upper centerline will also be desirable for access to valves, lightning protection, emergency rip systems, and the external envelope.

Because it is important to judge if they will really work, we include some preliminary calculations. As an estimate, we might choose to have the pressurized tubes impart a bending resistance to the lower part of the airship nearly equal to that provided by the Natural Gas pressure in the upper part, so that the airship is equally resistant to bending in all directions even if internal air pressure is lost. According to the Excel file “Cargas de Vuelo y Presion Operativo Dirigible Gas Natural”, Momentos y Presiones sheet, cell E32, the gas pressure moment is 770,800 kilogram meters (to be modified for different sizes). If internal pressure is lost, a gust hitting near the nose or tail at 45 degrees to either side of the top of the airship would be resisted mainly by the pressurized tubes opposite the gust, as illustrated in the accompanying drawing “Typical Cross Section NG Airship”. Purposely ignoring the helpful effect of a portion of the gas pressure, we simplify to say that the moment of 770,800 kgm would be divided by the 80 (50 or 88) meter diameter and would become a compressive force of 9635 kilograms, divided among the three tubes shown with a total cross section area of about 5.63 square meters. (The lesser true compressive force can be calculated also but is more complex.) Dividing 9635 kg by the 5.63 square meters we see that a pressure of 1711 kg/m2 or 1711 mm water column would be necessary to maintain shape. To see the safety factor of the fabric at that pressure, we first find the maximum pressure that the fabric can withstand at 1.5 meters radius, which is 18,000 kg/m / 1.5 m = 12,000 kg/m2. The 1711 mm pressure would induce a tension of 1711 kg/m x 1.5 meters or 2567 kilograms per meter length. Dividing the 12,000 kgs above by the 2567 kg we get a safety factor in circumferential tension of about 4.67, which is acceptable.

We see from the Excel calculations that the gas pressure moment can absorb about 14% of the maximum gust bending at high speed by itself. With the addition of the pressurized tubes this would become about 28%. The gust bending moment increases nearly as the square of the speed, thus with only the gas pressure moment and the pressurized tubes the airship could easily maintain shape at up to near half speed or 50 kph, sufficient for emergency flight in case of loss of envelope pressurization.

We can appreciate that the pressurized tubes could also withstand a longitudinal force, for example by a tail wind into the mooring mast, of about 10,000 kg each side or 20,000 kgs. Given that the propeller thrust at 96 kph is about 13,000 kgs, the pressurized tubes could withstand any likely tail wind effects pushing the airship into the mast, even with the reduction in diameter of the tubes towards the bow and stern, where the forces are fed into the metal framing. Also, in case of higher loads, the tubes and envelope are free to simply distort with no damage, creating a very damage-resistant structure.

Tail Fins. A major source of drag in past and present non-rigid airships has been the tail fins. Besides being suspended by dozens of high-drag cables they also use antiquated NACA 00 airfoils and no attention to root streamlining to reduce drag and extend their area of influence on the envelope surface and thus their effectiveness. Rigid airships were usually better but still could be much improved. Also undesirable was their mounting in cruciform “+” configuration which made the lower tail fin very easy to hit on the ground and damage, and did nothing to control roll when moored. The last airships used by the US Navy after World War II had 45 degree or “X” tail fins or three fins in an inverted “Y” which proved much superior for control and damage avoidance. We would use fins of the “X” configuration with 90 degrees between the lower fins, thus aligning them with the internal inflated tubes.

Tail fins area (per one side) should be near 30% of Volume 2/3 for the best control, as given in the above specifications. “Dorsals” or extensions of the tail fin roots forward of the main fin improve resistance to stalls at high angles of attack and also spread loads over a larger area of envelope. The forward points of the dorsals reach the 4^th internal divider, and the main cantilever loads are taken into the framing and envelope at the 5^th (last) internal divider.

The tail fins will be full cantilever with no external cables, yet with a simple pneumatically operated folding system of the lower fins that allows easy ground (water) handling and maintenance. Detailed loads analysis will be done to estimate maximum tail fin loads for the design of internal structures and accurate weight estimates. The simple internal structures that locate the fins also serve to distribute the rear propulsion loads (near 13,000 kgs) forward to the large fin bases and from there into the envelope.

Rudders and Elevators. Because of the concentration of weight near the bottom of the airship and the cyclic control of the main propellers it is practical to have the main control surfaces on the two lower tail fins only, eliminating most maintenance on the smaller upper fin. In this case the lower fins and their control surfaces are divided at the fold line. Emergency or trim ruddervators can be installed on the upper fins. The inner halves near the envelope include rudders which are moved opposite to their mate on the other fin and thus give lateral or yaw control. By a simple common actuation these can at the same time serve as elevator trim. In contrast, the control surfaces on the outer (folding) half of each fin work in unison to give up and down pitch control, and can be trimmed against each other for roll control, for example to counteract torque reactions from the large diameter rear propeller(s).

Propulsion. For simplicity and to give the greatest possible control, two helicopter rotors will be used, rotated to a horizontal shaft axis. These will mount on each end of a lateral frame integral with the internal framing at the very stern of the airship, with one rotor on each side. This system will mean a minimum of modifications to the helicopter system (rotating the gearbox 90 degrees and adapting a partially reversible rotor) and still isolate the envelope from possible damage from engine heat or fires. Maintenance access will be through the internal framing. Cyclically controlled (helicopter) rotors give excellent control plus reverse, which was tested successfully on the Goodyear airship Mayflower (Project Silent Joe, almost 50 years ago).

Gas turbine helicopter engines are available rebuilt (“zero timed”) and for example those for the common twin-turbine US Army UH-1 puts out up to 1500 HP each continuous and can cost under $100,000 each because they have been in use for several decades. For example see page 47 of http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/87/728/EN_UH-1Y_PocketGuide.pdf.

These engines would need to be converted to NG use, including with high-volume NG pumps. Fuel gas would be taken from the upper fin bases in Gas Cell 5 and fed down tubes inside the tail fin to the two engines. Fuel use would be unimportant during trips of a few hundred kms, as there will be enough NG in the ship to fly around the world multiple times nonstop. Cooled compressor bleed air can operate valves, water pumps, the bow thruster propeller, mooring cable feeds, or other power needs with minimum weight and complexity and no danger of oil spills or fire. There should be two small back-up compressors APUs for emergency and maintenance use.

Performance. Power needed is a function of the aerodynamic and propulsion efficiency of the airship and its Volume 2/3. Power needed also goes up and down nearly as the cube of the airspeed, but with some variation due to scale or Reynolds Number effect. This permits a small speed reduction to save a lot of power and fuel. The famous Hindenburg (LZ-129) was not the most efficient airship, being beaten by the USS Akron and even more so the Macon. With the more efficient stern propulsion and better shape we can expect about a 50% improvement over the LZ-129. Its top speed was 135 kph with four 1200 hp engines, total 4800 hp. With a 50% higher efficiency they would have only needed 3200 horsepower to go 135 kph, and to go 100 kph they would only need 40% of that or 1280 hp. This times 1.32 or 3.35 for our 250 or 440 meter sizes shows we would need about 1690 hp or 5188 hp to maintain a 100 kph cruise.

The recommended main goal is to use the larger 440 meter size as the main delivery vehicle, so it would be very practical to use two UH-1 engines for the 250 meter ship. This would give the practical experience of converting the engines to NG and converting the UH-1 rotor system to horizontal, and allow very easy and confident experience with the engines. Then the same but four engines would be used for the larger 440 meter ship. Thus we see that the 440 meter airship could deliver over 5 times the NG with only twice the power. It is easy to see the absolutely immense increase in efficiency of the huge airship over the four helicopters with the same engines!

Mooring. Mooring has always been a problematic area for airships normally requiring 3 to 5 times as many people on the ground as in the air. The Hindenburg used a landing crew of about 200-500 men, and its volume was 200,000 cubic meters, with a mass near 200,000 kilograms. The proposed 250 and 440 meter designs are 1.5 and 8.3 times this mass. The inertia forces on the NG airship are thus 1.5 or 8.3 times as much as those of the Hindenburg, but the actual wind forces involved are relative to the our Volume 2/3, so are 1.3 or 4.1 times those of the Hindenburg at 3420 square meters. A reliable automated mooring system is a must.

A large airship of this size requires a mechanical mooring system, and a mechanical mooring system requires a minimum of three hard points on the airships, which standard airships have no provision for. Thus, they have never solved the mooring situation. Our three hard points will be provided by the front “V” section of semi-rigid framing within the envelope section 1. Besides the necessary three-point mooring system using cables controlled by constant- tension air motors, it will be advisable to have a bow thruster system to give up-down and right-left control at the nose. The basic system has been designed and could use fixed propellers operated by bleed air from the main engine compressors and thus eliminate any fire danger. The expelled air adds to thrust. With a combination of excellent control and automated mooring attachment to a wide-base mooring cone, we should have an operable system. Once attached, NG transfer valves will allow flow of NG in and out of the ship via pressurizing fans. Due to the low pressures involved, a simple and inexpensive water seal can be used to allow airship yaw rotation with wind changes while transfering NG.

Proof of Concept. It would not be advisable to make a 250 or 440 meter airship that plans to solve major problems of past airships without a flying proof-of-concept airship, as well as ground-based testing of NG transfer and other important systems. Due to the limited lifting power of NG, a small and useful airship would be difficult to build using only NG. We are working on an independent project with the aim of building a very modern and advanced solar-powered airship to fly non-stop around the world, hopefully in 2014. We are near starting preparations to build a half-scale demonstrator of 32 meter length and 900 cubic meters volume.

We will be testing the mentioned improved mooring systems, stern electric propulsion, and other relevant features mentioned in this analysis on this small and relatively inexpensive airship. I can recommend a joint effort as a good way to save time, money, and risk for your project, as well as train your personnel in airship design and operation.

Project Costs

It is not easy to accurately estimate costs and time involved in such a program, as historical airship data can only be used as a starting point. Most of the available data is for the large and complex rigid airships, which included complex aluminum frames with millions of hand-pressed rivets and many kilometers of cables, besides hand-tightened and hand-painted fabrics. .

Modern non-rigid airships are very high priced. For example the envelope for a 60 meter airship uses near 2000 square meters of external fabric at under $40 per square meter, or $80,000. This helium-retention fabric is very expensive and is not needed for Natural Gas. Internal fabrics are less than half of that area and less expensive. So perhaps the total materials cost is $120,000 including some special fittings. The envelope is sold for near $1 million, or 8 times the material costs and near $500 per square meter outside area. The envelope design and construction can be simplified and done in-house by XXXX in Brazil at a greatly reduced cost.

Except for the communications and remote control systems, the proposed airship is NOT high technology, and the speeds, stresses, and materials are much more comparable to small piston airplanes than to jet airliners. As a general example, based on experience in the US, a small 4-seat airplane like a Cessna 172 can cost about $300,000 new and weighs empty about 800 kilograms, about $275 per kilogram. About half of that price is materials and half is labor and company overhead costs. That is much more reasonable than present airships! The complex components such as engine, instrumentation, fasteners and systems are much more expensive than the raw materials such as aluminum sheet, and cost near $300 per kilogram, whereas the aluminum might be $10 per kilo. The average could be near $200 per kilogram in materials and $200 per kilogram in labor, all other fixed and variable costs, and profits.

Given the outer envelope surface area for the 250 meter airship of near 30,000 square meters (3 hectares) we have a cost at perhaps $20 per square meter or $600,000 for the outer envelope. With internal fabrics that total fabric cost could be near $1 million. It would seem reasonable that the XXXX company experience with inflatable structures can be used to estimate the time and cost of the outer envelope much better than using the market price for airship envelopes, as explained, or our estimations. But to include an estimate, we expect that the labor cost will be approximately two to four times the material costs, for example not over 4 million dollars, but XXXX can estimate this best.

An estimate of the weight and cost of the framing can be made based on a rough estimation of about 10,000 kgs compressive loads per side. Simple “drum” girders of coiled aluminum corrugations were shown to be equally or more efficient and much cheaper and less work to build than the Zeppelin type triangulated girders of complex aluminum stampings. With an efficient framing system such aluminum girders should be able to carry at least 20,000 pounds per square inch of cross-section, thus near one square inch cross-section per side. Using a safety factor of 6, we would have 6 square inches per side, about .08 square feet. At 165 lbs per cubic foot this gives 13.2 pounds per foot or 19.6 kilograms per meter. The total length of aluminum structures including the fins main spars will be something near 600 meters, giving us about 12,000 kilos of aluminum. Aluminum sheet (for example the corrosion resistant 6061 T6) is inexpensive, and the main material cost would be less than $10 per kilo. Thus about $120,000 of aluminum would be needed for the main framing structures. If labor costs were 5 times the material costs then the framing would cost $600,000 dollars.

The tail fins themselves are near 1940 square meters with a weight of near 10,000 kgs. At a cost including engines and labor of $50 per kilogram their total would be about $500,000 dollars. Other propulsion and systems components including ground equipment might cost $1 million. Ground support equipment might cost an added $500,000. Helium might cost $1 million. If engineering costs are $1 million (equivalent to 10 engineers/assistants 1 ½ years), and prototype and testing costs $1 million, the total comes to $10,100,000. Even if cost overruns add another 50% to $15 million for the 250 meter airship, that is very reasonable for the largest flying object in history, and for what it will do.

COSTS FOR 250 METER NATURAL GAS DELIVERY AIRSHIP
Envelope $4,000,000
Framing $600,000
Fins $500,000
Propulsion $1,000,000
Ground support $500,000
Helium $1,000,000
Engineering $1,000,000
Prototype/tests $1,000,000
Infrastructure $500,000

SUBTOTAL $10,100,000
Plus +*50%* $4,900,000

TOTAL $15,000,000

What will it do? If we assume that it can make three trips per day, 250 days per year, then the first smaller 250 meter NG airship could deliver about 135 million cubic meters of Natural Gas per airship per year. If this NG is worth $50 per thousand cubic meters (below world price) at the pipeline, then the delivery would be $6.75 million dollars per airship per year. The larger 440 meter version could deliver about 750 million cubic meters worth $37.5 million dollars. This would be near the cost of the larger airship, delivered yearly. Clearly the system could pay for itself in a relatively short time. All told, with a pure NG airship, XXXX has a great idea, and I congratulate you. We will be happy to work with you to make it a reality.

Jesse Blenn

Airship Design Specialist

Da Vinci Costa Rica

Here’s the original JOEY airship as built by or for Cargolifter of Germany.

It was sold for under $20,000 at their bankruptcy sale, and my job in Malaysia was to rebuild it so that it would fly CORRECTLY.

Cargolifter JOEY with the first planned modification of moving the engines to the tail fins, from 2007. Notice the planned bias tapes to help control envelope sag, which was excessive even before the modified fins. I ended up moving the fins forward, increasing the lower fin size with a new fin base section, and reducing the upper fin size, with no rudder.

 

From “El Deber” newspaper supplement magazine Santa Cruz, Boliiva March, 2006

(Translation):

World: A “gas pipeline” that travels by air.

Text: Javier Mendez Vedia

Fotos: Jesse Blenn, History of Aviation, Airship

It is possible to use dirigibles to transport natural gas. Indonesia has a plan for providing this energy source to its numerous islands, a Bolivian company projects doing the same in the east of the country, the dirigible designer Jesse Blenn has worked on the model.

This story is so interesting, that it tells itself. Let’s see. Indonesia has many small islands. To carry gas to each one of them laying pipelines in the sea is not practical. The government was seriously considering using dirigibles to supply them; presently the function of these ‘ships is focused on security. Bolivia has no islands, but there are remote places where gas could be taken using these gigantic ‘ships. The project made the company Reparando, which functions in La Paz, start dreaming. Pablo Rovira, its commercial manager, had the idea and contacted a US expert. Both began to work on this dream.

In March of 2005, Jesse Blenn was in the government seat (city of La Paz) for nine days. He dedicated himself to designing the ship which would transport natural gas to Bolivian Cities. Who is Jesse Blenn? He is an expert in mechanics, “A gringo from Kansas”, as he puts it. He lives in Alabama (USA) and has more than 20 years experience in the design of airships. He lived 5 years in Costa Rica, native land of his wife. There he has a small farm of 3 hectares (7 ¼ acres) where he plants cacao (chocolate) and fruits.

He is a young man. At his 50 years he has gone from automobile and motorcycle mechanic to dedicate himself as a machinist, and hydroelectric and small airplane mechanic. People with his training and abilities earn easily $500 per day in special projects.. But his interest is in developing countries, so he has worked for a small fraction of what his colleagues charge. Six years ago he gave a presentation in the Senate in Colombia, leaving a basic (feasibility) study and photos of a scale model (of the 180 meter airship) which would carry 50 tons of cargo to remote zones. He also had contacts with the government of Malaysia, interested in scientific and tourism uses for dirigibles. He worked for four months on the design of a ‘ship of 45 meters.

In the web page of the Airship Association one reads that Blenn has a long experience en the design of these vehicles. This Association was registered in England in 1971. It has near 600 members – many of them consultants like Blenn – worldwide. When one thinks in these ships, the unavoidable reference is to the Hindenburg, a monster of 243 meters length which crossed the ocean various times carrying passengers. Because of its luxury and convenience, it was a true transatlantic flyer. The use of these ships came to be routine in the decade of the 30’s. That is, until in 1937 the Hindenburg caught fire in the US. 36 passengers died from the hundred which it carried. All told, the airship industry has had fewer than 200 deaths, but these were enough to paralyze it. They were very few victims, compared with the millions of kilometers traveled and the primitive aviation of the time.

There were other reasons for the disappearance of these immense balloons. They were not useful for war, since Germany used them in the First World War for bombing London. Fighter planes easily brought down these aerial elephants, which entered into a process of extinction. Basically, the design of these ships has not changed much. Of course, better materials are used, with better control and more exact calculations. Blenn explains that instead of using metal to maintain the gasbags in their place, now synthetic fabrics are used, which are tough and easy to work with.

“The idea is to carry the gas from the area of Santa Cruz to Trinidad and probably Riberalta. With this system gas can be delivered to remote sites with little infrastructure and, of course, without a pipeline. This promising project would put Bolivians to work and be a source for the export not only of the gas but of the dirigibles to transport it.” Simply put, that is the proposal.

The dirigible would have a length of 150 meters and would function with engines using the same gas. According to calculations, it would consume some 3% of the gas in a round trip of 1000 km at a speed of 100 kph. Twenty-five years ago, the Shell company did a study that contemplated the use of a gigantic airship. It was designed by English engineers. Blenn knows of the project and though he doesn’t supply numbers, he assures that the price is tremendous. If the plan of the Bolivian company Reparando becomes reality, they will have the rights to use the design for all of South America.

The natural fear in using this type of ‘ship is safety. What happens, for example, in bad weather? Rain causes an increase in weight, but with bigger dirigibles the effect is less significant. Hundreds of lightning bolts have struck airships, and they have not caused major damage. Of 130 cases of airships struck by lightning, fewer than five were burned. A detail: they used hydrogen. When traveling against a wind of 50 kph, it will only advance at 50 kph, but will reach 150 kph if it has the same wind in its favor. Since the time of Alberto Santos Dumont (yes, the same who gives his name to the avenue at El Trompillo airport), the Brazilian who flew for the first time with a vehicle heavier than air, it is known that the bow should be into the wind to land or anchor. One of his experimental vehicles crashed when it landed with the wind. Santos Dumont made the first flights in his ‘ships in 1898. In October of 1901 he flew almost ten kilometers over Paris.

Returning the the topic of safety, when it is anchored the apparatus withstands winds of up to 120 kph. “I have friends who flew in the Second (World) War and they have told me stories about storms”, Blenn remembers.

According to the information gathered by Reparando, there will be few problems with wind to arrive at cities like Trinidad. Initially, this city is the one chosen as anchor point during the nights or in case of bad weather. It is even thought to begin the construction in the Beni (provincial) capital. “It is possible to forecast the climate and strong winds in the area of Santa Cruz to delay flights”, Blenn explains. Mariano Dupleich, mechanical engineer with Reparando, assures us that they are awaiting an alliance with other companies outside the country for the project to go ahead. “It is only viable in the easter part of Bolivia,” he says. Before explaining why the apparatus functions better in the plains, it is necessary to know how a dirigible functions.

“Air is not so light as many people think, because it weighs close to 1.2 kg per cubic meter. Since the helium weighs close to 0.2 kgs per cubic meter, one meter of helium tries to “float” with a force of one kg”. Just that clear is Blenn’s explanation. Furthermore, the natural gas that it would transport also has a lifting force. One important detail: the gas is transported without pressure, to avoid heavy containers. Because of this, it is enough to enclose it in special bags, not metal tanks. The natural gas also can lift loads, but it has less force than the helium. The gas can lift approximately 0.5 kg per cubic meter. If 35,000 cubic meters are carried, they would have a lifting force of 17,500 kgs. That is equivalent to almost the full load of a double axle truck. Blenn suggests that 17,500 liters of Diesel be transported to counteract this lifting force. On returning, the dirigible can use a lesser quantity of water (near 3000 liters) as ballast. The process of loading the gas would take some 20 minutes, and the supply duct could be utilized as part of the mooring tower. The 35,000 cubic meters planned to be transported in each trip is equivalent, according to the calculations of regional superintendent Jose Ruiz, to 2,700 tanks of gas. Including its contents, each of these would weigh 23 kgs. Thus, each trip would do the work of three trucks loaded with gas tanks, and one with Diesel. Total: four truckloads in just one trip.

Now it will be easier to understand how altitude affects the operation of a dirigible. Simply, the lifting force is reduced by 1% each 100 meters (of altitude). To rise to 4000 meters, let’s say to Potosi, the lifting force will diminish some 40%. However, one should not throw out the possibility of using dirigibles to carry the gas, crossing the mountainous chain that separates us from Chile, to the maritime ports. For use in the Altiplano, a special design would be necessary, very light and larger, given that the gas would occupy more space. The advantage is that winds are less dense – Blenn explains- and aerodynamic forces are less.

Though no country is transporting gas by dirigible, it does not mean that Bolivia cannot do it. “It would be beneficial even for self-esteem,” comments Mariano Dupleich. In reality, not much time will pass before it occurs to someone else. Germany, the great pioneer in the building of these fantastic ‘ships, is developing the Cargolifter, called “the flying crane”. The apparatus will be capable of transporting more than 160 tons or a volume of 3,200 cubic meters to more than 10,000 km distance. In just one trip, the Cargolifter can carry food to feed 25,500 persons for two weeks. And what if we had one, even though smaller, to anchor in the zones flooded by the Rio Grande?

A very old history

The oldest designs of dirigibles consisted in taking a round balloon and stretching it in both extremes until achieving the form of an egg. These dirigibles kept their shape by means of the internal pressure produced by the gas they contained. This type is known as flexible or non-rigid. The problem was that this class of balloon bent under the tension produced by heavy loads or by bad weather.

This problem was solved by giving dirigibles a semi-rigid design. This is achieved on adding a light keel (a rigid frame) the length of the bottom of the airship. The keel lowers the tension of the envelope or canvas that covers the dirigible. Because of this larger airships were built. Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin (1900) designed a rigid envelope. This freed the envelope of the necessity of an internal pressure to keep its shape. Thanks to this, separate cells were used, filled with gas and held with wires, instead of one big envelope. This basic design is applied since then.

1.0 Executive Summary

April, 2000

UPship Corporation was formed to put into production and operate an improved design of helium airship for advertising, passenger, and transport use. Our improvements will give us the advantage over our competitors in lower cost of operation and greater utility and comfort which we believe will allow us to capture a good portion of a growing international market. We are located in southeast Alabama, where we have a site for our initial design, construction, and testing phases. Our business plan details the processes, labor, and costs necessary to achieve our goals.

For those unfamiliar with airships, a good site on the internet, with links to many other sites, is: Http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/airship.html Much more information and further analysis is included in the full business plan.

Jesse Blenn, President

UPship Corporation

5198 Highway 84

Elba, AL 36323

Tel 334- 897-6132

FAX 334-897-3434

E-mail: airship@alaweb.com

1.1 The Market

According to Insider’s Report, worldwide expenditures for advertising rose from $275.5 billion in 1990 to a projected $434.4 billion in 1998. As clients look for new ways to expose their products, they have helped in the resurgence of a nearly abandoned technology: the helium airship, also known as blimp, dirigible, and “Zeppelin” in its various forms.

From a low of one Goodyear blimp flying in the 1960’s the number of similar non rigid airships carrying their sponsor’s name overhead has grown steadily, to over two dozen flying worldwide. Airship advertising business is now well over fifty million dollars per year. Operations have included Australia, Korea, China, Thailand, Japan, South Africa, Turkey, Israel, Norway, England, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Canada, as well as all of continental Europe and the US. We have a list of near 50 clients, from Sea World to Renault to MasterCard to Novo Snack Bar. Lease periods have ranged from two weeks for special promotions to several continuous years. Leases are now over $200,000 per month for a 130 foot five seat airship which sells for $2 million plus. This, the A60+ Lightship by American Blimp Corporation, now has over 50% of the world market, and competes with larger, more expensive competitors.

This growth in commercial use has also led to a resurgence of interest in the use of airships for luxury passenger excursions, oversize cargo, and research and surveillance use. The Zeppelin company in Germany has their first airship flying in 60 years, and Dutch and German companies are to begin construction this year of giant passenger and cargo airships. Scheduled blimp rides over Las Vegas, Nevada, sell good at $179 to $199 per hour. The police of Puerto Rico have bought a blimp for their work for $4 million. These are all viable markets, WITH THE RIGHT AIRSHIP.

1.2 Mission

Despite the renewed interest, there have been very few real improvements in airship design since the 1930’s. They are safe and have a smooth ride but are noisy, need constant attention, and lack low speed control. Because of this last they require a large ground crew manning handling ropes for takeoff and landing. This is usually two to three per useful passenger, and is a major expense in airship operations, especially as most are not in a permanent location. Also, many millions of dollars have been spent to engineer “new ” airships which operate no better than their WWII counterparts. These costs are being passed on to clients. A great opportunity exists to overcome these high costs of development and operation and offer clients a cost-effective airship. UPship Corporation was formed in 1996 with that goal.

Over 14 years of study have gone into our design of an improved dirigible. (Dirigible is a multi-language term and means controllable, thus a good term for our airship.) This is based on proven technology and proposed improvements by competent designers of the past, combined with well-considered innovations to overcome control and handling limitations, while giving substantial improvements in maintenance, comfort, safety, and fuel efficiency. We have two US patents approved with more to follow. Our mission initially is to offer a better and more cost-effective airship to clients for advertising use, as this is an established market and can pay back the investment costs of development and commercial certification. But there is a tremendous potential for aerial tourism due the airship’s safe and enjoyable ride, as well as a viable transport system in areas lacking ground infrastructure. We will expand into other markets as they open up. We are ready to approach advertising agencies and corporate clients once availability dates can be fixed.

We propose a three-seat airship of 118 feet length initially as the most cost-effective entry level advertising ship. Our design is more versatile than any other for adaptation to other sizes and uses, including up to 100 passengers or more. As our business plan shows, our airships can be sold or operated for considerably less than our competitors. Type Certification by the Federal Aviation Administration is necessary to allow commercial operation. This is a major expense and is being studied very carefully. To build and FAA certify for commercial use our initial airship may cost near two million dollars, employing near twelve people over a period of near two years, plus some outside engineering and laboratory testing. We have very experienced engineers who will work with us to carry out this process as efficiently as possible. Additional ‘ships of the three seat size will cost near 1/8 that amount to produce.

Based on industry costs information, we can operate our airships for under $75,000 per month (average 140 hours flight time). A lease price of near $125,000 per month would be very competitive and allow a good return on investments. This is fully analyzed in the Operations section of the Upship business plan.

1.3 Objectives

1. Capture 20% of the existing airship advertising market within five years. At $12 million per year this will be near 10 of our initial airships operating at $100,000 per month.

2. Maintain 30% of expanding markets in advertising, tourism, transport, surveillance, and research, with different sizes of airships.

3. Maintain 25% profit margin on our commercial operations.

4. Maintain an excellent safety record and satisfied repeat customers, plus high employee morale and loyalty.

1.4 Our Team

Jesse Blenn, founder and President of UPship, is an accomplished mechanic, machinist, and electrician. His most recent project was the five year restoration of an abandoned hydroelectric powerplant for the sale of electricity. He knows what it takes to make machines work, and has the patience and drive to get the job done, and do it right. With an IQ of 133 (98th percentile) he has concentrated on the engineering aspects of airship design for the past 14 years, especially collecting and analyzing historical airship design information.

The UPship design is thus based on thousands of hours of study and careful consideration of all the facets involved in achieving an evolutionary yet revolutionary airship that can be built at a reasonable cost. He is fluent in Spanish, with experience in the metric system, patents, and drafting. Up to this point we have concentrated on the technical and location issues, but key management positions will be filled shortly. We have chosen as certification manager an FAA Designated Engineering Representative experienced in Type Certification with both companies who have completed the process in the United States. He will work with at least two DER’s in our area to carry out this process through the Atlanta Aircraft  Certification Office. EJM Aerospace Services in nearby Crestview, Florida (60 miles) has full certification, engineering and composite component fabrication services available as necessary, with some experience in airship work.

Experienced aviation workers are available in our area due to the closeness of a major U.S. Army helicopter facility, plus a large airline maintenance facility. Alabama Aviation Technical College is located nearby in Ozark, Alabama and has helped us get a list of interested and available workers for our future needs.

1.5 Financial

We plan near twelve employees initially, with near two years before we can commence commercial operations. This assumes investor capital of near $2,000,000 for labor, facilities, testing, materials, and certification. At present stock price this would be near 60,000 shares of stock, giving the investors near 81% ownership of stock, with near 13.5% to Jesse Blenn and near 5.5% to eleven existing shareholders. Other financing options may be available, including customer participation. There is a possibility of grants and/or low interest loans, which we will be actively pursuing. This has already resulted in the likely availability of a new hangar constructed for us at the Enterprise airport, at a minimal lease cost.

Including necessary office and management personnel, we estimate near 4 man years total for each additional ship, giving a cost of near $250,000 each. To reach our goal we plan to construct four additional airships each year, with near sixteen employees. Of these half are assumed operated by us through an operating division to be set up, and half sold to existing or new outside operators at $500,000. At 2/3 of the possible $50,000 monthly profit per airship yearly profit would be $400,000 per airship operated. Additional passenger revenue not included here could easily add 50% to the operating income. Operations are here entered as profit only. It has taken the Lightship near 7 years to create and capture the majority of the world market. Based on this, we can foresee the following dates, expenses, income (in thousands of dollars $) and airships Built, Operated, and Sold (B/O/S):

Production Operations

Period        Expense   Subtotal   Income   Subtotal   Sold   Balance       B/O/S

7/01-12/01    500           500          0              0              0        -500       0

1/02-6/02      500           1000        0              0              0       -1000      0

7/02-12/02    500            1500       0              0              0        -1500      0

1/03-6/03      500            2000       0              0              0        -2000     1/0/0

7/03-12/03    500            2500       200          200          500    -1800     3/1/1

1/04-6/04      500            3000       400          600          1000   -1400     5/2/2

7/04-12/04    500            3500       600          1200        1500    – 800     7/3/3

1/05-6/05      500            4000       800          2000        2000     +000    9/4/4

7/05-12/05    500            4500       1000        3000         2500    +1000  11/5/5

1/06-6/06      500            5000       1200         4200        3000    +2200  13/6/6

7/06-12/06    500             5500      1400         5600        3500    +3600  15/7/7

1/07-6/07      500            6000       1600         7200        4000    +5200  17/8/8

7/07-12/07    500            6500       1800         9000         4500    +7000  19/9/9

1/07-6/07      500            7000       2000         11000     5000   +9000 21/10/10

2.0 Company Summary

2.1 Company history

UPship began in Jackson, Georgia in 1987 as The UPship Project.  There was in interest by the Portico company, a major manufacturer of mahogany doors in Costa Rica, to use airships in rain forest logging and management. A study of airship design and the improvements necessary to make such a use possible was begun by Jesse Blenn. Due to management changes at Portico no funding was forthcoming from Costa Rica, but design work continued on a one place prototype design, with funding help from Joe Josey and planned construction in an available aircraft hangar. This was postponed when from 1992 to 1997 Jesse relocated to work on a hydroelectric project in Alabama, which precluded any construction work. However considerable further technical investigation and design work kept the idea very much alive. The basic UPship dirigible airship design has evolved and improved over these years. UPship Corporation was started in 1996, with the purpose of final development, construction, and operation of these improved helium dirigible airships.

2.2 Company Ownership

We incorporated UPship, Inc. as a privately held Alabama “S” corporation on May 8, 1996. For tax purposes, this classification allows the expected losses up to our break even point to be reported on our shareholders’ personal income tax. When appropriate this status will be changed to that of a “C” corporation.

Present shareholders include Jesse Blenn, Joe Josey, Carmen Blenn, and 9 minor shareholders. Together they now own 1532 shares of the presently authorized 25,000 shares. Since 1993 Jesse Blenn has funded most necessary expenses, with minor shareholders making possible patent applications and some necessary software, etc. A shareholders agreement recorded on Sept 12, 1997 sets various conditions for sale of stock in UPship, Inc., including a stock sale price increase of 7% per quarter ( 31% annual ) and a limited further distribution of stock to the three founding shareholders. Under this agreement those providing the necessary venture capital for the full construction and certification process will receive near eighty percent equity, depending on the amount and date of investment.

2.3 Startup Summary

Our start-up costs come to $15,000. Though we have been in business legally for over three years, these allow us to do further necessary legal work and set up an office with the proper dedicated equipment to begin our marketing effort. The $3300 estimate for consulting is based on an experienced Designated Engineering Representative’s quote on the first step in the FAA Type Certification process. We include $2,000 as additional initial certification expense for travel and additional consultation to proceed forward with this initially. Five hundred is initially budgeted for our internet site upship.com, where we will have a description of our airships, general information about airships, and links to other sites. R & D may include purchase of material samples, technical reports, etc. The start-up process will allow a design freeze based on input from Certification and Marketing as a necessary step before final drawings, mock ups, and tooling are begun.

Start-up Plan

Start-up Expenses

Legal (leasing and permits) $1,000

Stationery etc. $200

Brochures $500

Consultant (pre-certification) $3,300

Certification travel, etc $2,000

Website setup $500

Insurance $1,000

Research and development $1,000

Other $1,500

Total Start-up Expense $11,000

Start-up Assets Needed

Cash Requirements $1,000

Other Short-term Assets $3,000

Total Short-term Assets $4,000

Long-term Assets $0

Total Assets $4,000

Total Start-up Requirements: $15,000

Left to finance: $0

Start-up Funding Plan

Investment

Venture capital investors $15,000

Others $0

Other $0

Total investment $15,000

Short-term Liabilities

Unpaid Expenses $0

Short-term Loans $0

Interest-free Short-term

Loans

$0

Subtotal Short-term

Liabilities

$0

Long-term Liabilities $0

Total Liabilities $0

Loss at Start-up ($11,000)

Total Capital $4,000

Total Capital and Liabilities $4,000

Check-line $0

2.4 Company Locations and Facilities

Suitable sites for construction and initial operations of our first airships have been found at the nearby Enterprise and Andalusia, Alabama airports. The construction of larger airships will likely involve a dedicated airfield with a larger hangar and moderate infrastructure. Operation is from a large level area – a runway is not necessary. Reasonably priced sites for this are readily available. Enterprise can provide a 700 foot diameter grass takeoff and landing area near the airport administration building, plus room for hangar construction. A hangar size of near 80 feet wide by 160 feet long by 40 feet high would allow work on or storage of two of our three seat airships. The extra length will allow additional floors of office and shop space opposite the main door, for a total of near 18,000 square feet. The Andalusia site would be more appropriate for a larger 8-seat version – the best initial size for combined tourism and advertising. A 1000 foot diameter operating area plus plenty of room for hangar, offices, etc. are available. We would anticipate a 100 by 200 foot hangar at this location, with near 25,000 square feet. An economical style hangar can be built for $10 to $20 per square foot, thus $180-360,000 for the 80 x 160 foot or $250-500,000 for the 100 x 200 foot hangar.

The airport administrations are very receptive to the idea and can likely cooperate with site preparation and hangar construction, which can be leased to us at cost. Hangar style may be subject to local approval. Further confidential talks will be underway until a size freeze can be made and a public announcement is appropriate. It is anticipated that the inner portion of the hangar will be built first for near 1/2 the total cost. This wil include all office, engineering, and a large climate controlled fabrication area. Facilities would include light machine shop and metal fabrication equiptment, with jigs built for most major components. A full- length form for envelope fabric cutting and assembly would be included once the full hangar length is completed. As envelope construction and then final assembly are the last steps, the majority of the work can actually be done before hangar completion is necessary. Office and small component fabrication could also be in separate facilities. If a one seat ultralight version is built first, this could be built and operated from the Blenn property near Elba , where a 400 foot diameter area with good approach can be provided.

3.0 Products

UPship provides services using airships as aerial platforms for our customer’s end use. Our first focus will be on the unique advertising possible with a billboard in the sky, especially in conjunction with public events. Second, and normally in conjunction with advertising is sightseeing tours of 1/2 to 1 hour duration. Besides these known and immediate uses, we expect to find a market for use of our airships for scientific research, surveillance, and longer tourist flights. There is a possible very large market in commercial transport of passengers and cargo into less-developed or ecologically sensitive areas lacking large airports. We will build and also operate our airships, which have unique capabilities making them especially attractive for all these markets.

3.1 The UPship Airships

While detail features of our airships are still confidential (as are drawings of the latest version, except to investors), we will summarize our design approach and some main features, all based on careful consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of past and present airships. We have considered one, two, three, eight, sixteen, and fifty passenger variations, all of which have near twice the aerodynamic efficiency of present airships and can be sold AND operated for near half the cost still with a very good profit. This lower cost of operation- due mostly to reduced ground crew plus ease of maintenance- with greater utility at the same time, will be the key to the success of our company.

Our design stresses aerodynamic and structural efficiency, and includes features not seen or proposed since the 1930’s. The UPship design gives a better distribution of loads, lower internal pressures, better maintenance access, multiple helium compartments, “hard points” for ground handling, and larger sizes possible than with the present designs. Compared to other airships available which use near three crew per useful passenger, the UPship design will allow a greatly reduced crew. These will be only three for advertising or four for passenger operations of the 001, although when necessary landing and takeoff can be accomplished by the pilot alone. The improved control will greatly enhance utility, making controlled hover and near obstacle operations safe. The basic design is scalable to larger sizes than present types, where it would have an additional internal “semi rigid” framing and internal construction which open up the lower section for passenger or cargo use and allows nearly all the advantages of true rigid construction with less cost and complexity.

DESIGN FEATURES: Shape of minimum resistance, with propulsion engines in inverted “V” tail fins and nose mounted thruster for control at all speeds.  Designed for ease of maintenance, with reduced dependence on internal pressure. Greatly improved control, multiple helium cells, and a smoother ride increases usefulness and safety while eliminating majority of ground crew.

FLYING CONTROLS: Joyce stick operated pitch and yaw control by ruddervators in propeller slipstream, with aerodynamic assist; automatic pitch trim; foot pedals control bow thruster for enhanced and low speed control (up, down, right, left, and reverse) and heavy lifting.

STRUCTURE: Aluminum and steel tubing hard structures; some carbon composites as appropriate: envelope of proprietary rip-stop construction, with internal divisions and four helium cells. Tail fins deflect under excessive ground or air loads (US Patent).

POWER PLANT: Three 24 HP Konig two-stroke radial piston engines with electric start. Two operate in tail fin openings, one operates bow thruster. Twin alternators for night illumination system and electric cabin heat. Fuel capacity 75 liters (20 gals).

ACCOMODATIONS: Pilot and two passengers, seated inline. Electric cabin heat. Quiet and vibration free due to distance from engines. Cabin has side door and camera/winching hatch; rear seat reclines; ample space for rest, equipment, or rescue operations.

DIMENSIONS: Length 36 meters (118.1 ft), diameter 7.2 m. (23.6 ft), height 8.7 m (28.5 ft) width @ tails 10 m (32.8 ft).

VOLUMES: Envelope 894 cubic meters (31,370 cubic feet), initial helium fill 785 cubic meters (27,720 cubic feet).

WEIGHTS: Total lift near 785 kg (1730 lbs), empty weight near 470 kg (1037 lbs) , useful lift near 315 kg (695 lbs) , thruster lift 50 kg (110 lbs).

PERFORMANCE: Max speed 97 kph (60 mph), cruise at 50% 77 kph (48 mph), cruise at 25% 62 kph (38 mph).

ENDURANCE: At 50% 5 hours, at 25% 10 hours (20% fuel reserve).

RANGE: At 50% 386 km (240 miles), at 25% 618 km (380 miles).

COSTS: Set up operations, build and FAA Type Certify first ship: near $2,000,000. Cost of production near $250,000. Selling price near $500,000.

Commercial total operating cost under $300 per hour/ $2-3000 per day/ $50- 75,000 per month. Expected lease (U.S.) $100-125,000 per month.

OTHER SIZE AIRSHIPS: Airships can be built up to extremely large sizes with high efficiency. We have considered specifications and details of a single seat ultralight airship of 2/3 linear scale of the described three-seat (24 meters length, 265 cubic meters). This can be a very economical proof of concept for our design with a cost of $50-75,000, easily saved on reduced design and testing time of the larger ships. Also we have considered an eight-seat version as the minimum size especially suited for aerial tourism, a possible enormous market. At 48 meters length this would be 1 1/3 scale of the three seat. Basic specifications would be:

Length 48 meters; Diameter: 9.6 meters; Volume 2120 cubic meters.

Helium fill near 1865 cubic meters giving near 1865 kg gross lift and near 840 kg useful lift.

Cost to build and certify (as initial airship) near $3 million.

Cost of later production: well under $1 million.

A potential very large market exists for an effective cargo airship, likely initially in the 50 to 100 ton load size range. For this certain features of the UPship design are especially appropriate, with adaptations due to sizing and operations. Sizes under study would be near 5 and 6 times scale of the 001 and be of 590 or 708 feet (180/216 meter) length. This is well within the practical size range of the UPship design features. 

The greatest potential exists in developing countries where the costs, difficulties, and time delays of building and maintaining roads and airports makes the development of rural or isolated areas very slow, and often nonexistent. This size of airship uses a fraction of the fuel per ton/mile of cargo airplanes, can be built for a fraction of the unit cost, and can operate from sites with minimal facilities – a grass clearing or small natural or man-made lake. The economic, ecological, and social benefits make this a VERY attractive market. Again, with the UPship design, we have THE RIGHT AIRSHIP.

3.2 Airship Operations

Initially, our operations will compete with existing operators for predominantly advertising use. The normal flight time often quoted for this use in 140 hours per month, though up to 240 hours have been flown. Airships are normally operated under what is known as a “wet lease” including all necessary experienced personnel and support equipment, with no flight crew provided by the customer. Direct competition with existing operators such as The Lightship Group will necessitate a portable operation with normally not over a few weeks in any one location. Scheduling is usually weeks in advance to include major public events, sometimes in more than one country. Common procedure often includes giving VIP rides and publicity flights for reporters, etc. in lieu of paying passengers, at the client’s option.

However, our operations will likely be different due to our lower cost of operation. This means that the same customer could afford to use our airships for a longer period, or in smaller cities cost-effectively. Also, in the same city there may well be more than one customer who can afford the use of our ship. Both these facts would tend toward longer periods in any one location. This would allow more opportunities to take paying passengers. Our quiet cabin and greater stability will especially impress passengers. Passenger use can defray a large percentage of total costs and thus is very attractive in areas of high tourism or scenic beauty – natural or man-made.

Many areas exist which could support the use of a permanently stationed airship, with possible occasional nearby outside trips for special events. This combined with the small number of ground crew could make possible the use of a permanent local crew and avoid the considerable complexity and expense of road costs. We also anticipate fewer crew once automated handling of the rear of the airship is proven and FAA approved, with little or no increase in crew size for larger ships.

Other airships are not adequately controlled in pitch and roll movements when moored and require a constant watch to adjust weights and monitor pressure. Using systems similar to ours however, the rigid airship Los Angeles was left unattended for weeks. Under normal conditions where airport security personnel are nearby and access restricted we will require no night watch. Any abnormal condition of pressure or attitude will be reported by automatic dialed telephone alarm to the appropriate on-call personnel.

Our goal is especially the reduction of operating costs, and this is largely through reduced crew. The pilot will be in full control of the attachment and release of the airship nose mooring point. Due to our improved design features, pilot fatigue will be less of a problem. Still, in compliance with regulations, for any amount over 100 hours per month we must assume the required availability of two pilots for tradeoff and to allow off duty time. We will initially have an active ground crew of three, plus two in reserve for long days, errands, sickness, and vacation. These five will include a crew chief and mechanic.

Operating Costs:

We can anticipate the following costs, based on comparisons with published figures for the ten-seat Skyship 600 and six-seat AT-10. This assumes an availability of 70% of each average 50 hour flight week, giving a flight time of 140 hours per month and 1600 hours per year including time off for maintenance and transit. Overhead includes benefits and travel expenses.

PERSONNEL

Crew

Two pilots @ $60,000 plus overhead of 60% $192,000

One crew chief @ $40,000 plus o/h $84,000

One mechanic @ $40,000 plus o/h $84,000

Three ground crew @ $30,000 plus o/h $144,000

________

Subtotal $504,000

Administration

One coordinator, public relations

@ $30,000 plus o/h of 30% $39,000

________

PERSONNEL TOTAL $543,000

OTHER

Insurance

Hull and 3rd party @ 10% $50,000

Depreciation

To residual value of 20% in 5 years = 16% $80,000

Maintenance

Fuel, spares, helium @ $60 per flight hour $96,000

Airport Facilities

Rental and fees $75,000

Miscellaneous

Uniforms, transport, utilities, supplies $60,000

________

OTHER SUBTOTAL $361,000

plus PERSONNEL above +543,000

________

TOTAL YEARLY EXPENDITURE $904,000

PER 140-HOUR MONTH $75,333

This compares to over $200,000 per month for Airship Technologies new six-seat AT-10, and near that figure for the popular American Blimp Corporation A- 60+ operated by The Lightship Group. Eight years ago this same A-60+ was being offered for $105,000 per month. This obviously included a profit, which would imply that the lease costs now offered include a larger profit. Those of the AT-10 used as a basis for the above are based on higher European costs. Some of these expenses, especially crew overhead, could be considerably reduced when operating from a fixed base, or using local crew in developing countries.

3.3 Competitive Comparison

Today, airships are available for lease from a few companies at a premium price. In fact there are Airships Industries Skyships which operate at $300,000 per month in storage awaiting customers who can pay their high cost of operation, while the smaller Lightship’s business is booming at 2/3 or more that price. Our European agent, Balloon Promotion s.a.s., said of the Lightship they brought to Italy:

“…very high charter rates ($220,000 per month) that reduce the potential customers to few companies in Europe. We think that a reduction of approximately one-third would allow a much bigger potential market.”

This shows the importance of pricing, and it will be a major selling point for our airships, especially the lower cost of operation due to reduced crew. But we will also offer greater passenger comfort, a novel nighttime illumination system, and improved performance – controlled hover, search and rescue and water landing capability, and quick and safe mooring. These are improvements others only talk and dream about. For the first time, true utility will be combined with the novelty that is airships.

3.4 Sales Literature and Website

We receive inquiries about our airships nearly on a weekly basis, based on a small amount of information on the internet. Interest is truly worldwide, including recently Norway, Brazil, Philippines, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, England, St. Helena, Indonesia, Italy, and Los Angeles County, California. It is of course hard to determine which are serious inquiries. As yet we have no sales literature and are sending only a list of specifications similar to that in this business plan.

Included in startup expenses would be an appropriate four-color general information brochure to give a more professional impression, plus brochures specifically targeting the advertising market. We have reserved the appropriate website name “upship.com”, and startup will include the development and posting of pertinent general and specific information there, plus an effort to establish links in appropriate fields to direct customers to us. Based on the past, we can anticipate a very good response from this medium of publicity, and use of the internet is by far the best and easiest means of promotion for such a worldwide and diverse market as we are targeting.

3.5 Sourcing

During thirteen years of development we have collected much and established sources of information on airship design. We will not need to hire specific airship consultants (very few and at up to $1000 per day). The Type Certification process will off and on require a team of aircraft engineers with expertise in different areas of certification, not specific to airships, such as powerplant, structure, lightning protection, electrical system, etc. These are available at $45 to $90 on a per- hour basis. As an aircraft manufacturer, our sources will mostly be established aircraft material and component companies familiar with the processes and documentation required by the FAA. Envelope materials will come mostly from DuPont. Engines will be the German Konig (three-seat) and Zoche Diesel (larger ships) as these best fit our needs. Due to the low volume production initially, we will use certified off-the shelf components where possible (seats, fuel tanks, instruments, etc.) and do not expect any custom castings, custom onboard computers, or complex machining.

US government figures for the aircraft industry show a value added …… (give conclusions from analysis of applicable government data to follow as an appendix).

3.6 Technology

Many technological advances have been made in recent years which can reduce weight and increase performance of airships. These are mostly in materials, avionics, and powerplant areas, and in our case aerodynamics and control systems. We of course will use CAD drafting, finite element structural analysis and other modern design tools. Computer aided manufacturing is a definite future possibility. And, especially for our worldwide market, computer aided marketing via the internet is a must.

There are in fact many modern technologies which could be used to advantage on larger airships. However, high technology costs money and development and certification time. Due to our anticipated initial low volume production, we must   approach such innovation from the bottom line: will it pay in lower cost, time saved, safer or better operation? Our major focus is not on complex technology, but on practical innovative means to overcome the admitted problems of airships (most of these are in control and mooring).

The British Skyships were called a “leap in technology”. However, this resulted in little real improvement in performance, and higher costs. Their success was moderate. The Lightship has been called “a Mack Truck of a blimp”: rugged, no frills (neither have cabin heat!), off-the-shelf components where possible. This contributes to their low cost (high profit) and simpler operation and maintenance. Likewise we will use simple systems (including electric heat) and standard aircraft components and materials where possible. Most metal structure will be riveted aluminum tubing; suspensions will be rubber bungee cord, etc. All components, mooring equipment, and even fabrication jigs will be designed for easy shipment in standardized containers (39′ 6″ long, 90″ wide, 90″ high). We use the metric system except for standard fasteners, due to its simplicity and international acceptance. (One cubic meter of helium lifts 1 kg, 1 mm of water column pressure is 1 kg per square meter- very simple)

Airship design was a well-developed technology up to the 1930’s – more advanced than many, including today’s airship “experts”, realize. Old patents have been especially useful, giving a glimpse into the minds of great designers of the past, who had many promising ideas not fully utilized. We have US Patent number 6,019,312 for our tail fin mounting system, and expect others. Patents allow the holder to prevent others from making, using, or selling an invention for 20 years (US) and are very appropriate for certain features we will be using which can justify the cost (over $1000 minimum) and time (considerable) involved.

Historically, the two major negative factors in airship development were an underestimation of the power of wind gusts (and thus necessary airship strength) and the high price/ lack of availability of helium as lifting gas, which made flammable hydrogen the norm. Materials were also heavier and with a shorter useful life than today. These negative factors have been overcome. Today the FAA Type Certification process helps assure safety and accountability, while allowing considerable freedom in how an airship is actually constructed. Compared to jet travel, today’s airships are inherently “medium tech”, low-altitude, low-impact, low-speed, and safe. These are all unique characteristics that we can market.

3.7 FAA Certification

FAA Type Certification is the process whereby a specific aircraft design is approved , with the major emphasis on safety. It is the first and major step toward later production of an aircraft for sale or commercial use. The FAA states: “Aircraft certification regulations are intended to promote the airworthiness of aircraft by requiring that every aircraft is produced in conformance with an approved type design and is in safe operating condition. Regulations seek to achieve this goal through a combination of requirements for design, analysis, test, inspection, maintenance, and operations. As much as possible, regulations do not constrain designers a priori by specifying details such as material properties or the design of individual structures. Instead, designers are given a free hand to incorporate new materials, structural concepts, etc., as long as they accept the responsibility for showing that systems with innovative design features meet the FAA’s stringent reliability requirements.”

TRANSLATION from Spanish to English on September 18, 2022

July 2001

PROPOSAL FOR CARGO AIRSHIPS

We have designed a helium-filled airship with a cargo capacity of 50 metric tons, to be built in Colombia. This project will be called 2320, by the relative size index (the 2/3 power of the volume in cubic meters). The length will be 180 meters, with a maximum diameter of 36 meters. Total volume will be 111,750 cubic meters, and volume of helium from 95,000 to 100,000 cubic meters, since this varies with operating altitude. Provision for carrying cargo will normally be a platform 20 meters long by 10 meters wide, with a normal height of up to 4 meters, and supported from four double cables on the corners (PS: Actually a square at 25 and 75% of the platform length, with guide cables at the four corners and a unique patentable interaction system.) Normally this platform is retracted in flight into the profile of the airship for protection and minimal wind resistance. The basic capacity will be two to three semi truck loads. You will be able to operate from a fixed prepared field of 500 meters in diameter or – by means of the loading and unloading platform – could receive and deliver this or other cargo to sites with an absolute minimum of preparation. In these cases it could maintain a height of 50 to 100 meters and use an open field or water surface of about 50 meters diameter. Normally four anchors screwed into the ground will be used to locate and control the operation or, if in water, four bags filled with water. On more permanent sites an upload/download framework can be used, delivered earlier or even on the same flight by the airship. This would allow faster operation.

It is worth mentioning that the apparently enormous size of this airship really is, historically, a medium size. Between 1929 and 1938 seven airships were built between this size and 75% larger, using the inferior materials of that time. Nowadays the design of an airship with 3 ½ times the volume of that which is here proposed is well advanced. This is the “Cargolifter”, with a planned capacity of 160 metric tons, which you can see on the site http://www.cargolifter.com.

Using rapidly interchangeable load modules, the 2320 can be used for all kinds of transport, for example refrigerated meat, 50 tons of live cattle, or transporting, and even harvesting, timber directly from the forest with minimal ecological damage. With a passenger module, it will transport 250 to 300 passengers in greater comfort than airplanes. Larger or irregularly shaped cargo, such as large tanks or towers, can be carried under the body of the airship in the open air. Logically, its initial use will be in the most urgent fields and the most profitable in an economic sense. For this, its use day and night will be important, made more practical by the interchangeable modules.

Based on an in-depth study of past airships and adaptable modern technologies, an airship will be built that is especially suited to tropical areas and allows for quick and cheap construction. We propose the construction of a 1/5 scale demonstrator, 36 meters long and with a capacity of three people, while carrying out the final studies and tests for the large prototype. This, with a relative size index of 93, that is, 1/125 the volume of 2320, will serve to minimize the economic risk and at the same time train Colombian personnel in all aspects of this little-known field. The demonstrator can both test and refine the performance and the most efficient construction and operation methods for the 2320. This will result in a net saving of time and funds.

The construction of this airship will take advantage of modern advances in materials allowing the construction of a large airship with most of the advantages of the large rigid airships of the past, but using flexible materials. It maintains its aerodynamic shape simply by a minimal internal pressure of only 5 to 50 kg per square meter, depending on the speed. It will use a minimum frame of aluminum tubes, in three (main) sections of 25 meters in length, only in the lower part, to distribute the weight of the load.

Construction in Colombia will have the great advantage of favorable temperatures that allow the use of water for the anchoring system during inflation and operation, without the risk of ice, snow, and discomfort to workers. The simple construction of the outer bag on a three meter high mold will make it possible to build it within a low workshop some 200 meters long. Thus the initial inflation and operation will be done without the cost of millions of dollars for a large hangar. Cargolifter have already spent more than 50 million dollars on a hangar that is the largest construction without internal support in the world. However, once built, they hope the airships won’t return to the hangar for months or even years. Unlike the Cargolifter which uses a single helium bag, the UPship system will allow rapid inflation with air, after which internal helium bags can be added without worry, and without a hangar. Avoiding this tremendous cost of a hangar will be a major advantage of the design proposed here.

OTHER OUTSTANDING FEATURES

A (mathematically defined) shape of minimal air resistance, resulting in minimal fuel burn and easier control when anchoring. Per ton of payload, the fuel cost per kilometer will be about ¼ that of large aircraft.

A great stability, an outstanding property of large airships, which allows a much smoother and more comfortable flight than airplanes.

Complete control at all speeds, facilitating safety, anchoring, and load sharing.

Use of modern Diesel engines of lower weight, fuel consumption, and risk of fire.

Ease of inspection and internal maintenance of all its components, in flight or on the ground.

Six internal divisions and suspension rings. These maintain the circular shape and facilitate the construction, inspection, maintenance, and ventilation of the airship. Between them a spiral suspension system retains the helium cells.

Seven helium cells for greater safety and minimum loss of helium due to carrying an average pressure of only 15 kg per square meter. These are interconnected but easily inspected and repaired or replaced when damage or lack of helium retention occurs.

Complete internal reinforcement by a structural network that shares and thus reduces by half the forces carried by the external fabric. This prevents an external break from being possibly disastrous, and allows personnel to reach any internal part of the airship in complete safety. At the same time, it gives the great advantage of being able to change damaged portions of the external fabric, extending the useful life of the airship.

Continuous electronic detection of damage and helium loss, allowing rapid location and repair of damage from within the spacecraft in flight or on the ground.

An anchorage system that allows for an absolute minimum of personnel required, and allows quick and safe balance adjustment.

These and other very important aspects will be tested by building and testing the small demonstrator.

Based on the characteristics of the UPship design, adapted to the 2320 of 180 meters, we have:

KEY FEATURES: Helium-filled semi-rigid airship. Least–resistance shape, with four propulsion motors at two inverted “V” shaped rudders, and two control motors at the bow for full low speed control. Designed for easy construction and maintenance, and minimal internal pressure. It includes major advances in control, multiple helium cells, and stability that increases utility and safety, while eliminating ground personnel.

DIMENSIONS: Length 180 meters (590 feet), diameter 36 meters (118 feet), height 40 meters (131 feet), rudder width 44 meters (144 feet).

VOLUMES: Total envelope 111,750 cubic meters (4 million cubic feet), normal helium 95,000 to 100,000 cubic meters depending on altitude.

WEIGHTS: Total lift about 95,000 kg, empty weight about 45,000 kg, useful lift about 50,000 kg. Additional lift by motors 3000 kg.

LOAD CAPACITY: Normal payload of 50 tons, up to a height of 1000 meters. As the lifting force decreases by 1% for every 100 meters, this capacity will decrease by 10 tons every thousand meters. As an example, this will leave a useful capacity in Bogota of about 30 tons, and at 6,000 meters it will lose its payload capacity. Airship balance requires a constant weight normally within 5%, and thus requires that an unloaded cargo be replaced by another cargo or by ballast water.

LOADING/UNLOADING CONTROL: Uses a (Patentable) system of hydraulically operated lift cables to raise and lower the loading platform, of typically 10 by 20 meters size. This operation is facilitated by four guide cable temporarily connected to ground. These guide the load to an exact point despite movements of the airship, which maintains a height of 50 to 100 meters. Cargo swapping can also be done easily on permanent bases, with the airship at ground level (also Patentable).

SPEEDS: Maximum 100 kph (62 mph), at 70% power 89 kph (55 mph), at 50% power 79 kph (49 mph). This is based on airships from the past and is likely to be 10% higher due to minimizing drag.

FUEL CONSUMPTION: About 150 liters per hour at 70% power. A fuel capacity of 2000 liters (2% of the total weight) will give 10 hours of flight (890 km) with a reserve of 33%.

FLIGHT DURATION: Normal is up to 10 hours. At maximum speed 7 hours. With 25,000 kg fuel (20% reserve) and 25,000 kg load: 133 hours and 12,000 km at 89 kph.

FLIGHT CONTROL: Stability in flight by two fixed stabilizing fins, directional control by moving rudders in the air flow of the propulsion propellers. Automatic pitch control by helium transfer via fans. Autopilot control using features of the (Patentable) bow thrusters, also giving low speed control in all directions (up/down/right/left/reverse).

STRUCTURE: Minimum framework installed internally at the bottom, (45 degrees right and left of bottom center) made of (corrugated) aluminum tube trusses, with flexible suspension to prevent damage. This also joins the structures of the fins and cabins.

ENGINES: Zoche 300 horsepower radial diesel engines, with air starting. Two mounted at each fixed rudder, two operate bow thrusters. Two (for redundancy) 70-horsepower Zoche handle the hydraulic and electrical systems for cargo handling, pressure fans, etc.

CABINS: Comfortable internal cabins with a crew bedroom. Active crew is two pilots and two to four operators for the loading/unloading process.

COSTS: Compared to the large airships of the past, the UPship eliminates millions of rivets, thousands of structural parts, multiple coats of external painting, and working at great heights, all resulting in savings in manual labor. Initial CERTIFICATION COSTS by the Government are still difficult to project and ARE NOT INCLUDED. Small Demonstrator Cost: $50,000 to $100,000. 180-meter cargo airship, built in Colombia: about $100,000 per useful ton of cargo. This compares to more than $1 million per useful ton of cargo on large cargo planes

 

.

 

 

 

Photos of 1/100 scale model that demonstrated the cargo exchange system

Estimated Costs of the UPship 2320

Materials

Fabrics $750,000 30,000 yards @ $25

(Rexam Industrial, USA)

Motors $400,000 6) Diesel 300 HP

2) Diesel 70 HP

(Zoche, Germany)

Helium $500,000 100,000 cubic meters

(Air Products, USA)

Various $600,000 Structure, controls, etc.

Subtotal $2,250,000 Materials

Labor

Construction $800,000 50,000 kg x 8 horas per kg@

$2 per hour (250 workers one year)

Engineering $500,000 50,000 hours @ $10

(25 engineers for one year)

Subtotal $1,300,000 Labor

Subtotal $2,250,000 Materials

Error/additional $1,450,000 @ 40%

TOTAL $5,000,000

Approximate Weights of the UPship 2320

Envelope, gas cells, netting, etc. 20,000 kg

Framing 3,500 kg

Load platform 1,500 kg

Cable and hoist systems 1,000 kg

Fins and rudders 3,000 kg

Bow and anchoring 1,000 kg

Motors end accessories 1,500 kg

Cabins 1,500 kg

Tanks – water, fuels etc. 500 kg

Controls and hydraulic systems 1,000 kg

_________

Subtotal 34,500 kg

Error factor @ 30% 10,500 kg

__________

TOTAL EMPTY WEIGHT: 45,000 kg

(Sources: past builders’ information, Cargo Transportation by Airships: a Systems Study, NASA 1975.)

Jesse Blenn, President and Technical Director

UPship Corporation

5198 Highway 84

Elba, Alabama 36323, USA

334-897-6132

mailto:airship@alaweb.com

NOW  Jesse Blenn

jesseblenn@gmail.com   Telephone and Whatsapp +506-8372-4113

THE AIRSHIP HOMEBUILDER A Bulletin of Airship Design Volume 1, No. 1
December, 1993

Welcome and thanks for subscribing. We have 40 subscribers. That’s a good start. The reasons I started this bulletin are basically three:

1) After five years of gradually sorting through information and ideas – and spending a lot of time and money in the process – I felt that I should go back and organize my information into a logical process, a sort of manual to clarify my own design process.

2) Others have had to “start from scratch” as I did. The airship journals and “picture books” have little practical information on the design of small airships.  Wouldn’t it be great to work together, to help each other get a good start and share information?

3) I’m tired of “experts” insinuating that only they know how. I’m tired of others who know nothing thinking I’m crazy. I’m out to prove them wrong and I hope you’ll join me. Some will say that this is an incorrect motive. Yes, but often it’s the only thing that keeps me going.

An individual can design and build a good and safe airship for a small fraction of the cost of a commercial ‘ship. With a bit of ingenuity you can build a better ship than theirs. By this I mean: more comfortable, more controllable, more efficient, and more practical. We will concentrate on the design of one and two-place helium airships.

We’ll begin with a more detailed discussion of the AIRSHIPS page sent in September, here restated in CAPITAL letters. Some of this will be old and opinionated information to you, but I believe it’s important we start off with a common base of information.

AIRSHIPS

AIRSHIPS ARE AIRCRAFT FOR TRANSPORTING PEOPLE OR GOODS WHICH ARE SUPPORTED IN THE AIR BY A LARGE VOLUME OF LIGHTER-THAN-AIR GAS, NORMALLY HELIUM, CONTAINED IN A STREAMLINED “ENVELOPE” OR HULL.

We will discuss size and shape later as part of the design process. Most small airships will fall into the 50 ft (fat one passenger) to 100 ft (slender two passenger) range. Some will see that I sidestepped airships’ only major use at present – advertising. This is for two reasons:

1) Advertising is a commercial operation normally requiring certificated aircraft and this bulletin is not about commercial aircraft. My goal is to promote experimental category airships testing new features. They should not be expected to operate over populated areas or keep rigid flight schedules, as advertisers would want.

2) I personally am not interested in advertising – I’ve had my fill of “businessmen”. My interest is  conservation / tourism / underdeveloped countries. Advertising is a limited market based on novelty and not efficiency or practicality.

For a general description and history of airships I suggest you consult a few different encyclopedias, especially the older ones found in public or university libraries. Few libraries have a good collection of airship books, but if you visit several you are apt to find an interesting variety. Some libraries have collections of old aircraft magazines from the 1920’s and 1930’s, which often have articles on airships. I haven’t had time to go through many but hope to be able to share some such articles of interest in future issues. Sources of information will be in the ACCESS section of future issues.

THIS (the helium) HAS THE SAME PURPOSE AS THE WINGS OF AN AIRPLANE – TO CREATE LIFT – BUT DOES NOT NEED FORWARD SPEED OR POWER TO DO SO. THIS “FREE” LIFT GIVES THE AIRSHIP CHARACTERISTICS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF AN AIRPLANE, BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES.

Two major characteristics separating airships and airplanes and which affect size and speed limitations especially are: 1) the effect of scale and 2) the sources of drag. As we shall appreciate, the volume and thus total lift of an airship increases as the cube of the dimensions. In airplanes the lift increases with increasing wing area, which goes up as the square of the dimensions. It’s relatively easy to “scale up” or “scale down” (as we will be doing) an airship without greatly affecting operation. As airplanes are scaled up something must be done to increase lift. This means 1) higher speed or 2) high-lift devices; and almost always both. These mean longer runways, higher noise levels, more complex construction, and that crashes are nearly always fatal. This high speed does mean that you get there faster (usually in a shorter time than your boring wait at the airport and sometimes before you luggage!) This is the principal advantages of airplanes. I believe that airplane development has reached a plateau, sandwiched between runway lengths and the speed of sound and limited by the fact that fuel must be burned to create lift. Airships have more room for development.

When an airship is flying in level flight all its drag is form drag, sometimes (in airplanes) called “parasite” drag. The power needed to overcome this drag increases nearly as the cube of the speed. (the drag in pounds increases as the square of the speed but since this force is exerted over an increased distance:
Drag in pounds ~ Velocity x Velocity (~ will mean is proportional to)
D ~ V2
Power in horsepower ~ Velocity x Velocity x Velocity
HP ~ V3 (HP ~ force x distance)

Thus at low speed airships have little drag and are very fuel efficient. Also this drag increases only as the square of the dimensions because it is due mostly to surface area. Since lift (volume) increases as the cube of the dimensions, an airship twice as long will have four times the drag but eight times the lift. It is thus twice as efficient in terms of fuel consumed to move the same load. This fact has led to many proposed schemes to build very large airships for cargo or luxury passenger transport, none of which have been carried out so far. If fact if some of the time and money wasted on such schemes had been used to build and fly small airships we could believe that such projects could work. It has been a failure of people, not airships.

I remember reading that Goodyear kept a design team of some twenty engineers working on airship proposals after the Navy ended their airship operations. It is unfathomable to me how such a group could exist for twenty-five years and not even build one airship! What an unfulfilling life. If those guys had any initiative and ability they would have at least gotten together and built one on weekends! (PS: I believe Goodyear company policy forbid them – it would look bad if it crashed or something) When they finally did build one blimp (the GZ-22) it’s
just another boring blimp – to me anyway.

Besides the parasite drag of the fuselage and its accessories airplanes have what is called “induced drag”. This is induced or caused by the creation of lift over the wing surfaces and varies not with speed but with lift created and airfoil efficiency. (Airships have such an “induced drag” when flying at an angle of attack such as when heavier or lighter than the surrounding air – this is normally kept to a few percent of their gross lift.)

Since airplanes must always create lift by forward motion to fly they always have a certain drag to be overcome (and can not stop). Above about 100 mph airplanes are more efficient. Below this speed airships can compete. Remember though that fuel is only one consideration of the operating cost. An expensive airship must fly faster to pay for itself on any commercial route, at the cost of extra fuel – an expensive airship loses one of the principal advantages of airships. Airships are much more fuel efficient and potentially much safer than helicopters.  Once airship prices are lowered they will often compete with helicopters. Our subject though is design, not  commercialization.

Another area of distinction is flight characteristics. Airplanes have little lag in control response: you push a rudder pedal; it turns. Let’s compare a hypothetical eight-seat airplane cruising at 200 mph (293.3 feet per second – 1 mph = 1.467 fps) to a 200 foot eight-seat airship cruising at 40 mph (58.67 fps). If the airplane is 40 feet long it takes 0.136 second for air to pass over the length of the airplane, as compared to 3.4 seconds for the airship – 25 times as long. Let’s now land our airship at 13 1/3 mph – near minimum controllable airspeed. It now
takes ten seconds for air to pass over the length of the airship. Okay, you actuate the rudder control. That force, greatly reduced because of the low airspeed, must now yaw (turn right/left) a 12,000-pound airship. Theoretically the force on the tail/rudder is proportional to the square of the airspeed and thus only 1/9 of what it
could be at 40 mph. In the typical airship the concentration of car/passengers/motors/fuel near the center does make it easier to change direction. Once the ship’s attitude is altered an altered airflow starts flowing over
the ship. Perhaps five or six seconds later is has built up enough pressure differential to push the ship in the direction desired. Of course by then 1) the wind may have changed and made your control input inadequate or even unnecessary, 2) you’d better be reversing or adjusting your control inputs, or 3) you may have already hit something. If fact if you’re near the ground and want to go up you must force the tail down to alter the airflow to go up. This down force on the tail is seen as extra weight and the entire airship will descend until the new airflow can overcome the down force on the tail. See Airship Aerodynamics pages 46-49, attached.

All these add up to: AIRSHIP CONTROL AT LOW SPEED IS INADEQUATE AND UNPREDICTABLE. THIS AND THE ASSOCIATED GROUND HANDLING PROBLEMS ARE THE MAJORS FACTOR LIMITING THEPRACTICAL USE OF AIRSHIPS. In my opinion IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT A VEHICLE WHOSE PRINCIPAL ADVANTAGE IS THAT IT FLOATS IN AIR HAS NO CONTROL WHEN IT DOES SO. That’s like making a boat that sinks whenever you stop! That would require a docking crew too!

This control/landing/load exchange problem is THE factor that would bring down any scheme of airship transport. Would YOU buy a car with no clutch or brakes that needed to be push started and caught to stop it? True, the machine is simpler without them, but at the expense of a complex ground support system, usually 2 to 3 people for each person in the air. Airships as now built are expensive impractical toys – not a viable means of transport or even sport vehicle. Only their novelty has kept them alive.

Now I know that some of you would tell me that the largest Navy ships, the 2W and 3W, used “mechanical mules” mounted with constant-tension winches for handling and they greatly reduced ground crew. Well the “big boys” today using the 200 foot Goodyear and Airship Industries ships spend at least a half million dollars per year per ship on just the ground crew necessary to handle the ropes. (In case you haven’t heard these ships lease for $250,000-300,000 per month – a high dollar business.) If the “mules” work that great, why don’t they use them? At the LTA Technical Workshop in Weeksville, NC, June ’92 we saw the Sentinel 1000 and its “mules”. They were left parked in the hangar while the ship has manhandled! There was to be another ship there but it had hit a mast truck and deflated!

Unless you have lots of self-sacrificing friends, employees, or servants, you need a “standard” airship about as much as you need an elephant. Incidentally, flying an airship has been compared to herding an elephant – I happen to really like elephants but I don’t have one. I have none of the first above and wouldn’t even consider building an airship unless I thought I had the control problem down to a manageable size. My purpose is not to advertise my control systems; in fact I plan to tell you little about my own airship design. That might limit your creativity and give away mine.

Incidentally, don’t expect to find any interest from the industry in anyimprovements you may envision. If you were spending a million dollars a year to remove blemishes from apples and someone claimed to have a solution to the problem, you would at least investigate his ideas, though they may or may not work. Don’t expect such logic and open-mindedness from airship people. In five years of promoting improved airships I have received only one letter in response – from the now-defunct Advanced Non-Rigid (ANR) group.

Back to our comparison. An advantage of airships is a smooth ride. This makes it easier on passengers and structures. It has been said that the highest “g” force felt on an airship in flight is probably near 1/2 g. This is in agreement with the attached computer projection, courtesy of Mr. Newton. On page 13 the diamond and cross lines show this 1/2 g. Page 14 shows control time history (control response). This is for an airship traveling at 50 knots, but I’m not sure what size ship. We see about a two second lag before any response, with full
response taking about six seconds. As page 15 shows, a pilot control input, in this case pulling out of a dive, will seldom create a force of 1/4 g. The highest loads an airship will normally withstand are in fact landing loads. Bad landings, that is.

I have a airplane pilot friend who whenever the wind is gusty at all will say, “I bet you wouldn’t want to fly your airship today.” Of course I would. I’m no math whiz but let’s do a bit of analysis of why airplanes can have such a rough ride at times, and leave them at least confused instead of contemptful. Let’s imagine our 200 foot airship and our 40 foot airplane hit an imaginary gust of 35 feet per second, as per the attached page 15 of FAA Airship Design Criteria – our page 16. Assuming our maximum g force of 1/2 g, it apparently takes about 8 seconds for
the airship to be accelerated to near the speed of the gust, as we see again by the diamond and cross lines of page 13. Here the “g” forces build up smoothly for about 4 seconds, then decrease smoothly for about 4 seconds – a fairly smooth “bump”.

The airship (in equilibrium flight) was not dependent on an angle of attack to the relative wind for lift. (Relative wind is the airflow direction actually affecting the aircraft, not the direction of flight.) But the airplane is, very much so. An airplane’s lift varies with the wing’s angle of attack to the relative wind. Foregoing accuracy, let’s say that our 200 mph airplane has a minimum airspeed of 1/3 it’s cruise speed – that is 66 1/3 mph. Below that speed the wing will stall – lose lift because the airflow can no longer follow the steep angle of attack of the wing. let’s say the wing needs an angle of attack of 15º to get a coefficient of lift of 1.5 for this minimum speed. Lift on an airfoil increases as the square of the airspeed, for the same angle of attack. So to fly level at 200 mph the airplane has to change the angle of attack to get a coefficient of lift of 1/9 the 1.5 necessary to fly at 66 1/3 mph. For most wing shapes with camber (more curve on the top than the bottom) the then necessary lift coefficient of 0.166 (1.5/9) is achieved at about 0º angle of attack. Now if a gust comes along and momentarily changes this angle of attack, it also changes the lift on the wing. In fact if a strong enough gust to change the angle of attack back to 15º hit, it would create a force 9 times that necessary to lift the airplane – the airplane would feel a 8 g bump! (and likely destruction, depending on its design criteria!). The effect is similar for a downward gust but with negative g’s.  A lateral (side) gust would affect the airplane much as it would an airship. We will consider gusts on airship tails later.

Not all airplanes are designed to stand 5.4 g’s-very few for 9 g’s. We see that airplanes can have a much rougher ride in gusty air and thus must be built stronger. Airships can, and indeed must, be built light and strong to have any useful lift and not compromise safety. Both are potentially deadly. Airships are not toys.

While the most dangerous situation in an airplane is loss of control or structural failure, airships are pretty safe as long as you have a fail-safe connection between the passengers and the lifting gas and can control its volume
and pressure, by means of a good envelope or gas bags and good valves.

Of course airships have many similarities to airplanes. I think of them, especially the semi rigids, as an airplane with a bag instead of a wing. For the homebuilder the most important similarity is materials. You can build the majority of an airship from readily available good quality materials from companies supplying the homebuilt airplane market. One well known is :

Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Company
Box 424
Fullerton, CA 92632 USA

Catalog is $5 ($15 overseas airmail)

I suggest you send for their catalog. Prices are usually the best, service is good, and the catalog itself is an education in aircraft construction materials. We will often refer to it later. Other sources will be in the ACCESS section.

EXCEPT FOR SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN MATERIALS, NO SIGNIFICANT ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MADE IN AIRSHIPS SINCE THE 1930’s AND A GREAT POTENTIAL FOR DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW USES
EXISTS.

All this talk about “state-of-the-art” is just talk. They are state of the 1930’s art. Despite all the talk about space age materials, their main characteristic is higher prices and there have been little if any improvements in useful lift, reduced drag, etc. A modern polyester envelope will last longer than cotton, but that’s been around for decades really. To me the most impressive thing about the Sentinel 1000, touted as “The World’s Most Advanced Technology Airship” on the cover of a recent Airship journal and by most “experts”, is that the ribs of the tail
fins don’t even line up with airflow! Pre-WWII! Most would be impressed by the laminated, heat sealed envelope by TCOM (of aerostat fame and sharing the same hangar at Weeksville) but those of us who drive Volkswagens (a 1979 Rabbit Diesel with 213,000 miles) have made up our minds not to be impressed by Rolls Royces, meaning that such fabric is out of my, and probably your, price range. And did you hear that they even considered an iron nose weight to balance the overweight tails?

I don’t have the exact areas on the Sentinel 1000 tails, but according to a chart in Pressure Airships p. 83 they should be very near 2000 ft2 total. The same book on page 86 states: “The weights have been kept down to a maximum of .5 lb. per sq. ft.” Another source (1934) gives 0.6 lbs, including rigging. Assuming the “space age” materials and “leap in technology” should give any necessary increases in safety factors, the tails are around 66 to 100% overweight. According to John Craig of Westinghouse the Sentinel 1000 tail unit weighs 2136.8 pounds.

To me the necessary significant advances in airships are 1) more practicality and 2) lower cost. “Modern” airships have neither. Just as not one person (to my knowledge) from the companies building or operating these airships
has subscribed to this bulletin, we can expect no such advances from such ignorant people. I don’t mean stupid. Ignore-ant means purposely not considering what is visible or available. I would certainly subscribe to their bulletins! I hereby salute Tracy Barnes of Blimpworks (Rt 2 Box 86, Statesville, NC 28677) as the only airship builder I know to subscribe. He has built and offers for sale some interesting little airships.

Improvements I would like to see and believe are possible include:
1) no ground crew
2) quieter accommodations
3) faster control response
4) controls that don’t wear you out but keep some feel
5) autopilot
6) less aerodynamic drag
7) less dependence on envelope pressure
8) unattended mooring
9) eliminate “kiting”
10) control at zero airspeed and reverse
11) greater safety against rip-out
12) lower helium loss and contamination
13) better maintenance access (fins, valves)
14) control of “superheat”
15) higher % of useful lift
16) etc.

Once practical and cost effective airships are built, new uses will be possible and practical. Until then the only use found that can afford $10,000 per day is advertising, and that’s a limited market.

HISTORICALLY AIRSHIPS HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO THREE BASIC AND SOMETIMES OVERLAPPING CATEGORIES: NONRIGID, SEMIRIGID, AND RIGID. NONRIGIDS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE AIR PRESSURE IN INTERNAL AIR BAGS CALLED “BALLONETS” (pronounced bal-o-NAY) WHICH KEEP THE MAIN VOLUME OF HELIUM UNDER SUFFICIENT PRESSURE TO MAINTAIN THE AIRSHIP’S SHAPE. THERE IS NO INTERNAL STRUCTURE, THOUGH SUSPENSION CABLES ARE OFTEN USED TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE CAR FROM THE TOP OF THE ENVELOPE AS WELL AS THE BOTTOM. MOTORS ARE ATTACHED TO THE PASSENGER CAR, AND TAIL FINS FOR STABILITY AND CONTROL ARE TIED TO THE REAR OF THE ENVELOPE. NOSE RIBS OR “BATTENS” HELP MAINTAIN THE NOSE SHAPE AND ALLOW CONNECTION TO A MOORING MAST TO ANCHOR THE AIRSHIP AFTER LANDING. NEARLY ALL RECENT AIRSHIPS HAVE BEEN NONRIGIDS. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE INHERENTLY BETTER.

Don Woodward of AEROSTATION reminds me that not all nonrigids use ballonets. He mentions that “The British “Nulli Segundus” (190?) had its envelope made of several layers of goldbeater’s skin, which was elastic enough for whatever heights it could reach. More important, and more interesting, were several small single-seaters built by Zodiac” with “pleats on the sides, laced with bungee cord, which permitted the volume to expand as the craft ascended, and recompressed the gas as it came down . . . Fatigue of the bungee cords required quite a lot of maintenance.”

Very interesting. Goldbeater’s skin is a thin membrane created – not by man of course – to protect the bloodstream of cattle from any escapes of methane gas from their methane-digester stomach. Thousands were necessary to line the gasbags of most rigid airships. The U.S. built Akron and Macon used instead a “gelatinized latex” rubber. Despite all the talk about modern materials, remember that hundreds of successful airships used natural rubber to make them gas tight. Don’t overlook it. In fact I have about 100 rubber (Hevea brasilensis) trees on my farm in Costa Rica, which are not being tapped and should provide near 1000 lbs of rubber per year.

Goldbeater’s skin is as gas-tight as the best available materials today and it stretches too! Tracy Barnes (Blimpworks) has built airships of a thick (very tough) urethane film that stretches, too, with no ballonets. For all practical purposes some allowance must be made for helium expansion and contraction, with any
type of construction. We will get into pressure, shape distortion and materials later.

Notice the bungee cord system used on the Oehmichen Motor-balloon – see page 40. This was how the Piasecki “Helistat” should have been instead of the fiasco it was. It succeeded in using a free hangar, free envelope, free helicopters, and used aluminum irrigation tubing to create a 34 million dollar accident waiting to
happen – the worst rip-off in LTA history. Am I correct?

The two things I most dislike about nonrigids are:

1) Component location. Those noisy, heavy, and dangerous motors are always fastened to the car. Lacking any framework that’s about the only place you can stick them with little danger of them flopping around and destroying the envelope. If they or the props can be vectored (tilted) they can be useful there to
help in vertical control, but because of the gyroscopic forces involved that can be a slow process. I believe it takes 9 seconds on the Skyships and took 90 seconds on the Akron/Macon. That’s not nearly fast enough to get out of an emergency situation. Don’t overestimate vectored thrust. Many do. BUT, on small ships vectoring would be quicker with smaller props. Add this to quicker control response (roughly twice as fast as the “big Boys”) and vectoring is potentially much more useful in small ships, but should be approached carefully. Two bladed propellers (normal for small engines) have a terrible vibration when you tilt their axis of rotation. Three or more do not but still have a sizable but even resistance to vectoring. This is hard on crankshafts and could be catastrophic if you break a shaft in flight. Steve Garner of Memphis Airships built a small ship with two 9 HP
Rotax engines on a rotatable shaft and said it vectored fast. He also said that they had problems with both crankshafts!

Well, back to nonrigids. With central motors they’re of little use in pitch (nose up/nose down) or yaw (turning) control. All that weight of car, motor(s), fuel, landing gear, and passengers concentrated near the center means that what is left (envelope and tails) is pretty lightweight and easily thrown around by gusts. You have an unstable airship, the envelope trying to go every which way and the car trying to stay in one place. Among my meager credentials as an airship designer, I have flown in one airship, an ABC Lightship in Kissimmee, FL. This is usually THE place to get a ride. Kissimmee is SE of Disney World and usually has a Lightship and a Sea World ship. Half hour rides (1991) were $75 and $85 respectively. The Lightship phone number was (407) 841-UPUP = (407) 841- 8787. I have no great desire to fly in other ships, especially not at that price. I had the controls for about 20 minutes. The wind was gusty and the ship pitched and yawed what seemed to be 30º in any direction. It was all over the sky and yes was much like herding an elephant. The sensation is very much like the suspended cable cars or “aerial tramways” at amusement parks or to mountaintops, enjoyable with nice views but unstable and noisy.

2) That darned pressure. You have to constantly baby a nonrigid. Pressure is usually supplied by the prop blast in flight and electric or gas-powered fans on the ground. It is watched constantly, which may not be so bad if you
already have a 20-man crew, but for me would be impossible. You obviously won’t fall from the sky without it (unless its loss is due to a helium leak) but you do lose control because the control cables go slack, etc, and the bag would need a thorough inspection afterward. If you don’t fly everyday and don’t have a 20 member “circus” it can be a very negative aspect. I want an airship that I can leave unattended at the mast or in the hangar for days at a time and that is “friendly” to improved control systems and passenger comfort. To tell me that I had to build a nonrigid (as some have tried) would be to tie my hands. While some of you have already seen it, I am appropriately including a copy of my paper “A New Look at Semi-Rigid Airship Construction”.

SEMIRIGID AIRSHIPS UTILIZE A BOTTOM FRAMEWORK TO STRENGTHEN THE ENVELOPE AND DISTRIBUTE LOADS BUT STILL RELY ON A SLIGHT PRESSURE TO MAINTAIN SHAPE. THE FRAMEWORK ALLOWS MORE FREEDOM AS TO LOCATION OF COMPONENTS AND DESIGN INNOVATIONS.

RIGID AIRSHIPS USE A RIGID FRAMEWORK NORMALLY COVERED WITH A FABRIC SEPARATE FROM THE INTERNAL GAS BAGS AND DO NOT RELY ON PRESSURE TO MAINTAIN SHAPE.
AGAIN, VARIATIONS ARE POSSIBLE.

We will of course analyze the “rigidity” factors later. To those who say you can’t “reinvent” the airship, look at the “New Technology” Zeppelin (see following page). They have adopted a unique construction system and control
improvements (I do not say solutions!). That’s the kind of open-mindedness we need to promote. I don’t mean that you have to build this or that kind of airship. Those with an open mind will consider any airship design that works. The Italian semirigid “Omnia Dir” of 1931 was the only airship to achieve successful control by air jets. Most assume you can’t build a small rigid airship, but such a one-seat ship was built and flown in Utah years ago. Keep an open mind.

The airplane homebuilders are the leaders in innovative, fun and, yes, high performance and economical (= practical) airplanes. Airship homebuilders, admittedly an almost non-existent group, can do the same! In fact because the “experts” have chosen to ignore us we have the unique opportunity to design and build airships that might put theirs to shame. Of course they’ll still try to ignore us.

PRESENT AIRSHIPS HAVE NEGLIGIBLE CONTROL AT LANDING AND TAKEOFF (ZERO AIRSPEED) AND MUST THEN BE HANDLED BY NUMEROUS MEN USING ROPES ATTACHED TO THE ‘SHIP – USUALLY 2 TO 3 GROUND CREW PER USEFUL PASSENGER. MOST OF THE NEAR 20 AIRSHIPS NOW FLYING HAVE VERY HIGH PURCHASE AND OPERATING COSTS. A GREAT POTENTIAL EXISTS TO LOWER AIRSHIP COSTS AND INCREASE THEIR VERSATILITY. THESE TWO FACTORS WILL BE EMPHASIZED IN THE AIRSHIP HOMEBUILDER.

The Goodyear size ships (based on the Navy “L” ships of the early 1930’s) use about 23 as a total crew, including I believe about 16 to man the handling lines and car rails. It’s safe to say that they spend at least 1½ million  dollars per year per ship due to inadequate control and mooring systems. They are said to cost near 5 million dollars; 1½ million for the smaller 5-seat Lightships. No wonder there aren’t many airships. When one of these big ships hits something on the ground or has to intentionally rip-out due to very bad weather on the ground they often need a new envelope. We read that this costs 1 million dollars. Okay, that leaves 4 million dollars for 1) a cabin with twin engines, one landing wheel and fuel tanks 2) some large airfoils – the tail fins 3) a few  hundred feet of cables, etc. 4) a giant umbrella – the nose battens. These components are comparable in material
cost and construction complexity to a twin-engine airplane of the same passenger capacity, which costs 1/10 as much. The airship is a rip-off.

I expect material costs of my own ship to be about $25 per pound empty weight. That is using aircraft quality components (not always necessary) and includes some high-dollar items such as instruments and carbon fiber. That means about $20,000 for my 800 pound two place ship, not counting tools, experiments, shop expenses, etc. – the part that doesn’t fly. I could buy a Cameron DG-14 one-place ship for I believe $240,000 or a Thunder and Colt GA- 42 two-place for about $500,000. What a deal, huh? And these are mediocre, impractical airships. My personal opinion, of course.

Let’s just say that the big ships cost $50 per pound and weight 8000 pounds empty. That’s $400,000 in materials. Are they worth over 10 times the material cost? I estimate 4 hours per pound of weight construction time for my
first ship. Mine will not be a very simple ship and will perhaps have more innovations than all the ships since the Hindenburg combined. Maybe it will really take 6 hours per pound? The Akron/Macon and Hindenburg/G.Z.II took about 6 hours per pound, as do the most complex homebuilt airplanes. If the 8000 pound ships being considered also took about 6 hours per pound to build then 8000 lbs x 6 hrs/lb = 48,000 hours. At $20 per hour let’s say $1 million. Subtracting the $400,000 materials and $1,000,000 labor from the $5 million price gives
$3,600,000 for the part that doesn’t fly. It would seem that either they don’t know how to build airships, they don’t know how to run a business, or somebody has a Swiss bank account.

Yes, a great potential exists to lower airship costs and increase their versatility. I cannot claim to be the best equipped or qualified person to write this bulletin of airship design. But I feel someone should do it and some fresh ideas are definitely needed. To build an airship is no small undertaking. Not that it’s impossible to build your own aircraft – this is shown by the literally thousands of homebuilt airplanes of similar complexity. The pity is that it has been so difficult to work out the design, financing and construction of such an unusual aircraft as the airship that most have settled with building something that they know will work, though not that great, as evidenced by the nonrigids now flying. My hope is to give you enough information that you will not have to worry so much about the basics and can focus also on improvements.

I was hoping to start the design process with envelope shape considerations in this issue, but due to time and space limitations and the fact that I’m waiting on some material I’ve ordered we’ll start next issue (March). As this “goes to press” – the local newspaper’s copy machine – I notice in the newest “Aerostation” magazine that  Memphis Airships is filing for bankruptcy. I will have info on Aerostation and other magazines and organizations in the next issue.

Until next issue, best wishes;

Jesse Blenn