Full title: Thunderbird 2 flies again: The astonishing airship set to revolutionise haulage, tourism... and warfare
It's..um... a blimp
1 posted on
01/04/2013 12:38:10 PM PST by
Nachum
To: Nachum
2 posted on
01/04/2013 12:43:31 PM PST by
frithguild
(You can call me Snippy the Anti-Freeper)
To: Nachum
Not a blimp. Blimps have no rigid air frame. This has a rigid air frame and it is therefor a lighter than air ship.
3 posted on
01/04/2013 12:44:21 PM PST by
Candor7
(Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
To: Nachum
4 posted on
01/04/2013 12:46:47 PM PST by
mike_9958
To: Nachum
I've seen this from a distance twice - once for a few moments before they rushed to close the doors because there was a very light breeze and it was pushing the blimp across the hanger floor, the second time with it trying to lift off, a slight breeze coming by and it nosing into the ground.
I'm sure this is just the growing pains of a prototype, but this was funded as a long shot program, and so far it's lived up to those expectations. I wish them the best of luck, but if someone’s looking to start placing orders, they might want to hold off. I love the design ideas, seems quite possible to work, just not sure how they'll handle the energy requirements in flight for their fancy ballast system.
5 posted on
01/04/2013 12:47:16 PM PST by
kingu
(Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
To: Nachum
Well, that was uplifting.
12 posted on
01/04/2013 12:54:27 PM PST by
exit82
("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
To: Nachum
13 posted on
01/04/2013 12:56:23 PM PST by
Dead Corpse
(Sine ullo desiderio vive et ama.... Carpe diem.)
To: Nachum
SUPERTHUNDERSTINGCAR!! ??
To: Nachum
To: Nachum
Couple comments.
Would appear to have the capacity to haul a LOT of fuel, so why is range limited to 3000 miles?
For military applications, it looks an awful lot to me like a very large, very slow target.
I would expect the biggest difficulty to be taking off or landing in windy conditions, especially gusting winds.
To: Nachum
Tremendous advantage to not need a landing strip.
They conceive of it delivering to the front line of a battle. Not sure what would protect it from arty or missiles.
20 posted on
01/04/2013 1:07:28 PM PST by
lurk
To: Nachum
Is it’s maiden voyage to Lakehurst, New Jersey?
21 posted on
01/04/2013 1:08:17 PM PST by
vikingd00d
(chown -R us ./base)
To: Nachum
THUNDER-BIRDS ARE GO!!!!
FAB!
23 posted on
01/04/2013 1:18:41 PM PST by
petro45acp
(More sheepdogs please...)
To: Nachum
Wasn’t some kid floating around inside that thing???
24 posted on
01/04/2013 1:20:52 PM PST by
SkyDancer
(Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
To: Nachum
31 posted on
01/04/2013 1:34:29 PM PST by
Slyfox
(The key to Marxism is medicine - V. Lenin)
To: Nachum
Lighter-than-air craft all have the same problem - directional controlling thrust.
If you took the computer controlled gyros of a Segway and mated them with enough directional thrust to counter wind, blow back, etc, then you would have smooth, reliable, lighter-than-air crafts.
32 posted on
01/04/2013 1:38:25 PM PST by
Crusher138
("Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just")
To: Nachum
Just for a kick, they should fly the big sucker over
Devils Tower, Wyoming.....................Without informing the public :)
36 posted on
01/04/2013 1:54:56 PM PST by
The Cajun
(Sarah Palin, Mark Levin......Nuff said.)
To: Nachum
39 posted on
01/04/2013 2:33:53 PM PST by
DManA
To: Nachum
cool.
Who has the contract to build the puppets to fly it?
40 posted on
01/04/2013 3:16:58 PM PST by
Galt2010
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
