backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by Pavelyoung.. on Jul 13 at 3:36 AM


SkyHook Lifting Off  (Source: Boeing)

SkyHook in Transit  (Source: Boeing)
SkyHook will be able to transport 40 tons 200 miles without refueling

Boeing and SkyHook International have announced that they intend to team up for a new aircraft called the JHL-40 (Jess Heavy Lifter). The JHL-40 is a new commercial heavy lift aircraft that is intended to transport equipment and materials in remote and harsh regions such as Alaska or the Canadian Arctic.

Boeing will build the JHL-40 neutrally buoyant rotorcraft for SkyHook, which will own, maintain and operate the JHL-40 for commercial clients.

The aircraft utilizes a helium filled envelope that provides enough lift to make the JHL-40 aircraft, engines, and crew neutrally buoyant. The four rotors will generate lift that is only needed to support the payload. According to Boeing and SkyHook, the JHL-40 will be able to lift loads as heavy as 40 tons and transport them up to 200 miles without refueling.

President and CEO of SkyHook Pete Jess said in a statement, “There is a definite need for this technology. The list of customers waiting for SkyHook's services is extensive, and they enthusiastically support the development of the JHL-40. Companies have suggested this new technology will enable them to modify their current operational strategy and begin working much sooner on projects that were thought to be 15 to 20 years away.”

This Boeing-SkyHook technology represents an environmentally acceptable solution for these companies' heavy-lift short-haul challenges, and it's the only way many projects will be able to progress economically."

Boeing says that it will build two production JHL-40 aircraft at its Rotorcraft Systems facility in Ridley Park, Pa.

Boeing was in the news recently when it won its protest against Northrop Grumman’s EADS tanker deal.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Captain Orgazmo on 7/9/2008 3:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get why they would use helium in a commercial airship application like this. Hydrogen is much cheaper and easier to manufacture, and is 8% more buoyant than helium.

People have this idea that hydrogen caused the Hindenburg fire, when the film clearly shows the highly flammable skin ignited first. Only after the skin began burning vigorously did the much fainter burning hydrogen begin to jet out of the top vent. The Germans obviously knew hydrogen was a flammable gas, because the interior of the craft was designed to vent out hydrogen in case of a leak, and was full of fire extinguishers. What they didn't realize was the paint they used on the skin was explosively flammable.




By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 3:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine the typical salesperson would have a hard time getting over a prospects objections to Hydrogen being included in the airship. It'd be a tough sell. You might convince the scientists but if you can't convince the customer then you're up a creek.


RE: The ever looming shadow of the Hindenburg...
By Curelom on 7/9/2008 5:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
There have been experiments done that show there wasn't enough of thermite in the canvas to make a difference. The hindenburg's flames were primarily from hydrogen.

http://televizzle.org/2007/01/25/hindenburg_myster...


By ADDAvenger on 7/9/2008 7:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
I have a better question, who cares? The amazingly bad PR around hydrogen makes it completely moot since joe sixpack can't be persuaded by reasonable arguments, fear is all knee-jerk.

And in any case my first thought when I saw something about a neutrally bouyant skyhook was Star Wars and Prince Xizor, so :P to both of you.


By Captain Orgazmo on 7/9/2008 8:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but I've seen a test of an actual piece of Hindenburg skin that someone saved from the crash site, and it burned like nuts. I can't remember what show it was from...


By Curelom on 7/10/2008 11:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to know which show. Mythbusters followed the blueprints exactly. They even did a blimp with nearly pure thermite. I'm not saying that the skin wasn't flammable, but to say it wasn't the hydrogen is not living in the real world. Mythbusters did actual experiments, not burning a small piece of fabric and calling it good. News flash, hydrogen burns. If you have an issue with how they conducted their experiments, fine, but until then, it's a whole lot more evidence then your theory.


By William Gaatjes on 7/12/2008 4:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
I may be wrong, but i remember that hydrogen leaks through everything. And helium does not or at least much less.
Now i read this in an old article so it could be that scientific advancements already solved that problem.
Or that it is not true at all.

However, hydrogen is highly flammable and helium is not.

I would consider helium a better option even if it means that the blimp has to be bigger.


By Pavelyoung on 7/13/2008 3:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless, the darn thing is basically worthless since it only has a range of 200 miles.


By William Gaatjes on 7/12/2008 4:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
I may be wrong, but i remember that hydrogen leaks through everything. And helium does not or at least much less.
Now i read this in an old article so it could be that scientific advancements already solved that problem.
Or that it is not true at all.

However, hydrogen is highly flammable and helium is not.

I would consider helium a better option even if it means that the blimp has to be bigger.


Yeah but...
By Cheapshot on 7/9/2008 12:44:12 PM , Rating: 1
What kind of milage does it get?




RE: Yeah but...
By ebakke on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By PAPutzback on 7/9/2008 1:28:12 PM , Rating: 5
I read it as mileage. I had to go back after reading your anal post to see what you were talking about. Add up the many people that will waste their time reading our two replies when neither were needed to begin with. If you are going to lurk then head over to Webster's. They might actually get off on a misspelled word as much as you.


RE: Yeah but...
By ebakke on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/9/2008 3:30:24 PM , Rating: 5
Use Firefox and you get free spell check (misspelled words are underlined in red, and upon clicking them with the right mouse button, a list of possible correct spellings appears -- it's a miracle)!!! Welcome to Century 21!!!


RE: Yeah but...
By ebakke on 7/9/2008 5:47:20 PM , Rating: 1
I use Firefox, and it's spell checker. But just because it underlines the word, and just because it's easy to correct a mistake doesn't mean people are willing to take the additional time/effort needed to fix it.


RE: Yeah but...
By ebakke on 7/9/2008 5:47:55 PM , Rating: 1
And sure enough, as soon as I clicked "Post Comment" I noticed the wrong use of 'its'. Son of a ...


RE: Yeah but...
By twhittet on 7/9/2008 6:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
"If you see something done poorly enough times, you might put forth the effort to ensure you don't make the same mistake."

I too get tired of seeing the same mistake made over and over. I see people try to act better than others and correct their grammar, or syntax, only to make a similarly stupid mistake themselves (themselve's, themselves'?).

This is the internet, where we can freely exchange ideas - it's not an English class. Language is not exact, it's not math where 2+2 is always supposed to equal 4. If you're going to harass someone on spelling, at least do it to someone who needs it (like I probably do).


RE: Yeah but...
By ebakke on 7/9/2008 9:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't claim to be better than anyone. I claim to care more about the English language, and more precisely, using it properly.

I guess I just don't understand the "it's the Internet, so it's okay to be lazy" argument.


RE: Yeah but...
By Avatar28 on 7/9/2008 8:06:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And sure enough, as soon as I clicked "Post Comment" I noticed the wrong use of 'its'. Son of a ...


Actually, I'm pretty sure it WAS the correct usage.

it's = contraction of "it is"
its = possessive form of it


RE: Yeah but...
By ebakke on 7/9/2008 9:31:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I use Firefox, and it's spell checker.


I use Firefox, and it is spell checker?

No. It was the wrong usage. Christ, our education system is atrocious.


By PAPutzback on 7/9/2008 1:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
But unless they were automated and cheap I don't see them replacing OTR delivery any time soon.

But I think in the distant future (10-20 years) with rising fuel costs and more efficient solar panels we could see these being used.

I wonder how well they do in stormy weather and if they can climb high enough to go over mountains.

I'd hate to be the guy that has a 40 ton cargo container flatten his house.




By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 3
I think the main point on these units being developed currently is to provide constant cargo flow to areas not reachable over land 9 - 10 months out of the year (think northern Canada/Alaska as the article mentions).

They aren't going to replace convential trucking via the road just yet, but, they give areas reachable by say Ice Road Trucking (Discovery plug) throughout the year rather than only in certain intervals of it.

They can also haul quite a bit more than your standard arctic cargo plane (sans Jetliner) and don't require a large runway to land and takeoff from. As for replacing the Chinook? The Chinook can carry about 12 tons cargo, has a longer range - 450 miles so.. who knows? It is an interesting idea.


By seamonkey79 on 7/9/2008 4:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ice Road Trucking (Discovery plug)


History Channel ;-)


By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 4:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Got me :)

(shows how much television I watch)


By tsponholz on 7/9/2008 5:45:41 PM , Rating: 1
I listened to President and CEO of SkyHook Pete Jess on a CBC Radio Calgary interview yesterday -- these are indeed meant to replace ice roads, or the need to build a road in to a remote area. Definately not designed to replace convention freight. Per the interview, there is only one Russian made helicopter (can't remember the name) that has anywhere close to this lift capacity and it takes way more fuel to do it.

FYI - SkyHook is a Calgary based company.

YeeHaw!


By Dribble on 7/9/2008 1:47:47 PM , Rating: 1
Then you just strap a 40 ton weight to the bottom that you remove as you fill with cargo. Obviously it would mean that you'd need to carry 40 tons of water/earth/rock/etc home for one way cargo trips (or loose the helium) which is not ideal. But surely that would be outweighed by the fuel savings - current design effectively requires helicopter engines to lift 40 tons of weight for several hours while it slowly goes to it's destination which must use an awful lot of fuel.




By Solandri on 7/9/2008 2:54:34 PM , Rating: 1
If they're smart, they'll just have a compressor pump on board which shifts helium between the bladder and compressed tanks as you need more/less buoyancy.


By William Gaatjes on 7/12/2008 4:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good idea ?

I am really interested if that would work.

But i wonder how the hull would respond to this.

In the sea a lot of fish and afcourse pump water in or out to regulate buoyancy. Whales do it by changing some sort of oil inside a bladder but i am not sure how.
And the giant squid seems to use it as well.


By ViroMan on 7/9/2008 9:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
or electricity. Im willing to bet the top of that blimp is full of solar panels.


By William Gaatjes on 7/12/2008 4:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes like the solar panels made by powerfilm Inc for example.

http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/technology/index.htm


Neutrally Buoyant Rotorcraft?
By Chernobyl68 on 7/9/2008 3:58:07 PM , Rating: 5
why not just call it a BLIMP?




RE: Neutrally Buoyant Rotorcraft?
By kyleb2112 on 7/10/2008 4:28:33 AM , Rating: 3
Because they're Neutrally Buoyant Rotorcraft-Americans , you insensitive bigot!


forest fires
By fic2 on 7/9/2008 5:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
I have thought for a couple of years that something like this would be excellent for fighting forest fires. They can have a huge payload and hover as they drop it in the spots it is needed.

Maybe I should start a company....




RE: forest fires
By 2nd Abnormalized Form on 7/9/2008 7:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
How strong are the updrafts and winds produced by a forest fire? That could be one fun balloon ride.


RE: forest fires
By vandalizmo on 7/10/2008 4:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
You know the trick with vacuum cleaner set to reverse and ping-pong ball? I think this would act exactly the same, only on bigger scale, and You get extremely precise drop of payload... ;P


By kattanna on 7/9/2008 3:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
i mean, 200 miles of gas may not weigh all that much, but if it is truly neutrally bouyant with full tanks, then it most certainly isnt when getting on empty. so they may have had to limit the size of the tanks to prevent the craft from having to use its engines to force itself back to the ground once on empty tanks with no load, which would be an issue if you had engine failure and suddenly couldnt get back to the ground.




By Lifted on 7/9/2008 5:27:34 PM , Rating: 3
Or they could just release some helium. But I like your idea of being stuck a few thousand feet up for enternity better.


To the PeterBurg....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/9/2008 1:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Peter, were the hell do you get the money to buy these things!?!?

I'm sure this is cheaper then current methods of transport... but still seems a little vague. 40 tons 200 miles without refueling. Great, how much fuel was in the tank to start with 5 gallons, 100 gallons??? Or did I just miss something?




Congratulations Boeing
By Amiga500 on 7/9/2008 7:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
I've slagged you off on the tanker threads.

But this is a good innovative move. Well done.




not really new
By wille on 7/10/2008 6:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
This exact same thing was built and tested about 20-25 years ago. The main use then was to carry large amounts of water to fight wildfires. It crashed and killed a pilot on a test run. It was at Lakehurst NJ, same place that the Hindenburg crashed and burned.




Hydrogen/Helium mixtures
By DrDisconnect on 7/10/2008 9:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder why they don't consider using a hydrogen/helium gas mixture to get a better lift to volume ratio. You could have 4% hydrogen and 96 percent helium without having to worry about the mix burning if it leaks. Hydrogen would diffuse through the gas bags more slowly than helium so gas losses would be less and hydrogen is cheaper. But then on the other hand...

1) The lift increase would only be about 2%.
2) Handling the hydrogen if you don't buy premixed could be costly
3) The fact that hydrogen would not diffuse through the gas bags whle helium will might mean that hydrogen levels would creep up in the bags over time and become a fire risk if the bags leaked due to physical tear.




Old News
By James Wood Carter on 7/10/2008 5:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing new such project has been proposed years ago, its not much use in general. Its used to transport heavy loads to remote mountainous areas where trucks are a nono ...




Net but the range...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Net but the range...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 12:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
side-note: this is all assuming economies of scale. As is currently I bet they are quite costly.


RE: Net but the range...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 12:57:43 PM , Rating: 4
Weight becomes a problem. They need this to float, the solar cells would add too much weight and would not "pay for themselves" in respect to power generation and power required to lift the additional weight. You also need to remember with solar you need to install some larger batteries and conductive wiring and piping to get the power distributed to the systems that need it. This adds additional weight as well.


RE: Net but the range...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
Weight/Power Output is the #1 obstacle for this, but they aren't as heavy as you'd think. Take silicon solar's for instance.

http://www.siliconsolar.com/global-solar-flexible-...

11x9x1.3 (ft?) panel
Weight: 4.4 lbs

not bad at all if you ask me - an far less weight than a conventional solar panel. I'm sure there are others and this is where my thought processes were headed.

Sure, this one is 2.8 Amps, 20 volts and 55 Watts, add quite a few more of these, a transformer and some batteries and you have a versatile mobile solution.


RE: Net but the range...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 1:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
Here is another:

18ftx1.3ft panel, generates 136 Watts

Weight: 17 lbs

The technology is steadily improving. We might not see this happening now - but I'd say it is a very possible future reality.


RE: Net but the range...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:33:31 PM , Rating: 1
The solar panels are only half of it. Need to cut down on the weight of the wiring, transformer, and batteries as well. Thin copper wiring is probably fine, but batteries tend to be very heavy. Off hand I'm not sure of the weight problem in regard to a transformer.


RE: Net but the range...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:36:27 PM , Rating: 1
To add to it though, if the derigible itself didn't need to "lift" any cargo like the 40 tons stated, then flxible solar cells might be enough to keep it up and aloft (still need to refill the helium). But with the necessity to lift that sort of weight I don't think you can stick enough cells on it to counter-balance that.


RE: Net but the range...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 1:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree they probably can not right now, but I bet with further reasearch into flexible-cell technology the power/weight ratio will only widen creating them more feasible over time.

Who knows without quite a bit of money to throw at it? Worth thinking about for future planning I'd say.


RE: Net but the range...
By William Gaatjes on 7/12/2008 4:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
For solar panels look at powerfilm inc.

The ferrite mix cores of transformers in switching power supplies are really not that heavy compared to the power they can handle.
Wiring is not so big a problem either.

When the engines are electric you have a higher efficiëncy
then gasoline engines. Gasoline engines or turbines need fuel too. Since the efficiëncy is higher to have the same amount of output power you maybe can compensate for the weight of the batteries and solar panels by using the same weight for the batteries and solar as when compared to a fuel tank full of gas.

I am sure someone at boeing is doing the math right now :).


RE: Net but the range...
By Pottervilla on 7/9/2008 1:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
Whether that is practical or not is the subject of a several million dollar feasibility study, but technically it would be possible to mount enough solar panels to the top of the craft to make it self sufficient. You might need to increase the size of the helium balloon, but it would still be possible. The balloon keeps everything neutrally buoyant when not under load, so the engines just provide enough power to lift the payload.

Synopsis: The balloon would lift the extra weight, and not the power consuming engines.

The main problem with this (and the reason I don't thing it would surpass trucking at least until gas doubles again) is the initial investment. A decent semi shouldn't cost more than $500K (?), but one of these guys would run at least $15 Million. Maybe more. Helium isn't cheap. Another thing, how many truck routes use the full 40 tons? That cuts down big time on how cost efficient these would be.


RE: Net but the range...
By Curelom on 7/9/2008 1:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
The bigger the balloon, the more problems you get with weather.


RE: Net but the range...
By wordsworm on 7/10/2008 10:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You also need to remember with solar you need to install some larger batteries and conductive wiring and piping to get the power distributed to the systems that need it.


Why would you need batteries on a hydrogen ship covered with solar cells? As far as I know, it's not power you need to lift the additional weight. The only power you need is to push the thing around (or keep it from being pushed around/stopping it, etc.) At least that's what the title 'neutrally buoyant' implies. Some flexible solar technology that's been promised in the near future is lightweight. Whatever excess power you get from the solar array could simply be used to convert water to its constituent elements. In a hydrogen powered world, there's no reason to not start using solar skins to cover just about everything under the sun provided the cost isn't too significant.


RE: Net but the range...
By Hare on 7/9/2008 1:50:01 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously. You can't power a hairdryer with solar panels unless you are willing to cover an area the size of a tennis field.

A Chinook helicopter has two 3800hp engines (that's 2800 kilowatt). So that is 5600 000 W to lift a payload of 10 000kg (around 20 tons if you calculate the weight of the Chinook itself). The skyhook is supposed to lift 40 tons.

The panels you suggested had an output of 55W. You would need more than 100 000 panels to lift half the payload. Think about the weight and cost of the panels and the batteries. I won't bother calculating the surface area for 100 000 panels.

If it was feasible to increase the range with solar panels I'm sure the engineers would have done it...


RE: Net but the range...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 2:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
It might not be feasible now, but in the future it sure as heck might be when the power/weight ratio of solar technology improves.

To not try is to not succeed. To not forward think is to continue to use a horse and buggy rather than an airplane.

I think solar technology has quite a bit of room to grow - but it is growing. 20 years ago we probably didn't have inexpensive flexible panels like we do now.


RE: Net but the range...
By Solandri on 7/9/2008 3:05:10 PM , Rating: 3
A typical hair dryer uses 1500 Watts.

Sunlight at noon on a sunny day only provides ~700 Watts per square meter normal to the sunlight. There's no way to exceed this by improving the power/area ratio of solar. You'd need make the sun brighter or remove the atmosphere (in space you get about 1500 Watts/m^2).

Most commercially feasible solar panels are about 15% efficient, which gets you about 100 Watts per m^2. So you'd need about 15 square meters to operate a hair dryer under optimal conditions. Even the best research PV only reaches about 30% efficiency, which only cuts the required surface area in half.

That's why battery technology is so crucial for solar. It lets you build up and store energy when you're not using much, so you can use large amounts in short bursts as required.


RE: Net but the range...
By DLeRium on 7/9/2008 3:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Depending where you live but near Alaska I'm sure you get terrible W/m^2. In CA you get about 1000 and that's great and all only if it's direct sunlight. Once you factor in angles, your energy goes WAY down unless you have an active tracking system. As for efficiency, Si solar cells are around 15%. GaAs triple junction cells can get you to 38 - 39% but that's only achieved in labs and those cost thousands for just a single cell (reserved for spacecraft obviously). Today's emerging thin film CIGS cells are in the single digits for efficiency. Not practical at all.


RE: Net but the range...
By Doormat on 7/9/2008 3:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I won't bother calculating the surface area for 100 000 panels.


The industry standard panel is 1.6 sq meters. So 160,000 sq meters, or 39.5 acres.


RE: Net but the range...
By phxfreddy on 7/9/2008 6:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Another solar cell retard adds his highly predictable comment! :

....ya oughta put solar cells on it ...


RE: Net but the range...
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 8:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

One of them said this:

quote:
To not try is to not succeed. To not forward think is to continue to use a horse and buggy rather than an airplane.


But the analogy to airplanes just doesn't stack up. Off the shelf technology was used, and people merely tinkered with how to arrange the components based on what they already understood about things like the Venturi effect.

For solar panels to be viable, they need fundamental advances in the underlying technology, something that is no where near being "off the shelf." Dreaming is nice, but until researchers make some commercially viable breakthrough, the rest of the world his to exist in reality and use what we've got!


RE: Net but the range...
By Indianapolis on 7/10/2008 8:56:53 AM , Rating: 3
Give him a break, he probably works for the Obama campaign and has a weekly quota for mentioning wind and/or solar power.


RE: Net but the range...
By MrBlastman on 7/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Net but the range...
By ikkeman2 on 7/10/2008 2:12:07 AM , Rating: 2
a final problem, You're proposing putting this huge weight far away from any kind of support. The balloon is just that - bag of gas. Without the gass, it'll just deflate.

In fact, the helium wouldn't be pressurized, relative to the outside environment. The whole point is to displace havy air with as little mass as possible, sou you sure don't want to pressurize it. Adding significant weight for solar panels on top of this fliccid balloon is not feasable.


RE: Net but the range...
By William Gaatjes on 7/12/2008 5:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
You say it yourself, the helium is not pressurized. It is lighter then air so i would think the air is pushing on this helium filled ballon too. So a structure inside the balloon is there anyway.

Woops , you are partially right. blimps have no supporting internal frame but zeppelins do.

So a blimp must have more inner pressure to keep it's shape.
If that prssure is high enough it can take some weight.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki