Looks more like a mini-luxury version of the S.H.I.E.L.D Helicarrier.
Paging Nick Fury.
I would not feel totally comfortable flying in a vehicle that is a prototype and does not appear to have had extensive flight experience in the wide range of environments they plan to operate it in.
Also, they don’t seem to be taking advantage of its helicopterness; they are merely flying it from one airport to another. How is this an advance over the Douglas Sleeper Transport? I would think the idea would be to fly it into places that are neat, but that only a helicopter could easily get to. Of course that would be at odds with the issue of it not having had extensive flight time experience.
It would be nice if they had a section on its certification status, total hours logged on the class of vehicle, etc.
I don’t understand the claims of “adrenaline rush”.
Jim Bennett makes a lot of good points.
However, when I think of “hotelicopter”, I think of it more in terms of on-station staying power. Something the equivalent of a zeppelin-style airship with an under-slung hotel, which would remain aloft for hours or days on end, with a lounge and sleeping quarters. Not just a helicopter you can sleep in while you fly across the country.
I don’t understand the claims of “adrenaline rush”.
You mean putting your life in the hands of a re-purposed prototype helicopter wouldn’t be an adrenaline rush? 😉
Because, other than that, unless it’s going to buzz the Grand Canyon or fly the Alps, I don’t see an adrenaline rush in this thing either.
I took a helicopter design short course a few years ago from Ray Prouty, one of the giants of the rotary-wing world; the last hour of each day was devoted to rotary-wing history. We all nearly fell on the floor when Ray showed the movies of the XH-17 flying…
If you can afford to travel in this… do you really need to?
I think your hotelidirigible has a much better chance of economic viability.
How about a dirigible with a copter flight deck? Oh, and a learjet slung underneath in case some urgent need comes up?
If they hadn’t used hydrogen on the Hindenburg I can imagine Carnival cruise ships all over the skies today.
April 1 a little early this year?
I thought they weren’t going to announce this until April 1st.
So, tell me again how screwed up the economy is?
Not so much some prankster can’t afford a bit of CGI STN.
This is a joke, fellas.
But a dirigible would be able to do everything that this claims to do, quieter and better. Every now and then I work on a design for my yacht.
A helicopter deck may not be a good idea, since a bad landing would crash the airship (built lightweight for obvious reasons). An underslung Learjet (like the scout planes on the USS Macon) won’t work, since they have a stall speed higher than the maximum speed of an airship. A Twin Otter would work, though.
What it really needs is a medium to heavy lift cargo aircraft with a stall speed of 75 knots or less, to use for airborne refueling. Any suggestions? With a Twin Otter passenger shuttle and airborne refueling, the airship could be airborne for weeks without having to land (one of the ore hazardous things an airship does).
So, what is the maximum airspeed of an unladen hotelicopter?
And before you ask there are noAfrican hotelicopters.
Sure there are Rand, they just have thatched roofs and mud huts and a picture of Mugabe in the cockpit.
A Hovelcopter!
Well, I’d still rather pay for a flight on the Zero G plane. I’ll take several parabolas over a few hours than a night in a whirlybird; any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I hope everybody here understands that helicopter isn’t real.
I’ve long thought that the notion of a dirigible that didn’t land as part of normal operations would much safer. Use helicopter to get people and supplies back and forth, and allow the ship to steer around bad weather, while having greater ability to make ports of call, using the speed of the helicopter to make up distances, if needed. I just had no idea how much cargo capacity would be needed to support such a ship, and if helicopters could support that much cargo.
That’s nothing. You should look at the helicopter that NASA wanted to build to catch a spent S-IC in midair.
Now that’s convenient… join the mile-high club while on a vibrating hotel room. Why be limited to the bed?
The most interesting thing about the Hiller corporation (see the Space Review article about the S-1C air snatch proposal linked above) is that Stanley Hiller, it founder, built his first helicopter at the age of 18, in 1944, when it was one of the first helicopters anywhere to fly successfully.
I’d be a little less suspicious about this being an April Fool’s joke if there were a “who we are” section to the web page. You know – names of folks who might pull this off.
But, if you’re interested in ginormous flying machine concepts, I give you the BelGeddes #4
Looks more like a mini-luxury version of the S.H.I.E.L.D Helicarrier.
Paging Nick Fury.
I would not feel totally comfortable flying in a vehicle that is a prototype and does not appear to have had extensive flight experience in the wide range of environments they plan to operate it in.
Also, they don’t seem to be taking advantage of its helicopterness; they are merely flying it from one airport to another. How is this an advance over the Douglas Sleeper Transport? I would think the idea would be to fly it into places that are neat, but that only a helicopter could easily get to. Of course that would be at odds with the issue of it not having had extensive flight time experience.
It would be nice if they had a section on its certification status, total hours logged on the class of vehicle, etc.
Something about this reminds me of The Big Bus.
I don’t understand the claims of “adrenaline rush”.
Jim Bennett makes a lot of good points.
However, when I think of “hotelicopter”, I think of it more in terms of on-station staying power. Something the equivalent of a zeppelin-style airship with an under-slung hotel, which would remain aloft for hours or days on end, with a lounge and sleeping quarters. Not just a helicopter you can sleep in while you fly across the country.
I don’t understand the claims of “adrenaline rush”.
You mean putting your life in the hands of a re-purposed prototype helicopter wouldn’t be an adrenaline rush? 😉
Because, other than that, unless it’s going to buzz the Grand Canyon or fly the Alps, I don’t see an adrenaline rush in this thing either.
That would be a hotelidirigible.
I can’t tell for sure from the information they present, but I wonder if it’s bigger than this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_XH-17
I took a helicopter design short course a few years ago from Ray Prouty, one of the giants of the rotary-wing world; the last hour of each day was devoted to rotary-wing history. We all nearly fell on the floor when Ray showed the movies of the XH-17 flying…
If you can afford to travel in this… do you really need to?
I think your hotelidirigible has a much better chance of economic viability.
How about a dirigible with a copter flight deck? Oh, and a learjet slung underneath in case some urgent need comes up?
If they hadn’t used hydrogen on the Hindenburg I can imagine Carnival cruise ships all over the skies today.
April 1 a little early this year?
I thought they weren’t going to announce this until April 1st.
So, tell me again how screwed up the economy is?
Not so much some prankster can’t afford a bit of CGI STN.
This is a joke, fellas.
But a dirigible would be able to do everything that this claims to do, quieter and better. Every now and then I work on a design for my yacht.
A helicopter deck may not be a good idea, since a bad landing would crash the airship (built lightweight for obvious reasons). An underslung Learjet (like the scout planes on the USS Macon) won’t work, since they have a stall speed higher than the maximum speed of an airship. A Twin Otter would work, though.
What it really needs is a medium to heavy lift cargo aircraft with a stall speed of 75 knots or less, to use for airborne refueling. Any suggestions? With a Twin Otter passenger shuttle and airborne refueling, the airship could be airborne for weeks without having to land (one of the ore hazardous things an airship does).
So, what is the maximum airspeed of an unladen hotelicopter?
And before you ask there are no African hotelicopters.
Sure there are Rand, they just have thatched roofs and mud huts and a picture of Mugabe in the cockpit.
A Hovelcopter!
Well, I’d still rather pay for a flight on the Zero G plane. I’ll take several parabolas over a few hours than a night in a whirlybird; any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
http://www.gozerog.com
I hope everybody here understands that helicopter isn’t real.
I’ve long thought that the notion of a dirigible that didn’t land as part of normal operations would much safer. Use helicopter to get people and supplies back and forth, and allow the ship to steer around bad weather, while having greater ability to make ports of call, using the speed of the helicopter to make up distances, if needed. I just had no idea how much cargo capacity would be needed to support such a ship, and if helicopters could support that much cargo.
That’s nothing. You should look at the helicopter that NASA wanted to build to catch a spent S-IC in midair.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1045/1
Now that’s convenient… join the mile-high club while on a vibrating hotel room. Why be limited to the bed?
The most interesting thing about the Hiller corporation (see the Space Review article about the S-1C air snatch proposal linked above) is that Stanley Hiller, it founder, built his first helicopter at the age of 18, in 1944, when it was one of the first helicopters anywhere to fly successfully.
I’d be a little less suspicious about this being an April Fool’s joke if there were a “who we are” section to the web page. You know – names of folks who might pull this off.
But, if you’re interested in ginormous flying machine concepts, I give you the BelGeddes #4