Poll: Should we release our blimp as a kit?

This is a long way off, but we need to know what our plans are in order to make decisions now about how to proceed.

As I understand it, experimental aircraft can be distributed as a kit where the owner builds at least 51% of the craft without long and costly type certification. Parts that are difficult to build or assemble are prefabricated in one location then packaged and shipped to the person or group purchasing the airship. The rest of the build can be completed by the owner in their location.

The beauty of this approach is that at allows individual group members with little expertize to contribute to the project and to the manufacture of their own aircraft.

This also means that the group can have a smaller centralized manufacturing site because it wont have to do all of the assembly. In fact parts can be built all over the world and shipped either separately or as a group to the build location.

For example the gas bag could be built in Atlanta and the fins could be made in Dallas. All the parts could be shipped to a warehouse in Kansas City to be sent out in one order, or it could be sent piece by piece to a buyer in Miami who wants to take the build slowly rather than all at once.

Any thoughts about this approach?

I'm posting this from a Yahoo discussion with regards to idea ownership.  Not that we will be inventing anything out of the ordinary (but you never know) Maybe the design selection competition should be exchanged via personal emails for group members only and not posted?

Might have those wanting to participate sign a non-disclosure agreement on ideas submitted to the group?    Unless everyone wants to vote and keep it all open in public view.... I'm just hoping a ship or better yet  "ships" actually will emerge out of this forum!

See below (start at bottom for start of discussion)

Subject: Re: [AirshipList] Re: Small Blimp ForumTo: AirshipList@yahoogroups.comDate: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 3:54 PM

I'm not exactly sure which rights you refer to. Indeed, I have considered issues of patent rights. I don't know enough about patent law, but I assumed people contributing would have to cede or share any patent rights to the group (the group would form a corp) in exchange for some ownership of the group. That would allow them to benefit from their intellectual contribution and protect the group from lawsuits down the road. This is a topic which will need significant discussion. I believe the second point you made was about the group infringing on the parent of others? I don't think we will have an issue with that because anything useful about blimps has probably been invented for 50 years or more. But you are right; we will need to make sure of that.-Jakedude6935

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:09:13 AMSubject: Re: [AirshipList] Re: Small Blimp ForumThe way you plan to deal with rights to your design may influence who will want to participate. Avoiding that issue may get you some participants in the beginning, but eventually you will have to confront the issue. On a separate note, but in a similar vein, you will have to check everything you do in your design to make sure it does not infringe on others rights. Otherwise, you may end up having a large front end cost involving others not in your project.--

On Wed, 6/24/09, Subject: Re: [AirshipList] Re: Small Blimp ForumTo: AirshipList@ yahoogroups. comDate: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 2:16 AM

The short anwer is I don't know. I am not a big linux user so I only know a little bit about how they distribute. I would assume we would follow other successful models in the aviation industry such as the long EZ and its cousins. That said, we are just now beginning to flesh out the ideas and vote on the basics.

Start off Question:

Will your "releasing any final product as an experimental kit" be released similar to the same way Linux was released or will it be more restrictive.

We have the option of allowing submitted designs to be public or private. 

One reason to be private it to protect the rights to the design. I would prefer our project to be open source so that others can easily build on any success we have. But if people want to retain ownership to their designs and allow the group to use them, then I understand that.

One reason to make it public is to make it simpler for the group to use a design. If the group gains the right to use a design once it is submitted to the forum, that is easier than having people sign non-discloser agreements.

That said, my knowledge of the law in this regard is limited. 

     When I bought my first life insurance policy, I read the exclusions. War, suicide, and experimental flight will void my policy. This may be the same for all, read your policy. If you sell something to someone that causes loss to their inheritors, you just may get sued.  Make sure you have a damned good disclaimer and protection on anything you sell.
     Serious stuff aside, I'm very gung-ho to see personal blimps built. I don't mind giving out my ideas, hopefully somewhere down the line I would get credit for my help.
     On the news there is a guy showing around four thousand airplanes in the air at any given time over the USA.  Airships are like deer on the highway, can't get out of the way, and make a big mess when hit.  I'm not really sure the US is the place to promote them, maybe Mexico or other places with less traffic.
     Hangaring the ship is truly one of the biggest obstacles.  That's why I am promoting a very small ship, White Dwarf size.  If the ship is small enough and tough enough, the owner just might be able to tie it down somewhere cheap.
     Actually, tying the ship down is the last thing I would want to do.  Instead of the day-sailer hobby type market, I am looking at the live-aboard world cruiser single-hander market.  There are enough people out there wanting to get away from it all to make a seed market.  This person is not interested in staying put, he wants to see the world.  A personal blimp could do that very nicely.  This type of person is not concerned about life insurance policies, he just wants to build his ship and go.

Experimetal aircraft are pretty successful, so I'm confident any problems with it being operated under those rules have already been solved by others. 

Much of the traffic in the US is likely at high altitude. So as long as the airships stay out of restricted airspace there shouldn't be much danger. Especially when you consider how easy a big blimp is to see and avoid. 

I think needing a dedicated hanger is unacceptable. I believe the blimp will need be anchored to the ground and allowed to weathercock. That is how the Goodyear Blimp is parked. Is there a way to do this without using a mast? That is the key question.

     I expect the mast is necessary because the nose is the strongest  part on current ships. Going with a keel on a semi-rigid would give a lower mounting point. If a ship is engineered for ease of use, such problems can be dealt with. I'm for a hard look at practical goal oriented design. Reduction of ground crew, ease of construction, low cost and minimal wastage of materials, and most important: KISS: keep is small, stupid.  Every pound of weight requires a huge increase in ship size.

I think the keel idea is a good one. If we could place the occupants inside the airship, the cabin structure could double as a keel and provide an anchoring hardpoint. Not to mention the drag reduction of using an internal gondola.

     Besides drag reduction,  I'm hoping an internal cabin would allow water landings.  Water would provide lots of landing spots that are not considered private property.  Anchoring is a problem to work out, some places have mooring balls available to the cruising world.   Manuvering around sailboat masts is a scary thought.  But if I'm ever to come down on water, I want to be able.
     Visibility from an internal cabin is another design challenge, but not impossible.  I'm looking forward to kicking around design and construction ideas with you.  I know I may eventually hit a problem too large or a cost too high, but the challenge is a good one.
     Envelope cost has got to be the big one.  I don't know what the plastic I have in mind costs, or what size rolls it comes in.  I tried to contact a supplier, but no reply.  I'll try again.  I took a piece of it from the package a tool came in.  I love the seams they make, strong and leakproof.  The stuff will hold a fold made cold, like metal.  It also heat welds.  Of course, the weight per sq.ft. factors greatly.
     I'm not asking the plastic to hold helium.  Mylar bags do that pretty good.  Individual bags make topping off loss and replacment of bad bags easy.  Getting at them has to be in the design.
    As you know, the ZMC-2 kept it's shape, even empty.  I don't know how they supported it empty, it would be good to know.  Following the hard-shell idea is my plan for a tough airship.  For flight,  I expect balloonettes would be necessary to give that extra stiffness for a strong and smooth hull.  They also control displacement concerns. 
    

I assumed the zmc-2 shell would collapse without internal pressure, but I dont know. I think the material your are talking about is high density polyethylene. 

One idea I had about visibility is that if the lifting gas is methane, the envelope could be clear and you would have unsurpassed visibility. Or if we use helium, there could be a pocket around the cabin which would be left air filled and transparent. 

I also see the value of water landings. I have never heard of a "mooring ball". I will have to look into that.

For water landings the lenticular shape is pretty ideal.  After you bring the ship down on the water you pump water into a holding tank that is right on the bottom of the airship, then let an anchor go to the bottom to secure from wind drift.  The lenticular shape is good as you don't need to windmill with the wind direction.

If the lenticular airship has fins for flight stabilization, it would need to weathercock. Although its footprint would not grow because of its anchor point and geometry. 

If a conventional blimp could be anchored close to the cabin, it would pivot around that point rather than the nose, and the footprint could be significantly reduced. 

If we could anchor at a point 25% of the length. We would sweep 75% length in a circle for an area of 1.77L^2. The best possible swept area is at  50% length with a swept area of .79L^2. The worst is at the nose which sweeps 3.14L^2.

anchor at 50% of length = 25% of max swept area
anchor at 25% of length = 56% of max swept area

So only moving the anchor point 25% of length we could save 44% of swept area. And of course a mid anchor point is the best saving 75% of swept area. 

Although reducing length would also reduce swept area, reducing length will increase drag compared to an optimized design.

     There's a lot to be said for a lenticular shape.  Possibly the cabin could be a little forward, balanced by motor weight aft.  That would give a little better view.  We would need to compare the shear on the seams compared to the normal football shape.
     I'll try to insert some pictures of the ZMC-2, it is bigger than you think.  I'm trying to get the book on it.  You can see all the weight involved in the cabin and gas motors.  A lot of that can be eliminated.
     A mooring ball floats on the water with an eye for tying.  It has a big anchor.  Most are private, but harbors will put out public ones to control parking.  Otherwise sailors will park however they please, and that causes problems.  Anybody can tie to a public ball, within the rules of the harbor.  Wouldn't they just freak to see an airship on one!
     The more I think about a lenticular ship, the more I like it.  I was having trouble figuring out how to get out of the ship when it was on the water.   We just need to figure out how to keep the center of gravity below the center of lift.  Nothing wrong with dihedral.

I am going to start a dedicated thread to the consideration of the lenticular airship concept.

http://smallblimps.lefora.com/2009/07/16/the-lenticular-debate/page1/

It's doubtful. Then we would be a manufacturer, subject to lawsuits whenever there's an accident with our product.

Besides, the design can be built by outside manufacturers who pay us a royalty per unit sold. KISS

Lawsuit liability is a risk, but it may be possible to manage that risk. I don't think that alone disqualifies the kit approach. 

Finding someone else to put out a kit may be a better approach, if we can find a taker.

Obviously we need to get some legal advice on this subject. Since the ship can be considered 'experimental' and would qualify in that category if kept light enough, maybe the usual waivers would apply. I never trust anyone to pay royalty, how can you enforce that in another country, China, etc. Patents are tough enough to enforce, only as good as your lawyer.

You'll need a BOM ( bill of materials) , instructions, engineering drawings, and the like.

Instead of "point of sale" why not ONLY sell it under contract so that the customer is legally tied to their agreed upon responsibilities. This makes more sense than assuming the "customer just wants to do right".  It can also exclude lawsuits from family members ( which almost tanked Cessna).

Good recommendations. This must be a "operate at your own risk" type of situation or no one will be able to buy or sell. 

"operate at your own risk" just targets the air-shipper. We need protection from anyone involved.

So what phraseology would this call for?