About

LBA is a UK business, founded to exploit the gift that nature provides for buoyancy from the atmosphere, enabling flotation in the air. This natural ability was first used by people 1000s of years ago for small floating lanterns in the sky, a delight to behold continuing today. Even so, please think about their materials’ environmental effect.

Atmospheric buoyancy, which needs lighter-than-air (LTA) methods to be effective, is a difficult concept to understand because the effect on us is so small (hardly noticeable, generally ignored) and doesn’t need power to function. It just occurs!

However, it clearly works/can be used and in water the effect is obvious, applied in the same way (Archimedes’ principle). Flotation aids (e.g., life vests) often are used to help people float in water. Well, that’s what aerostats do to enable flotation in the atmosphere. They are just necessarily very big, very light (LTA) soft (like pillows) buoyancy aids for the purpose but with an aerodyne form.

We work to enable the benefits of atmospheric flotation in compatible ways, minimising harm to the environment – believing aircraft generally should be that way. After all, our atmosphere is a precious thing supporting life. Harmonious, sustainable ways thus are needed.

We also view air-currents as a natural way for conveyance, so using winds for transport (proven possible by Piccard and Jones) is the way to use when possible instead of just discharging exhaust products from thirsty power plants pushing through the sky every day (as aeroplanes do) polluting it while consuming finite oil resources and leaving problems for generations to come.

We therefore instead work to enable flotation and natural ways that harness the atmosphere as possible for transport. We also work to introduce more efficient low-energy methods of locomotion using energy to power things from replenishable sources (e.g., solar).

Bouyant Aircraft

Historians tell us that people first took to the air in 1783, where the Montgolfier brothers led the show with their hot-air aerostat closely followed by Prof. Charles and Robert in a much smaller hydrogen (H₂) filled balloon. These buoyant aircraft still are popular today, considered to be ways for environmentally friendly flight that started the aviation industry. Tethered aerostat versions also are widely used buoyant aircraft types fulfilling high aerial-platform duties.

Whilst hot-air is useful, adopted by most balloon businesses, we are mainly interested in less common but more efficient LTA-gas filled aerostat methods that remain inflated; considered to be the better way for long endurance aircraft providing regular aeronautical services.

We use LTA technology and pursue R&D activities for buoyant aircraft, fabric-structures and associated ground infrastructure products needed today.

Airships (dirigible buoyant aircraft) are our main objective.
Dirigible means they are steerable, developed from balloons that first began to appear in the latter half of the 1800s. Even so, they didn’t attain the merit of being dirigible (able to pursue a particular route) until Santos Dumont with his No. 6 won the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize on 19 Oct 1901 for controlled flight over a set figure 8 course rounding the Eiffel Tower.

Following principles established by Jean Baptiste Meusnier (1784), who proposed an elongated aerostat based on similar Charles H₂ filled balloon methods to reduce aerodynamic drag (thus making it easier to ply the sky), Santos Dumont’s achievement was significant. Note: Meusnier’s method used internal controlled air inflated or vented flexible ballonets maintaining & holding aerostat form as the H₂ contracted or expanded, which Dumont adopted. With these and his own ways, Dumont therefore enabled unidirectional (UD) airships for transportation and other useful purposes, which followed. The heyday for them thus was kicked-off and the gold-rush began!

Nobody looked back or asked themselves, “Is it the right way for airships to follow?”

Count Zeppelin already was ahead of the game, planning rigid-structure aerial-leviathans to fly around the world. What happened? Well, by 1940 it was game-over for Zeppelins and the like, leaving just smaller types based on non-rigid aerostat (elongated balloon) principles.

The reasons for giant rigid airships being abandoned included:

• Vulnerability as war aircraft – big targets that were slow and ponderous.
• Inability to compete with aeroplanes – fast and agile.
• Slow and costly to produce – the British were building them for WW1 use but didn’t manage to get them into service until it was over.
• Difficult from being UD to manage at ground level – needing many crew, special arrangements and rather large hangars, all costing dearly!
• Fragility – easy to break (many incidents) but not easy to repair.
• When their gas-cells were filled with H₂, a recipe for disaster – “Oh, the humanity!”

On the other hand, more forgiving smaller non-rigid types with mainly H₂ filling their aerostats (flexible envelopes stiffened by internal pressure using Meusnier’s method) were found to be effective and reliable in both world wars shepherding ship convoys against submarine attacks. They also found uses for commercial purposes (like Goodyear’s promotional airships’ fleet).

However, it largely was game-over for them as well by 1960, mainly due to powerful USA groups who wanted aeroplanes instead; claiming that they could fulfil all of the duties needed. The know-how from experience thus was lost as people who previously worked in the industry died.

The Return of Airships

When airships reappeared in the 1970/80s it then was with people who had interest and perhaps knowledge from history books but, except for balloon flight, little airship knowhow. The rebirth also was in an age with new materials and systems (helping) but then with established aircraft regulations written for nonbuoyant types often unsuitable for airships – impeding progress.

What followed was a short lived revival until the end of the century for mainly non-rigid UD airships but without overcoming the issues causing abandonment before. Engineers from the 20^th century gained insight about the issues to solve and the possibilities for niche-markets to serve, where airships were a viable option. However, around the turn of the century, new players attempted too much too quickly, wasting money invested (causing distrust). Small multi-rotor drones then became popular, taking the limelight and many airship market sectors.

Evident from the low number of manned airships in service today, the industry is trying to recover but needs better ways to follow, where more of the same is unlikely to succeed. LBA, which inherits new omni-directional (OD) lenticular ways conceived by LTA Solutions 2002 and experienced airship team players from the early 1980s onward, is working to introduce these new OD ways to break the cycle and overcome traditional UD airship shortcomings!

LBA considers that airships with their natural long endurance/range capability offering “a direct, swift and easy floatage from any one point to every other on the face of the globe” (Sir George Cayley, when writing about Aerial Navigation before airships had flown) are needed from being the only viable way for some purposes, which we plan to develop, such as:

• Aerial-cranes for serious loads more than helicopters manage
• Air-freighters for poorly served remote regions
• Aerial-platforms able to remain aloft over exceptionally long periods
• Air-cruisers for people to enjoy affordable environmentally friendly air travel
• Air-rovers (manned &/or unmanned) for patrol anywhere

From working to develop modern airships through the 1980s it was found that they inherited the foibles of former types stemming from the elongated aerostat form originally adopted, causing them to be UD. This form must always face the airflow direction to minimise broadside load effects, which is far from convenient when needing to hold heading or for ground operations. Most airship incidents occurred at their ground bases from poor behaviour of this form in variable weather!

Lessons from Airships Built since 1970

Following several years building and operating airships Roger Munk, the first person after 1970 to develop them commercially, found there was need for more reliable ways to hold them still when moored (to ease maintenance) and to manage them with ground equipment due to inherited poor behaviour from winds. He also faced criticism concerning their need for load-exchange (difficult during poor weather) to counteract buoyancy as payloads or heavy items are picked-up/put-down.

He thus recognised need for change. From seeing models flying with wide-bodied aerostats able to develop more aerodynamic lift than conventional circular section forms together with hovercraft skirts able to also work in reverse (like limpets), thought he had solutions – so then introduced what were called hybrid airships (see definitions).

Unfortunately, what’s evident from the various versions promoted since he died is that:

• They increase complexity – more things to solve (manufacture, stability, control, further ground-handling issues…) costing more.
• The technology is immature – likely to take a long time to debug and determine limitations needed.
• They’re being marketed for unsuitable purposes – not ideal for aerial-crane duties, as they must face the wind, still suffer from broadside load effects difficult to manage, and need aerodynamic lift to remain airborne (not effective without airspeed – when hovering).
• Information about them is misleading – although with short take-off and landing ability, when operating heavy and due to size, they still need a good clear flat area to do so safely.
• They need development of specialised infrastructure and mechanical handling methods.
• They also have high power needs – not easy for environmentalists to accept.

Perhaps the issues will be solved one day. However, judging from their starting position (as more complex variants of traditional UD airships with inherited issues to also solve) short-term success is unlikely!

LBA’s Way

To mitigate the inherited shortcomings and poor ability of UD types for some duties, LBA adopted LTA Solutions’ ways, which went back to basics for an alternative design to make buoyant aircraft (balloons/aerostats) dirigible without losing or compromising their inherent OD capability so much. It was found that, instead of elongating bulbous balloons, the alternative discus (lenticular) form with reduced drag provides benefits including:

• Better efficiency as a gas container/displacement body – enabling lower overall size.
• Greater ability to naturally develop aerodynamic lift (the reason for so called hybrids).
• Uniformity of plan form (like cake slices) reducing parts count and the number of different parts, thus also reducing the burden of design/analysis and manufacture – costing less.
• Better ability to spread applied loads evenly – reducing structural issues.
• Can be simply fixed when moored and holds any heading desired during flight.
• Scales easily and can be used for additional purposes, such as floating roofs.
• Easy to arrange as both a tethered or free balloon and airship, switching routinely between these modes to suit circumstances, enabling balloon pilots to easily become airship pilots.
• Enables balloons, tethered aerostats and airships to use near identical displacement bodies, low-level ground arrangements and operating procedures.
• Reduces time and costs for development, production, certification, acquisition and operation, making them affordable for duties envisaged.

In the parallel aeroplane industry, there came a time when some people started looking for alternative aircraft able to routinely ascend/descend vertically with a payload, hold station and heading at any height above a ground point plus rotate or move sideways with ease. This resulted in the introduction of rotorcraft (helicopters), which today are successful aircraft fulfilling many duties that aeroplanes don’t suit. They’re successful because of their OD ability, which buoyant aircraft also can be!

The Future

LBA is confident that OD buoyant aircraft with a lenticular aerostat will be successful for services to port much bigger/heavier payloads with significantly longer endurance & range than helicopters. They are a game changing way for the buoyant aircraft industry overall, where the aerostat form enables compatibility at each level that may be standardised for use as:

• Floating roofs held at low level providing shelter, overhead projection screens and overhead support for equipment/systems.
• Tethered aerostats that don’t need a turntable or mast, can be fixed against the ground and can ascend to function at heights that UD or bulbous types serve but respectively cost more with lower ability.
• Dirigibles that use the facilities for tethered aerostats, routinely launched/captured vertically from/to their base sites.

For dirigible types it involves parallel development of Cyclorotors able to provide rapid-response vectored thrust in any 360 degree radial direction and perhaps fans facilitating heavy-lift. While the technology already exists, propellers with rapid-response vectored thrust ability aren’t generally available yet. Nonetheless, we consider they are the right way for airships (of all types) and an easier way (less costly) to adopt than vectoring screw propellers, which are not an industry standard. Many people mistakenly think they are (none-available yet as certified systems off-the-shelf) but need special development for each aircraft – then performing inadequately, unable for rapid response needs!

Also needed are automated systems for six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) control. Multi-rotor drones achieve this today in clearly reliable ways. We think the technology isn’t difficult to adapt for OD airship purposes, enabling autonomous operation.

LBA is working with numerous specialists, industrialists, suppliers and collaborators to furnish the buoyant aircraft and associated fabric-structure products/services possible. We also are interested to extend collaboration under agreeable terms to develop our proposals worldwide.

It’s transformative technology (rather than disruptive) solving the poor behaviour and high costs of traditional airships that, when the buoyant aircraft industry is better established, make sense for purposes they suit.

We are confident that our proposals are viable and will enable the buoyant aircraft industry generally. If you share our thoughts and want the benefits that result, why not register interest and talk with us to learn more?