Ilieva G., Pscoa J.C., Dumas A., Trancossi M.

(2012), A critical review of

propulsion concepts for modern airships

Central European Journal of Engineering, No 2, June 2012, pp. 189-200

ISSN: 2081-9927.
DOI: 10.2478/s13531-011-0070-1.

Received on 17-12-2011, accepted for publication on 18-02-2012.

Cent. Eur. J. Eng. 1-12

Proofreading version

Central European Journal of Engineering

54

55

56

57

5
6
7
8

A critical review of propulsion concepts for modern

airships

Review article

11
12
14

17
18
19

60
61
63
64
65

Galina Ilieva1 , Jos C. Pscoa1 , Antonio Dumas2 , Michele Trancossi2

15
16

59

62

10

13

58

66
67
68

1 University of Beira Interior, CAST-Center for Aerospace Science and Technology, Dep. Electromechanical Engineering,
Cal. Fonte do Lameiro, 6201001 Covilh, Portugal

69

2 Universit degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Scienze e Metodi dellIngegneria,
Via Amendola 2, Pad. Morselli, 52122 Reggio-Emilia, Italy

71

70
72

20

73

21

74

22

Received 17 December 2011; accepted 18 February 2012

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

75
76
77

Abstract: After a few decades in which airships have been depromoted to the level of being only considered as a mere
curiosity they seem now to reappear. The main reasons for this are related to the recent progress in technology of
materials, aerodynamics, energy and propulsion. Airships are also presenting themselves as green friendly air
vehicles, in particular if solar powered airships are considered. Their ability to remain aloft for long time periods
have also expanded the range of mission profiles for which they are suited. Herein we have concentrated on a
critical overview of propulsion mechanisms for airships. These include a detailed overview of past, present, and
future enabling technologies for airship propulsion. Diverse concepts are revisited and the link between the airship
geometry, and flight mechanics, is made for diverse propulsion system mechanisms.
Keywords: Airship Buoyancy Lift gas Propulsion Review

Versita sp. z o.o.

34

78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

35

88

36

89

37

90

38
39

1.

Introduction

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Airships have the inherent ability of being able to generate lift without the use of aerodynamic flow around wings,
as is the case of heavier-than-air vehicles. This makes
them advantageous in cases where we need to hover at
low cost, thus providing long endurance with low energy
consumption. We must make clear that we are not dealing with balloons and aerostats, since these do not have

50
51
52
53

E-mail:

E-mail:

E-mail:

E-mail:

galinaili@yahoo.com.
pascoa@ubi.pt, corresponding author.
antonio.dumas@unimore.it.
michele.trancossi@unimore.it.

91

powered means of propulsion. In Europe the revivalism

of airships is also being supported by European Union,
recently she provided financing for Project MAAT Multibody Advanced Airship for Transportation. This project,
that comprises 12 research institutions, introduces the concept of feeder/cruiser airship for transportation of people
and goods. Along with this renewed interest on airships,
there where a number of authors presenting a state-ofthe-art update regarding this technology [1]. In particular
focusing in advances on airship dynamics modeling and
structure design. However, there is still a lack of a similar
publication dealing specifically with propulsion concepts,
this is the scope of the present work.
It is usually stated that the end of the airship era, in
last half of 30s of past century, was mostly due to the

92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

A critical review of propulsion concepts for modern airships

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

Hindenburg disaster, but this is not actually the case. In

fact, by that time the heavier-than-air airplane was more
competitive, both in terms of speed, range and productivity.
One of the benchmarks that can be considered is the
DC-3, that by that time had significantly lower operating
costs and higher cruising speeds than the Hindenburg,
that was considered the most advanced airship of that time.
However, airships still continued to provide limited support
for military activities, during and after the Second World
War. Actually, and for certain type of missions these where
still preferred to airplanes [2].
In [3] the authors perform a review of airship structural research throughout the years. They also define the several
class of conventional airship classification. These include
non-rigid, semi-rigid and rigid airships, with this naming
conventions being related to the way in which the envelope
structure is conceived. However, unconventional designs
have also been proposed, by including spherical, lenticular
and winged airship designs. Also deltoid, dart, flat-body,
toroid and multi-balloon airship shapes have been proposed in a less extent. The most common non-rigid airship
comprises a flexible envelope made of fabric that is filled
with a lifting gas. This envelope is slightly pressurized
to maintain its shape. It is also equipped with internal
ballonets, that are internal air compartments filled with air.
These can expand and contract to maintain the pressure
in the envelope, when the external atmospheric pressure
and temperature are changing as a function of height. Alternatively, rigid airships include a rigid structure, usually
made of aluminium, that can support the weight of the
cabin, propulsion system and other equipments. Inside
this structure there are several lifting gas cells along the
longitudinal direction, these can expand and contract in
order to accommodate the changes in external pressure and
temperature. At present, airships are mostly constructed
as non-rigid or semi-rigid.
Even if, as we have stated, unconventional airship shapes
have been proposed over the years, most of the designs
have evolved in the so called oblong familiar shape, having
a circular cross section and an elliptical profile. The best
design, from an aerodynamic point of view, resulted in
fineness ratios of around 6 for rigid and 5 for non-rigid,
these later are usually smaller and have lower cruise velocities than the rigid ones. This classic airship envelopes
had very well designed shapes regarding aerodynamic
performance. Even with present day experimental, and
numerical, methods it is not to expect too much improvement in the external aerodynamics of these airships. In
what regards to structures and materials the evolution has
been very strong in the last 50 years. Also, substantial
efforts have been devoted to the modeling and analysis
of airship structures [3]. This resulted in analytical based
tools and also in very detailed numerical computations

based on finite element methods (FEM). The advantages of

the later being that they are able to perform computations
for static and dynamic behavior of the structure. These
computations where mostly performed for stratospheric and
high altitude airships, that where mainly developed with
military goals [4, 5].
The buoyancy force provides an energy-free form of lift,
offering a non-traditional approach, to long-duration missions for which traditional aircraft are not well-suited.
With the aim of providing lift, balloons full of lifting gas
can be included in the main airship envelope, for which
a change in volume and density with the altitude help to
maintain lift force [6].
It is well known that the upward buoyancy force, generated
by an airship, is equal to the weight of the displaced air.
This force is typically referred to as the gross lift, and is
defined as a function of the net volume of displaced air,
density of air for the given altitude and the acceleration
due to gravity. If we subtract the weight of the lifting
gas, the net lift can be obtained. The volume of displaced
air is equal to the volume occupied by the lifting gas,
so the net lift is referred to the net volume and to the
difference between the air and lift gas densities, taking
into account the earth acceleration. The net lift is available
to counteract the net weight of the airship structure with
payload included. At the launching altitude (assumed
as sea level), the air density is at its highest value. The
ballonets (full of air) are expanded to their maximum volume,
and net volume is minimum. As the airship begins to
rise, the ambient density and pressure both fall, and air
is automatically ejected from the ballonets to match the
falling pressure. During the ascent and at a given altitude
the ballonets will become completely empty. No further
expansion of the lifting gas volume is possible. Continued
ascent causes a reduction in net lift as the densities fall
but the volume remains constant. The pressure difference
also increases, creating a super pressure condition, which
can result in rupture of the exterior skin if the internal
pressure becomes too high. The lifting gas may be vented
to avoid rupture, but this is extremely undesirable in longendurance applications as it reduces the available lift and
shortens the mission life cycle. It is therefore an important
criteria, particularly in autonomous operations, to keep
the airship below the pressure altitude. The lifting gas
balloons are usually located inside the main envelope but,
in some special cases, in order to decrease the mass they
can be installed outside.
For generating lift force there is also a new experimental,
hybrid type, lighter than-air vehicle [7]. These hybrids
include a mixture of airship technology and conventional
fixed-wing lifting technology. While these use the principle
of buoyancy, they also use a lifting body for additional
payload capacity.

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

G. Ilieva, J.C. Pscoa, A. Dumas, M. Trancossi

Table 1.

2
3

Name of airship (year)

Graf Zeppelin (1928)

Akron ZRS-4 (1932)
USS Macon ZRS-5 (1933)
Hindenburg (1937)
GZ-20A Hybrid (2000)
VLLA Hybrid (2008)
SkyCat 20
HAA Lockeed (2010)
Aeroscraft ML866 (2010)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

54

Characteristic parameters of airships over the years.

Weight [Kg]

Volume [m3 ]

95 000
180 000
184 000
255 800
5 824
212 000
58 600

20 000

1 105
1 105
1 105
2.48 108
7.16 106
2.1 105
3.8 107
1.4 104
3.9 104

55

Max. altitude [m] N propellers Propulsion power [kW]

1 829
1 959
1 959
1 829
3 048
3 848
2 745
18 300
3 657

5
8
8
4
2
3
4
4
4

1 677
3 340
3 340
2 535
313

1 788
4 000

12
13
14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

2.

Earlier propulsion concepts

Most of classical airships relied on internal combustion

engines running on Otto or Diesel cycles. The internal
combustion engines are heavier than turbine engines, even
if they present a lower fuel consumption for small sized
engines. Over the years both engines have evolved and
nowadays they present very good reliability, in particular
the turbo-shaft engines. For thrust purposes both propellers and ducted fans have been used, with ducted fans
presenting lower noise, and safer handling for ground crews.
Airships, by 1930, have incorporated the best that technology could offer in those times. Hindenburgs four engines
were built by Daimler-Benz, these included 16 cylinder
engines with a rated maximum output power of 1320 hp at
1650 RPM. The engines were started with compressed air,
and could be started, stopped and reversed in flight. By
using a 2:1 reduction gear each engine was connected to a
four blade, fixed pitch, propeller [8]. Most of classic design
methodologies for airships can be found in the Burgess
reference work [9]. In Tab.1 we present examples of the
characteristic parameters of airships, including the data
for the most recently proposed.
Besides the classical horizontal axis propeller scheme, also
vertical axis propeller configurations where studied, mainly
by NASA [10]. This specific kind of Heavy Lift Airship
(HLA) has a classic oblong elliptical shape and is additionally supported by four helicopters that can provide extra
lift, besides the buoyancy lift. In this way the additional
lift enables the system to lift off a very gross weight. The
inclusion of the helicopter propulsion system had the additional advantage of using a well known technology. The
system includes also a stern propeller to provide cruise
thrust.

48
49

2.1.

Stern propulsion

50
51
52
53

57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

15
16

56

Since the early years of airship development the use of

a stern-mounted propeller was envisaged as a way to improve the propeller efficiency. Most of the initial work that

66

deals with this problem was supported in theoretical analysis or in wind tunnel experiments, see [11, 12]. Both design
approaches concluded that a wake propeller would operate
more efficiently than a conventional mounted system. In
reality, a stern-mounted propeller would have an additional advantage, in particular for long endurance flight,
that is related to the reduction of noise, since the system is
mounted at a greater distance from living quarters. NASA
performed wind tunnel experimental testing and concluded
that a stern mounted propeller would achieve higher efficiencies than when using a conventional assembly or even
a fin-mounted-propeller. This is of paramount importance
in order to ensure an increase of airship range.

67

Still, the use of stern mounted propellers introduces some

penalties on the airship aerodynamics. Due to the suction
effect, the flow in the aft side of the airship hull undergoes
an additional acceleration. This causes a suction force
in the downstream direction that produces pressure drag.
Also, the total skin friction of the envelope is increased
due to the increase in boundary layer edge, although this
component is residual in comparison to pressure drag,
see [13]. It is also to be noticed that this effect can also
introduce a positive outcome, i.e. using the stern-mounted
propeller to prevent boundary layer separation, only at
very low Reynolds numbers [14]. Also, by working in the
airship wake, where the axial velocity is decreased, the
amount of power needed for the propeller to produce a
certain amount of thrust is reduced, with a net reduction
of around ten percent. In parallel the propeller efficiency,
based on the non-disturbed onset flow velocity, will be
increased. Yet care should be exercised, by matching
the stern boundary layer profile, for that the propeller is
adequately designed in terms of the local inflow velocity at
the blade, in particular regarding the interference effects
that the hull introduces on the incoming flow. If these
are not adequately taken into account they can cause
separation into the propeller blade [15].

80

A correlated concept was proposed by Goldschmied in

[16]. In this case, the integration of hull design, boundary
layer control, and propulsion can produce power gains in

104

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
105
106

A critical review of propulsion concepts for modern airships

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

excess of 50%, as compared to the best streamlined hull

with stern propeller. These gains are larger when there
is an increase in the angle of attack of the airship and
also for higher Reynolds numbers. In this proposed system
it is envisaged to control the boundary layer, around the
airship, by sucking the near wall air that is afterwards
expelled using a reaction propulsive device at airship rear
part. It should be noted that only a combination of these
two actions can achieve positive energy in-balance. Since,
in alternative, when the fluid has been sucked into the
body it must be pumped out to free-stream static pressure
at the flight velocity, so that it leaves the airship ideally
at zero velocity relative to the body. This usually takes
much power and it is never worthwhile unless it buys a
substantial reduction in propulsion power per unit body
volume. But the proposed system introduces also the
concept of sucked air as propulsive effect at airship rear
part. This kind of system was never built, exception made
for wind tunnel experiments, see [17].
Stern mounted propellers are usually not acting alone,
in particular because they do not offer the flexibility to
provide wider maneuverability. Also, at very low speeds the
control surfaces are considered ineffective, since they cease
to produce dynamic lift to control the attitude of the airship.
Most of the time tilting rotors are preferred as a stand alone
or in combination with stern propellers. One of the most
recent areas of applicability for airships is related to their
use in the exploration of atmospheric planetary bodies [18].
One of the projects that was developed is called AURORA
(Autonomous Unmanned Remote Monitoring Airship). The
vehicle is equipped with two vectorizing engines, on the
sides of the payload pod, and has four control surfaces at
the stern, arranged in an X configuration, see also [19].

34
35
36

3.

Solar powered airships

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

The use of solar powered airships is foreseen as easier to

achieve than for heavier-than-air aircraft, since there is
no need to resort to propulsion power to create lift. One
of the blocking points related to heavier-than-air solar
powered aircrafts is related to the greater mass/power
ratio of electrical powered thrusters in comparison with
gas-turbines, the later presenting a more favorable 1/3
mass/power ratio [20, 21]. In this way, by using buoyancy
lift in airships, the power budget is strongly reduced and
feasibility is easily attained.

48
49
50
51
52
53

3.1.

Some worldwide on-going projects

Several countries have decided to investigate solar powered airships. In Russia, the HAA Berkut solar powered
airship was designed with three different envelopes of di-

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
(a)

61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

(b)

Figure 1.

External auxiliary balloons for HAA Berkut airship: at sea

level (a) and at pressure altitude (b) [22]. Reproduced
under permission of AUGUR-RosAeroSystems.

69
70
71
72
73
74
75

verse length and volume, each targeted to a specific mission

profile, but having the same maximum diameter, see fig. 1.
An alternative innovative concept is proposed for the ATLANT airship, [22]. It is claimed that it involves a combination of the best features of dirigible, aircraft, helicopter
and vehicle on air-cushion. This concept uses the positive
features of the dirigibles wide range of traveling, and offering the ability to carry high loads, coupled to economic
efficiency and being ecological friendly.
AEREON was proposed as a tri-lobed balloon that generates a large degree of dynamic lift [23]. For efficient
flight this includes the idea of using a gas-filled aerofoil
comprising 3 streamlined rigid hulls connected in parallel
by a structure of airfoil section. The helium was to be
heated by propane burners under each gas cell so that it
could fly without releasing gas or ballast.
In [24] it is proposed an airship using the geostrophic flight
concept. The planning of the trajectory for the airship is
proposed to be made using two alternative possibilities,
depending on how are taken into account the air variation of
temperature and pressure, and also relying on the behavior
of the lifting gas over space and time. The two considered
possibilities are: a) the airship volume of lifting gas is
varied, by inflating or deflating the ballonets, so that
the pressure of the lifting gas is the same as that of the
surrounding air at any time. In this case there is no
pressure differential across the envelope. The ballonets
must be large enough to accommodate the required changes
in volume, so that the net static lift remains constant over
the trajectory. b) the volume of lifting gas remains constant
during the flight. As a result, the density of the lifting

76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

G. Ilieva, J.C. Pscoa, A. Dumas, M. Trancossi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

gas remains constant, so there is a pressure differential

across the envelope of the airship. It is assumed that the
envelope is able to withstand the pressure difference, since
the net static lift changes over the trajectory.
The two previous referred methods are the most widely used
to generate lift. However, there have been also proposals
related to use of steam as a lifting gas [25]. It is claimed
that the main advantages are that steam is extremely cheap
and easy to produce in the field. For control purposes
it can be vented freely as required, and can be replaced
during flight by boiling stored water ballast. A minor
benefit is that icing upon the envelope ceases to be a
problem, and abundant heat is available for de-icing the
control surfaces. In a steam supported airship it would be
easy to vary the volume of lifting gas and its corresponding
lift.
The disadvantages of a steam airship, as compared with an
hydrogen or helium airship, are that the lift specific power
is lower due to his higher density. Also, the condensing
water from the lift producer steam needs to be continually re-boiled. However, the waste heat of the internal
combustion engine used to provide propulsion could be
used for generating steam for the envelope. Yet, it is to be
expected that this concept is only feasible for very large
craft. However, the main drawback of this approach is
related to the not so efficient power-to-weight ratio. This
idea of hot air, or thermal airship, was also considered for
a blimp-like shape, with fins and propellers.
Besides airships based on lifting water steam there where
also proposals to use heated helium. In this concept the
idea is to use it in the inner envelop to augment and/or
control the gross lift [26].

33
34
35
36

3.2. Propulsion systems for solar powered airships

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

Lighter-than-air (LTA) vehicles represent a unique and

promising platform for many applications that involve a
long-duration airborne presence. Because they achieve
their lift through buoyancy, these vehicles require much
less power than traditional aircraft. This opens the door
to renewable sources of energy, which would enable controlled flight to be maintained almost indefinitely. The
Sun is the main power source for the airship and solar
arrays are the means of converting this incoming energy
into an usable form [27].
As an example we can cite a balloon made of Mylar
scrim material, whose concept is that of an airship whose
gondola is suspended from a classic balloon, [28] the
gondola and its connected propulsion system are free
swiveling, permitting rotation with respect to the balloon.
Therefore, the propulsion device can be oriented into the

relative wind. Control surfaces connected to the propulsion

system enforce an orientation towards the wind stream.
The balloon altitude control is made by venting gas and/or
dropping ballast.
Nevertheless, for solar airships, the electric power subsystem is still a significant part of the total weight of the
overall propulsive system. It is therefore highly desirable
to minimize propulsion power requirements, among other
reasons to reduce battery and solar cell weights. It is also
desirable to use low disk loading propellers (i.e. large
diameter, slowly rotating propellers similar to hovering
helicopter rotors) that provide better efficiency through
the minimization of the power required to develop a given
thrust. Usually we can devise, in a preliminary assessment,
the thrust requirements for classical shaped balloons on
the basis of known experimental drag coefficients obtained
from tabulated data.
Another kind of solar powered airships are based on a
non-rigid inflating oblong elliptic shape. The more classic
elliptic shape is in this case only visible when it is fully
inflated, at cruise altitude. At lower altitude it is deflated
and only a spherical portion of the nose is identified. The
propulsion system comprises, in some concepts, a sternmounted propeller coupled to an electric motor.
Inflation and launching of this airship is accomplished in
a manner analogous to the launch of a classical balloon.
During vertical ascent, the center of buoyancy is above
the center of gravity providing a stable arrangement. In
the flight altitude, the center of gravity is also located
below the center of buoyancy. This location of the center
of gravity causes the vehicle to rotate from the vertical to
the horizontal position as the float altitude is approached.
This movement is due to the center of buoyancy being
shifted from the nose to the center of the main axis of the
airship, this happens when the airship achieves the cruise
altitude. All this can be clearly seen in Fig. 2.
Whatever may be the solar powered airship concept, it
needs to operate for extended periods of time and perform
tasks throughout the day and in night time periods. So,
the power system must be capable of providing sufficient
energy to meet all these needs. This means that enough
energy must be collected during daylight hours to meet
the power requirements of the complete day and night
period. Since the weight is one of the most important
factors affecting airship power requirements then, instead
of carrying energy in batteries, other sources of renewable
energy can be used. Thus, solar photovoltaic arrays for
energy production can be used coupled to regenerative fuel
cell energy storage systems, [27, 29]. A detailed parametric
computation regarding power needs, and power harvesting
for Sun can be seen in [3032].
Accordingly, a permanent supply of electric power for the
airship needs must be guaranteed. The electric power

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

A critical review of propulsion concepts for modern airships

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

(a)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(b)

28
29
30
31

Figure 2.

Unconventional non-rigid inflatable airship: a) Ascent sequence after launch without being fully inflated; b)Fully
inflated airship at cruise altitude after ascent.

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

is needed not only for propulsion but also for other components, such as rudder machines, ballonet fan, ballonet
valves, payload electric equipment, and also for the control
of the airship.
However, due to the variable angle of incidence between
the Sun radiation and the solar cells during flight, the
solar power supply varies permanently and can even be
zero. Therefore, the power supply has to be buffered, as in
the case of LOTTE airship, with flight accumulators serving
as an intermediate reservoir of energy [33, 34].
The airship power systems should be constructed in decentralized and redundant fashion, as in the power system
of the P500 [35]. In this case there are two power systems
a smaller power system and a single larger one. Yet, more
redundancy can be introduced by using distributed power
systems connected through a power ring or net.
These systems can thus function as back up of each other.
The engines and control systems will continue to function
even in the event of loss of one or more (in case of several
propulsion systems) of the independent power modules.

This allows the airship to be under control even in the

event of a significant failure.
Thus, as we have discussed, most of the power drives used
nowadays are of electrical kind, obtaining energy from solar
cells or from batteries. In early days, piston engines driving
propellers were used but this means that fuel is needed
it was not an ecological and economical approach [36]. The
use of liquid fuel introduces an additional problem, that
is related to the buoyancy compensation as the weight of
liquid is reduced on course of traveling, since this must be
compensated by adding a ballast load. In order to eliminate
this problem gas bags of inflammable fuel where proposed
and used to sustain power needs of airships. Nowadays,
for high-altitude airship propulsion, electric motors which
exhibit an higher torque-to-weight ratio than piston engines
are the almost unique way to provide shaft power.
Let us now consider the following: an airship hull in forward motion is normally unstable. It need to be feeded
with a continuous provision of corrections from deviations
of a fixed direction of flight. This is the purpose of fins or
of vector control thrusters. In most of classical airships the
conventional control technology is based on fixed fins and
movable control surfaces, attached to the hull, in order to
accomplish flight direction corrections. One main disadvantage of such control elements is their relatively high
weight and also their drag in calm weather. Alternatively,
vector control thrusters are located in the hull at forward
and aft stations to replace these fins and surfaces. In order
to provide control moments, two thrusters are normally
activated, one in the bow and one in the stern.
The incorporation of vector thrusters into the design of
airships serves two particular purposes. The first is to
provide direction controls in an efficient and effective way,
that can completely replace the fins and movable parts of
the conventional airships. Since we already noticed that
these later ones are inefficient at low speeds, as well as to
eliminate the weight and drag of such control surfaces. The
second is to provide an increase in static lift whenever it
is required, if they are operated with a vertical component.
These lift thrusters are capable of long periods of operation
and are driven by electric motors which may be energized
from a central or distributed power plant. These systems
are not limited to be used with electric power, since they
can also be used with gas turbine power systems.
The use of this type of propulsion can be seen per example
on the airships Polar 6000 and Polar 3000 [37]. Polar6000
is powered by twin 300 hp vectorized direct-drive Lycoming
IO-540 engines (STC SS05290AT). The low-speed maneuverability is enhanced by the Polar-family of hydraulic
positioning lateral thruster system, which increase the
loiter stability and reduce the ground crew requirements.
Polar 3000 is powered by 3 300 hp Ford Diesel engines
and 2 1, 000 hp vectorable PT6 turboprops.

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

G. Ilieva, J.C. Pscoa, A. Dumas, M. Trancossi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

3.2.1.

Propellers for solar airships

Propellers are in wide spread use as a thrust devices for

airships and aircrafts, they present very high efficiency
at low to moderate velocities. They can present themselfs with a fixed or controllable pitch. The fixed-pitch
propeller is used when low weight, simplicity, and low
cost are needed. There are mainly two types of fixed-pitch
propellers: climb and cruise. The climb propeller has a
lower pitch, therefore it introduces less drag. This less
drag results in higher RPM and more horsepower capability, this helps to increase performance during take-off
and climb, that is why they are called climb propellers.
However, they present lower performance during cruise
flight, the opposite holds true for cruise propellers.
The first practical controllable pitch propeller for aircraft
was introduced in 1932 [38]. These propellers are adaptable
to different thrust values and air speeds as a function of
the altitude, so that the propeller blades dont stall, hence
degrading the propulsion system efficiency.
The reduction of weight of the propulsion system is important when we are in the design process of a stratospheric
airship, a particular attention to this topic must be payed.
It is also very important to increase the efficiency of the
system, since the available energy generated by solar
cells distributed over the hull is limited. One solution
to increase the efficiency of the propulsion system is to
use a stern propeller, as its was already mentioned in
Section 2.1.
A new concept for propeller efficiency increase was also
proposed in [39], the easy-to-mount propulsion system
concept. This author has shown that the total weight
of the propellers is proportional to N1
, where N is the
2
number of propellers. Therefore, the greater the number of
propellers the lighter their total weight. The design of this
Distributed Multi-Propulsion Units System is performed
by considering the benefits of boundary layer flow in the
increase of efficiency of the distributed propellers.
The system comprises a certain number of small propulsion
units, each of which consists of a small propeller, a small
motor and a small battery. They are all distributed on the
surface of the hull. The main advantages of this system
are: a reduction of total weight and size of propulsion
units and of propellers and also a reduction on energy
losses caused by Joule effect in power lines.
There is also a possibility that performance improvements
be based on propeller aerodynamics. In [40] an increase
on propeller efficiency was sought by using a relatively
thin airfoil section for the blades, but this concept is only
acceptable if the stall performance of the blade is not very
much compromised. For the proposed, and designed, profile
it is stated that to obtain high efficiency the propeller tip
Mach number should be no higher than 0.950.97. Also, to

reduce the structure weight, the chord length is properly

reduced to form a pointed-tip, sharp root and large pressure
side shape. A propeller having similar shape must be
redesigned to achieve diverse thrust needs.
In the AEREON III airship thrust needs were covered
by a 6.4 m in diameter, 2 blades, helicopter rotor, that
is being used as propeller and is powered by an 80 hp
Solar Gas turbine [23]. The use of propellers with such a
high diameters, however, is not desirable because of the
limitations in Mach number at the tip radius, as previously
stated. Their use can be made at the cost of a reduction
in performance.
Propellers for Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL), and
cruise operation, are also used in some other projects [37].
Among those we can cite the Titan airship project, that
aims to use an airship to explore the Titan moon of Saturn.
An alternative propulsion unit is proposed in [41]. It is
a propeller mounted in a duct with a row of ports in
the wall of the duct, the ports are put downwards of the
propeller. These side ports allow an air flow in the direction
transverse to the axis of the duct. The duct has a closure
that stops outflow from the rear of the duct, and there are
additional regulated closure valves to control flow through
each port. The selective operation of each of the ports
provides radial thrust, allowing a control in the direction
or altitude of the airship.
For reducing propeller blade tip losses and to help in
directing its thrust, the ducted fan is more efficient than
a conventional propeller, especially at higher rotational
speeds, [42]. By appropriately sizing the duct, the air
velocity can be adapted through the fan and allowed to
operate more efficiently at higher air speeds than a propeller would. For the same static thrust, a ducted fan
has a smaller diameter than a free propeller. Ducted fans
are also noiseless since they reduce the tip speed and
intensity of the tip vortices, that both contribute to noise
production. They also allow for a limited amount of thrust
vectoring, something normal propellers are not well suited
for. This allows them to be used instead of the tilt-rotors
in some applications. However, very small clearances are
required between the blade tips and the duct. The design
is complex due to the required high RPM and minimal
vibrations, [43]. Yet, they offer an additional advantage
related to enhanced safety on the ground.

3.2.2. Hybrid propulsion systems for solar powered airships

An airship with hybrid propulsion incorporates the static
lift, from the lifting gas, along with some form of dynamic
lift, such as helicopter-style rotors or airplane-like wings.
A critical issue on airship flight mechanics is related on
how to compensate the sudden increase in the airships
static lift when heavy payload is unloaded. The most

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

A critical review of propulsion concepts for modern airships

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

straightforward approach is to add into the airship the

amount of weight which equals the payload that is removed.
Another alternative is to use a slightly negative buoyancy
lift, and so the airship is much less buoyant during cargo
unloading, reducing instabilities. In this case, to achieve
take-off, an additional dynamic lift must be provided in
order to compensate the added payload weight. Several
examples can be found in the literature related to that
concept.
The Lockheeds Skunk Works task force took its hybrid
airship P-791 to first test flight in 2006 [44]. The airship
has two propulsion motors on the exterior of its envelope
and another two attached to its tail. These generate about
20 percent of the dynamic lift when the vehicle is flying
forward, the remaining dynamic lift is provided by the static
lifting surfaces.
The hybrid airships present however some technical challenges. For one, the addition of dynamic lift increases
aerodynamic drag. Second, to help with generation of
dynamic lift, they also typically have a flatter profile than
conventional airships, but this shape gives them a higher
ratio of envelope area to gas volume, increasing the airships empty weight. Higher weight and drag, of course,
mean that more propulsive power and more fuel/energy
are needed, both of which make the ship more heavier.
Some hybrids employ multiple lobes in their design, which
can create problems as the gases inside heat up from the
Suns rays. Helium conducts heat six times more efficiently
as air, so a multi-lobed hybrid may tend to be inclined
towards the side that is not exposed to the sun. Perhaps
the biggest issue, though, is thus the hybrids potential
to pitch nose up or down and to roll from side to side.
Conventional airships, of single lobe, avoid this problem
because the majority of its gas volume is positioned well
above its center of gravity, imparting whats known as
pendulum stability. The higher up the center of lift is, the
more stable the airship is; conversely, the closer the center
of lift is to the center of gravity, the greater the tendency
of pitching from wind gusts.
To overcome all the previously referred problems, Boeing
and the Canadian company SkyHook International have
proposed a different approach: the rotary-airship hybrid,
[44]. It combines a conventional ellipsoidal envelope with
four powerful helicopter rotor units, which are installed
below the helium envelope. The helium is sufficient to
support the weight of the vehicle itself, leaving the full
power of the rotors to lift a 36-metric-ton payload. One of
the first applications of the SkyHook is moving equipment
and supplies for oil-drilling operations in northern Canada.
When the airship is airborne a propulsion system is used
to control vehicle attitude and provide thrust.
The propulsion system of this airship comprises a number
of maneuver thrusters mounted outside of the envelope,

[39]. Each maneuver thruster includes a propeller, which is

powered by a motor, and a cowl which encases and protects
the propeller. In order to balance the pressure inside the
envelope, while in flight, air may be periodically pumped
into and vented out of the ballonets to keep the vehicle
neutrally buoyant, in response to pressure and altitude
changes. To descend, the ballonets are filled with air via the
ballonet fans to increase the density of the vehicle. During
descent, the ambient air pressure once again increases
and additional air may be blown into the ballonets, thus
providing the required pressure within the envelope. As the
airship increases or decreases in altitude, it is important
to maintain balance between the ambient air pressure and
the pressure of the lighter-than-air gas inside the envelope.
If the appropriate air pressure within the envelope is not
maintained, a catastrophe can result. For instance, if the
vehicle experiences some type of mechanical failure and
begins to descend rapidly, the ambient air pressure will
increase too quickly causing the envelope to collapse, which
may result in structural damage. If this occurs, the airship
will essentially fall from the sky.
There are many specific requirements which address this
type of emergency descent situation. In order to maintain
the structural integrity of the envelope in this rare situation, it is mandatory that every airship or hybrid aircraft
has the ability to pump air into the ballonets at an higher
flow rate. In an effort to meet this requirement, current
designs for airships or hybrid aircrafts include a number
of emergency ballonet fans (in addition to the ballonet
fans that operate under normal conditions). These are
capable of pumping air into the ballonets very quickly.
Thus, the emergency ballonet fans serve the sole purpose
of rapidly inflating the ballonets in the event of an emergency descent situation, and are several times larger and
heavier than the ballonet fans needed for normal operation. The need to have these additional ballonet fans for
use only in an emergency is costly, and also results in
an increase in the total weight of the vehicle. Therefore,
it would be useful to provide a propulsion system that
controls vehicle attitude and provides forward thrust under
normal conditions, and is capable of performing the function of emergency ballonet fans in an emergency descent
situation. Alternatively dynamic lift can be used to solve
these emergency situations. This can be seen in the hybrid
ZPG-2 (non-rigid hybrid, semi-buoyant, airship), that is
powered with four 5,500 hp Rolls Royce Tyne Turbo-Prop
engines [23]. The engines were mounted along the rear
wing edge of this delta shaped airship. The helium lifting
gas would be carried internally in large individual cells,
and the design was intended to operate just like a slightly
heavier-than-air airship.
As previously discussed airships can operate in vertical
take-off and landing conditions (VTOL). Powerful engines

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

G. Ilieva, J.C. Pscoa, A. Dumas, M. Trancossi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

54

that use thrust vectoring technology for change in direction

are included on most current airships, in order to overcome
both low speed maneuverability and changes in incoming
wind flow. VTOL is realized mainly by vectorized thrusters
[45]. Since airships can be very large, commercial airships
require relatively large storage facilities and open field
areas for both take off and landing. However, they have
less requirements than traditional aircrafts.
In most cases, as we have mentioned, more than two engines driving propellers, or ducted fans, are located on
the hull in order to provide thrust for takeoff (VTOL mode)
and forward airspeed (cruise mode), and also to provide
controllability to the airship.
The Very Large Luxury Airship project uses a stern engine
[46]. This drives two propellers to provide yaw and pitch
control at slow forward speed. The rear engine configuration includes one fixed propeller, so that the plane of the
blades is vertical and parallel to the longitudinal axis of
the airship, to provide yaw control. A separately control
propeller is mounted on the rear engine assembly, so that
the propeller plane axis can pivot 90 degrees. This engine
provides pitch control for the airship at low airspeed with
the plane axis pointed downward, and thrust in forward
flight with the plane axis pointed aft.

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
(a)

70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

25

78

26

79

27
28
29

80

4. Unconventional propulsion in airships

81
82

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

83

Among one of the less conventional means of propulsion,

for airships, we can cite the cycloidal rotor. This consists
of several blades rotating around an horizontal axis, perpendicular to the direction of normal flight. The angle of
the individual blades, to the tangent of the circle of the
blades path, is varied by a pitch control mechanism. This
is designed so that the periodic oscillation of the blades,
about their span axis, may be changed both in amplitude
and in phase angle. The net force vector acting on the
axis of the cycloidal rotor may be varied in magnitude and
direction by the movement of the eccentricity point that
controls the blades pitch.
The special performance characteristics of cycloidal rotors
can be seen in Fig. 3. The blade on the upper and lower
positions produces upward force with a certain angle of
attack, but the blades on the left and right positions make
a very small amount of force, because the blade has very
small angle of attack [4749]. This is only an example of
one of the possible working positions.
The cycloid propeller can provide 360 of vector thrust in
a very easy way by simply moving the eccentric position
that controls the blade pitch. So, it can provide thrust
force in any direction and also to help increase hover

84
85
(b)

86
87

Figure 3.

Cycloidal rotor for propulsion: a) section of the cycloidal

rotor; b) 3D view of the rotor.

88
89
90
91

capability of the airship. Thus, the vehicle has very good

maneuverability and can obtain very fast response on the
pilot control command. There is no strong blade tip vortex,
since all sections of the cycloidal propeller travel at the
same speed. Therefore, the noise of cycloidal propellers
will be much lower than for screw propellers. Cycloidal
propulsion was proposed for VTOL Vertical Airships [50].

92

A nuclear-powered rigid airship of 298.7 m length and

52.4 m in diameter, with a volume of around 353 960 m3
of helium, was also proposed and designed [23]. This has
been a topic of controversy due to security reasons, albeit
proposed and discussed in many occasions now and in the
past.

99

Another alternative concept for airship propulsion is related

to the so called fish-like movement in air, propelling an

105

93
94
95
96
97
98
100
101
102
103
104
106

A critical review of propulsion concepts for modern airships

54

55

56

57

58

59

Figure 4.

Operation of a fish-like airship using dielectric elastomer actuators.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

63

airship by undulating its hull and a caudal fin, see Fig. 4.

The option of this fish-like body in air is realized by
dielectric elastomers [51, 52].
The bending of the fish-like body increases the velocity
drastically and introduces a relevant contribution to the
propulsion. Besides the aft hinge, another hinge or bending
point is applied towards the head (or fore position) of the
airship, that might decrease the drag further and lead
to a better efficiency. An active fin ray, with suitable
stiffness, may improve the thrust drastically. But due to the
additional weight, and to the large horizontal distance from
the center of lift, this option may be difficult to implement.
In particular because it can compromise the stability of
the airship. Additional active fins would lead to better
maneuverability and may improve propulsive efficiency.
Another alternative propulsion system is based on air-jets
[53]. This system was recently developed at University
Modena Reggio-Emilia and is based on a novel controllable Coanda effect nozzle which has been designed to
optimize the dynamic angular deflection of a synthetic jet
formed by two or more primitive jets.

32
33
34

5.

Conclusions

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

10

61
62

10
11

60

Airships are nowadays regaining visibility due to their

friendly relation to green air transportation systems, in
particular due to their use of static buoyancy lift instead
of the large energy consuming dynamic lift. In this context
European Union have recently funded a cooperative research project called MAAT Multibody Advanced Airship
for Transport. The main is idea to use the cruise/feeder
concept to allow for the transport of people and goods.
For this novel airship concept new envelope designs and
propulsion concepts are envisaged.
In the framework of airship propulsion systems there has
been a large diversity of concepts proposed along the
years, as was evident from the work herein presented. One
primary conclusion is that propulsion is strongly related
to power availability. Also, the energy source can be of
diverse nature, from gas turbines to solar power.
In present times the most promising concept for energy
production is that of solar powered airships. This presents

the advantage of being ecologically friendly, and energy is

easily transmitted by means of electric cabling to the several places where power is needed. This can be then feed
to electric drives, using either open or ducted propellers
or even more unconventional propulsion mechanisms, such
as air-jets or cycloidal thrusters.
It is nowadays possible to obtain very efficient thrusters to
work at, or near, sea level conditions. If one decides to use
only a large propeller, then the efficiency at high altitude
would not be so difficult to achieve. The problem is that
is is required to consider distributed propellers having
lower dimensions, working at low-Re and high tip Mach
numbers, implies that the design of thrusters for these High
Altitude Airships is still under development. Yet, propellers
and ducted fans have been designed, showing reasonable
efficiencies, in particular for applications related to highaltitude UAVs.
However, we propose that alternative propulsion mechanisms be investigated, capable of achieving better efficiency
and dynamic performance gains. This alternative thrusters,
however, have not reach yet the level of development of
classic thrusters, so we are not able to say that they will
behave better than conventional ones. But, it would be
most important to develop a program of research on this
novel propulsion systems. In particular because they can
be more adapted to be used as small, distributed systems. Since we have demonstrated that these distributed
propulsion systems reduce the weight/power ration.
Whatever may be the propulsion concept it must be fitted,
optimally, to the airship envelope shape. It can benefit, for
its performance, from external aerodynamic flow features,
such as a friendly boundary layer behavior. But it can also
on its own contribute to the overall aerodynamic efficiency
of the airship, in case it is adequately distributed around
the hull.
The use of distributed propellers is advantageous, since it
reduces considerably the weight of the propulsion system.
Also, it is more convenient to use this distributed propellers
with decentralized power unit, that can provide redundancy
in case of failure. They can also contribute to a reduction
in power cabling weight.
In constant cruise flight the propulsion thrust must be
able to compensate for the drag force, and eventually

64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

G. Ilieva, J.C. Pscoa, A. Dumas, M. Trancossi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

for the needed dynamic lift. However, when accelerating lighter than air vehicles its very important pay attention to the added masses and ground effects [54]. They
exert acceleration in take off conditions and, in case of
MAAT cruiser/feeder concept, also when the feeder approaches the cruiser airship. This is another area, related
to unsteady propulsion design conditions, where it is of
paramount importance to perform additional research work.

9
10
11
12

Acknowledgments

13
14
15
16
17

The present work was performed as part of Project MAAT

Multibody Advanced Airship for Transport with ref.
285602, supported by European Union through the 7th
Framework Programme.

18
19
20
21

References

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

[1] Li Y., Nahon M., Sharf I., Airship dynamics modeling:

A literature review, Progr. Aero. Sci., 2011, 47, 217239
[2] Ardema M.D., Young A.D., Missions and vehicle concepts for modern, propelled, lighter-than-air vehicles,
AGARD Report No 724, Advisory Group for Aerospace
Research and Development, 1985
[3] Liao L., Pasternak I., A review of airship structural
research and development, Progr. Aero. Sci., 2009, 45,
8396
[4] Wang X., Shan X., Shape optimization of stratosphere
airship, J. Aircraft, 2006, 43 (1), 283286
[5] Nejati V., Matsuuchi K., Aerodynamics design and
genetic algorithms for optimization of airship bodies,
JSME International Journal, Series B: Fluids and
Thermal Engineering, 2003, 46(4), 610617
[6] Mueller J.B., Paluszek M.A., Zhao Y., Development of
an aerodynamic model and control law design for a
high altitude airship, the AIAA Unmanned Unlimited
Conference in Chicago, IL, 2004, 117
[7] Gammon S., Frye M., Trevino R., Qian C., The development of the tri-turbofan airship model for autonomous
flight control research, AIAA modeling and simulation
technologies conference and exhibit, AIAA-2006-6620,
2006
[8] Grossman D., 2011, http://www.airships.net/
hindenburg/design-technology
[9] Burgess C.P., Airship design, The Ronald Press Company, 1927
[10] Goodyear Aerospace, Feasibility study of modern airships, phase II executive summary, NASA Contractor
Report 2922, NASA, 1977

[11] McLemore C., Wind-tunnel tests of a 1/20-scale airship

model with stern propellers, Tech. Rep. TN D-1026,
NASA, 1962
[12] Cornish J.J., Boatwright D.W., Application of full scale
boundary layer measurements to drag reduction of
airships, Tech. Rep. Report No. 28, Mississippi State
University, Aerophysics Department, 1960
[13] Lutz T., Leinhos D., Wagner S., Theoretical investigations of the flowfield of airships with a stern propeller,
Proceedings International Airship Convention and Exhibition, 1996, pp. 112
[14] Lutz T., Funk P., Jakobi A., Wagner S., Calculation
of the propulsive efficiency for airships with stern
thruster, 14th AIAA Lighter-Than-Air Technical Committee Convention and Exhibition, 2001
[15] Hirner A., Dorn F., Lutz T., Krmer E., Improvement
of propulsive efficiency by dedicated stern thruster a
design, 7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and
Operations Conference (ATIO), No. AIAA 2007-7702,
2007, pp. 18
[16] Goldschmied F.R., Integrated hull design, boundarylayer control, and propulsion of submerged bodies,
Journal of Hydronautics, 1967, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 111
[17] Goldschmied F.R., Wind tunnel demonstration of an
optimized LTA system with 65 power reduction and
neutral static stability, in AIAA Paper 831981, 1983
[18] Elfes A., Bueno S., Bergerman M., Paiva E., Ramos
J., Robotic airships for exploration of planetary bodies
with an atmosphere:autonomy challenges, Autonomous
Robots, 2003, Vol. 14, pp. 147164
[19] Dorrington G.E., Concept options for the aerial survey
of titan, Adv. Space Res., 2011, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 119
[20] Pascoa J., Xisto C., Goettlich E., Performance assessment limits in transonic 3d turbine stage blade rows
using a mixing-plane approach, J. Mech. Sci. Tech.,
2011, Vol. 24, pp. 20352042
[21] Pascoa J., Mendes A., Gato L., A fast iterative inverse
method for turbomachinery blade design, Mechanical
Research Communications, 2009, Vol. 36, pp. 630637
[22] AUGURRosAeroSystems, 2010,
http://rosaerosystems.com/projects/obj687
[23] Kaley N., The modern airship: A review of 40 years
of airship golfier, Technical-Scientific Journal on
Modern Aerostatic Problems, development, 2003,
Vol. 2, pp. 112, http://www.agaeroplast.com/
new/engl/Nigele.pdf
[24] Martnez F., Study of a zero-emission airship transport
system based on the geostrophic fligth concept, Tech.
Rep., Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya, 2011
[25] Goodey T.J., Steam LTA past, present and future, in
4th International Airship Convention and Exhibition,
Cambridge, England, July 2002, pp. 117
[26] Rapert R.M., A heat transfer model for a heated helium

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

11

A critical review of propulsion concepts for modern airships

1
2
3

[27]

4
5
6

[28]

7
8
9
10

[29]

11
12
13

[30]

14
15
16

[31]

17
18
19
20

[32]

21
22
23
24

[33]

25
26
27
28

[34]

29
30
31

[35]

32
33
34
35
36

[36]

37
38
39

[37]

40
41
42

[38]

43
44
45

[39]

46
47
48

12

[40]

airship, Masters thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,

1987
Colozza A., Initial feasibility assessment of a high
altitude long endurance airship, Tech. Rep. NASA/CR2003-212724 36, 2003
Vorachek J.J., A comparison of several very high altitude station keeping balloon concepts, in Proc. 6th
AFCRL Scientific Balloon Symposium, AFCRL 700543, 1970, pp. 283286
Hugh B.-S., Tom swift and his electric airship, IEEE
Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 2011,
Vol. 26, No. 10, pp. 411
Dumas A., Trancossi M., Madonia M., Giuliani I., Multibody advanced airship for transport, SAE International,
2011, DOI: 10.4271/2011-01-2786
Dumas A., Pancaldi F., Anzillotti F., Trancossi M.,
High altitude platforms for telecommunications: design methodology, SAE International, No. 09ATC-0010,
2009
Dumas A., Anzillotti S., Madonia M., Trancossi M.,
Effects of altitude on photovoltaic production of hydrogen, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Energy Sustainability, ESFuelCell2011-54624, 2011
Lutz T., Funk P., Jakobi A., Wagner S., Summary of
aerodynamic studies on the Lotte airship, Presented
at the 4th International Airship Convention and Exhibition, July 2831, 2002, Cambridge, England, 2002
Krplin B., Solar airship Lotte, 2011,
http://www.isd.uni-stuttgart.de/lotte/
infodownload/engl_v02.pdf
Summers M., Lessons from tragedy: a review of the
helios difference, 2011,
http://heliosairships.blogspot.com/2011/
06/lessons-from-tragedy-review-of-helios.
html
Lowry J., Fixed-pitch propeller/piston aircraft operations at partial throttle, J. Propul. Power, 1999, Vol. 15,
pp. 497503
Buerge B., Polar family airships for surveying and
cargo, 2011, http://www.airshipstothearctic.
com/docs/pr/14_Brandon_Buerge.pdf
Kinney J., Frank W. Caldwell and variable-pitch
propeller development, 1918-1938, J. Aircraft, 2001,
Vol. 38, pp. 967976
M-Harada, Distributed multi-propulsion units system,
JAXA, NAL RP-2002003, 2003, pp. 1013
Liu P., Duan Z., Ma L., Ma R., Aerodynamics properties
and design method of high efficiency-light propeller of

[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]

[45]
[46]

[47]

[48]
[49]

[50]
[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

stratospheric airships, 2011 International Conference

on Remote Sensing, Environment and Transportation
Engineering (RSETE), 2011, pp. 80418044
Pavlecka V., Thrusters for airship control, US patent
4402475, 1983
Turner R.C., Notes on ducted fan desing, Aeronautical
Research Council Current Papers, 1966, No. 895, p. 44
Piolenc F., Wright G., Ducted fan design, 2001,
http://massflow.archivale.com/ductbook.htm
Hochstetler R., Airships for the 21st century, 2010,
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/
aviation/airships-for-the-21st-century
Kothmann, The kothmann multi-use airship, US patent
6648272b1, 2003
Rademacher A.T., Very large luxury airship (VLLA),
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/nikos/pdf/
VLLAirship
Wheatley J.B., Simplified aerodynamic analysis of the
cyclogiro rotating-wing system, Tech. Rep. 467, NACA,
1933
Wheatley J.B., Windler R., Windtunnel tests of a cyclogiro rotor, Tech. Rep. 528, NACA, 1935
Kim S.J., Yun C.Y., Kim D., Yoon Y., Park I., Design and
performance tests of cycloidal propulsion systems, in
44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, No. AIAA2003-1786, 2003
Engstrom J., 2011,
www.airship.org/verticalairships
Jordiand C., Michel S., Fink E., Fish-like propulsion of
an airship with planar membrane dielectric elastomer
actuators, Bioinspiration Biomimetics, 2010, Vol. 5,
DOI:10.1088/1748-3182/5/2/026007
Michel S., Bormann A., Jordi C., Fink E., Feasibility
studies for a bionic propulsion system of a blimp based
on dielectric elastomers, Proc. of SPIE, 2008, Vol. 6927,
pp. 115
Trancossi M., Dumas A., CFD based design of a nozzle able to control angular deflection, in ASME 2011
International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, 2011, Vol. IMECE2011-65440
Mueller J., Paluszek M., Development of an aerodynamic model and control law design for a high altitude
airship, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, No. ADA451761, 2004, p. 17

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101

49

102

50

103

51

104

52

105

53

106