> Actually, Jack, such a device was flown in 1961.
 > It was touted as something totally new in airships.  The device
 > was
 > intended to be used in Canada to life large logs out of logging
 > camps.
 > At least, that was initial use of it -- there were photos at the
 > time
 > of such an operation.
I remember seeing that on TV.
 > Structurally, it was two dirigible-shaped hulls connected at one
 > end
 > to form a V.  Then, across the open end was placed a cylindrical
 > gasbag.
 > The control cabin was suspended just below the point of the V.
 > The first one used small hulls -- I think about 200 feet long.
 > But there
 > is no reason it couldn't have been made larger.
Was that the one that had the revolving gas bag for stability?
 > Today, instead of using small reciprocating engines as did the 60s
 > device,
 > we'd use a few small turbine engines.  The sound from those could
 > be
 > masked more easily.
 > Such a airship, built properly, would be invisible to radar for
 > all
 > practical purposes and almost silent.  The problems with it are
 > that it
 > requires a ground crew and a place to be maintained.  And, if
 > found
 > by practically any airplane, would be easy to follow.
 > This last point is worth following.  Why, if there's a large
 > flying
 > object sighted over any large city, doesn't the local police
 > department
 > send out their airplane to have a look?  What happened to all the
 > General Aviation pilots in events like that?
Well, the Phoenix incident was a night-time sighting. No comment from
the police, etc.
 > Michael
 > ... Are cats supposed to thump when you dry 'em in the dryer?
Yes, but to eliminate that, use the microwave instead.
Regards,
Jack
--- FMail 1.22
---------------