|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 22, 2013 13:52:26 GMT
I strange thought I got from playing DC Universe Online, which reminded me of the classic animated Batman series of the early 1990's.
In both the game and the TV series the Gotham City police department use airships fitted with searchlights for patrolling the skies of Gotham. I was wondering how practical this would be in real life, at least for a large city?
Sure, you're not going to be able to follow a high speed car chase in a blimp. But could their much greater endurance and larger cargo capacity (compared to a helicopter) be advantageous enough to warrant consideration?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 22, 2013 14:56:54 GMT
One thing to consider: maneuverability.
Unless the blimps are being used as floating dispatch / command hubs, it's not very realistic to presume that police in a city such as Gotham - which has countless tall buildings, many of which have lightning rods, communications towers, and other pointy bits on top - would be flying them down the city streets on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 22, 2013 15:15:17 GMT
The airships, both in the TV series and the game, seem to be flying well above the height of the buildings. I'm guessing - and it is a guess since this is never explained in either media - that the blimps are acting rather like a mobile dispatch/C&C centre for specific areas. With choppers being brought in for more specific jobs - such as tracking high speed chases.
I wouldn't think airships, even small RC ones, would be ideal for low level patrols especially in a city. Tall buildings tend to have strong winds around them, and this would probably result in even the smallest and most nimble of airships being thrown around and at some point into buildings. But higher up, and with a much larger camera system than a helicopter could carry, might an airship be practical as an 'eye in the sky'? Meaning could it take over some of the functions currently performed by helicopters, saving money on operating costs and maintenance for the smaller aircraft?
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 22, 2013 21:26:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2013 7:54:36 GMT
the ability to loiter for extended periods of time would have some definite benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 23, 2013 10:04:04 GMT
the ability to loiter for extended periods of time would have some definite benefits. I think that's the key advantage. In the case of the Atlanta police, the blimp was deployed to watch over the Olympic venue, where having a helicopter would have been both noisy and expensive. Likewise the British police in Manchester did a trial with a tethered blimp for observation over outdoor sport and concert venues, where a helicopter would have again been unsuitable because of noise and cost. Unfortunately, in the case of the British experiment, they were foiled by the weather. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11734774 |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2013 12:51:22 GMT
the ability to loiter for extended periods of time would have some definite benefits. I think that's the key advantage. In the case of the Atlanta police, the blimp was deployed to watch over the Olympic venue, where having a helicopter would have been both noisy and expensive. Likewise the British police in Manchester did a trial with a tethered blimp for observation over outdoor sport and concert venues, where a helicopter would have again been unsuitable because of noise and cost. Unfortunately, in the case of the British experiment, they were foiled by the weather. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11734774why... am I not surprised? next development for the sports blimp: a tranquilizer sniper. hooligans go night-night. as soon as they start preparing to start violence. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Nov 24, 2013 3:59:49 GMT
The "average" local weather conditions would play a major role in the viability of a Airship Surveillance program. For example, Chicago or other typically windy locations would probably cost MORE in fuel usage and costs than helicopters, as the airship would burn enormous amounts of fuel just trying to "stay on station". I don't know for sure, but I would guess that "bad weather" would ground and airship, long before it grounded a helicopter. Then, how many airships are you going to have? How many hours a day do you want this surveillance available? If you only want 8 hours a day then 1 ship could do it, but you would probably want/need a second ship as a backup. If you want 24/7 coverage, then at least 3 ships for a day with 3x8 hour shifts would be required with a possible 4th for back up. Then there is crewing. Pilot and co-pilot at least, plus a flight engineer or two perhaps, along with the surveillance team with a mission controller/communications guy or two. I don't know.... I'm thinking the ability to put a fast moving helo in a sky when needed is going to be cheaper than operating a airship or two or three. Crewing alone for an airship is going to be more expensive than paying a single pilot and a guy in the other seat running the FLIR and searchlights in a helo. Then, there is the High cost of Helium... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 24, 2013 11:18:56 GMT
Zero.
It would become the biggest target in the city.
This has been the subject of research in the UK... remembering we are not the worlds greatest fan of projectile weapons?...
Watch police helicopters....
The circle any intended target instead of a steady hover......Why?...
Just in case someone tries to take pot-shots....
Its part of their pilot training.....
However....
Drone activity.
Somewhere close to you soon, the Police are going to try UN-manned Drones, as camera platforms.
They will be Camera Only platforms.
There are several options available, from small "Weather balloon" type high altitude long lense, to quad-copter geo- stationary platforms, to small light plane designs.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 24, 2013 15:51:34 GMT
also, holding a steady hover in a helo is a bit trickier for the pilot than maintaining motion. not to say that holding hover is impossible. just more work and more chance of error. but keep in mind that airships WERE successfully used for naval antisubmarine purposes in various forms. it is all a matter of what the task of the airship is. for outdoor sporting arena monitoring, the loitering ability would be useful; and the costs could be defrayed by renting it to, say, a tire manufacturer, for advertising  |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 24, 2013 22:32:37 GMT
Not to mention that if the helicopter is hovering and the engines fail, it's pretty much going to fall straight down. If the helicopter has forward momentum, it can limit the rate of descent during autorotation (and makes it easier for the pilot to steer), which gives the pilot more time and options in choosing where the helicopter is going to land.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 24, 2013 22:54:04 GMT
Not to mention that if the helicopter is hovering and the engines fail, it's pretty much going to fall straight down. If the helicopter has forward momentum, it can limit the rate of descent during autorotation (and makes it easier for the pilot to steer), which gives the pilot more time and options in choosing where the helicopter is going to land. I watched a special on the performance testing of a new helicopter model, and they did the autorotation test from hover. thus, I assume, it is not QUITE that bad. of course, the pilot had the advantage that he KNEW when he was going to be autorotating. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 25, 2013 14:40:55 GMT
Zero. It would become the biggest target in the city. This has been the subject of research in the UK... remembering we are not the worlds greatest fan of projectile weapons?... Watch police helicopters.... The circle any intended target instead of a steady hover......Why?... Just in case someone tries to take pot-shots.... Its part of their pilot training..... However.... Drone activity. Somewhere close to you soon, the Police are going to try UN-manned Drones, as camera platforms. They will be Camera Only platforms. There are several options available, from small "Weather balloon" type high altitude long lense, to quad-copter geo- stationary platforms, to small light plane designs. Helicopters circle, rather than hover, because it is easier on the pilot - ie less work. As they (meaning police helicopters) are operating over urban areas the pilot has to follow events on the ground, navigate, watch out for obstructions (such as overhead power lines), keep an eye on his altitude and stay in touch with air traffic control - and in some areas will have to get permission to fly over or through restricted airspace plus they have to fly the aircraft and keep an eye on their fuel level. When you are doing all of this adding additional workload by hovering - which requires concentration beyond what is required in normal forward flight makes no sense. In the case of an airship you're not bringing one down with small arms fire, and while they might be larger targets they would also be able to operate at a much higher altitude than a helicopter. This is not because the helicopter is unable to fly at such altitude, but because the airship would be capable of carrying much larger camera equipment. The larger equipment would allow for a clearer picture from higher altitudes - which might also allow an airship to keep its eyes on a larger area than a helicopter. I say 'eyes' because of course the other advantage of an airship would be the ability to mount more than a single camera, potentially allowing it to keep track of two or more situations at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 25, 2013 15:07:39 GMT
Zero. It would become the biggest target in the city. This has been the subject of research in the UK... remembering we are not the worlds greatest fan of projectile weapons?... Watch police helicopters.... The circle any intended target instead of a steady hover......Why?... Just in case someone tries to take pot-shots.... Its part of their pilot training..... However.... Drone activity. Somewhere close to you soon, the Police are going to try UN-manned Drones, as camera platforms. They will be Camera Only platforms. There are several options available, from small "Weather balloon" type high altitude long lense, to quad-copter geo- stationary platforms, to small light plane designs. Helicopters circle, rather than hover, because it is easier on the pilot - ie less work. As they (meaning police helicopters) are operating over urban areas the pilot has to follow events on the ground, navigate, watch out for obstructions (such as overhead power lines), keep an eye on his altitude and stay in touch with air traffic control - and in some areas will have to get permission to fly over or through restricted airspace plus they have to fly the aircraft and keep an eye on their fuel level. When you are doing all of this adding additional workload by hovering - which requires concentration beyond what is required in normal forward flight makes no sense. In the case of an airship you're not bringing one down with small arms fire, and while they might be larger targets they would also be able to operate at a much higher altitude than a helicopter. This is not because the helicopter is unable to fly at such altitude, but because the airship would be capable of carrying much larger camera equipment. The larger equipment would allow for a clearer picture from higher altitudes - which might also allow an airship to keep its eyes on a larger area than a helicopter. I say 'eyes' because of course the other advantage of an airship would be the ability to mount more than a single camera, potentially allowing it to keep track of two or more situations at the same time. in the process, giving it a better visual angle to watch the observed area. although, I think someone has already said that a helicopter would be better for watching (and participating in) a chase, while the airship is better for an observation platform. the advantage to an airship for a car chase, is they remain high and quiet - and watch the fleeing car, while everybody else backs off out of the driver's visual range - until he makes a navigation error which allows them to swoop in and stop him. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 25, 2013 15:30:46 GMT
Airships lack the speed to keep up with a high speed chase as every car and truck on the roads has a far higher top speed, even without having to deal with a headwind.
As a (fairly) stationary observation platform an airship would be helpful for initial support during chases in its area. Chances are it would be able to track a vehicle long enough for a helicopter or patrol unit to take over.
Airships might also be useful beyond chases, since they would be watching a large area they could probably keep a good eye on traffic pattens or even fires. This could be used to update ground units as to the location of obstructions or accidents, the first to allow for a faster response time the second allowing emergency services to respond before anyone thinks of calling for help. This might be far more practical than trying to cover every road with a CCTV camera and trying to keep track of several hundred video feeds, and a lot cheaper. After all the crew can get the 'big picture' simply by looking out of the window.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2013 4:10:18 GMT
The idea was more along the lines of watching quietly from above; and less along the lines of actually trying to "keep up"
part of the idea is the theory that if it appears pursuit has broken off, a fleeing person might slow down or at least not take such risks.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 26, 2013 7:18:39 GMT
Its not the bringing it down, its the stopping anyone trying.....
A Big target is going to attract any idiot with a BB gun as well, and even if they bounce off, or miss, the projectiles have to land "Somewhere".
You have less time with a Helicopter.
By the time he ijurt has got hold of his "toy", the helicopter has gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2013 14:51:46 GMT
typically, when a helicopter flies over, by the time it has come into view, I would have had plenty of time to go in the house and get a "toy" if I were so inclined.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 27, 2013 7:24:09 GMT
Its not the bringing it down, its the stopping anyone trying..... A Big target is going to attract any idiot with a BB gun as well, and even if they bounce off, or miss, the projectiles have to land "Somewhere". You have less time with a Helicopter. By the time he ijurt has got hold of his "toy", the helicopter has gone. I knew some folks who gave hot air balloon rides. They got shot at by idiots. It came with the territory. The only thing they could do was take a GPS reading and try to see who was shooting at them, then call the cops. They did help catch a few. Shooting at people is bad. Shooting at aircraft is also bad. The judge tossed them in the pokey for quite some time... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 27, 2013 9:48:21 GMT
Shooting at aircraft is, in the UK and probably most places, considered an act of terrorism - even using laser pointers at aircraft is considered terrorism. The reason is that if you do bring an aircraft down it would be on top of innocent people - and even the dumbest crooks tend to realise this would not be a smart thing to do as the local police would literally be the least of their worries.
|
|
