See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269568245

Optimum Buoyant and Aerodynamic Lift for a Lifting-Body Hybrid Airship

Article  in  Journal of Aircraft · August 2014

DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038

CITATIONS READS

9 725

3 authors, including:

Kiran Sagar Pankaj Priyadarshi

Ecole Centrale de Nantes Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre
4 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hybrid Airship & its optimisation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kiran Sagar on 15 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Optimum Buoyant and Aerodynamic Lift for a Lifting-Body

Hybrid Airship

Aman Raj Verma,∗ K. Kiran Sagar,∗ and Pankaj Priyadarshi†

Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Trivandrum 695 547, India
DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038
The central problem of a hybrid airship design, the optimum apportionment of the total lift between the static
buoyant lift and the aerodynamic lift, is studied. The lift apportionment is carried out for specific lifting-body shape
represented by a CD0 and K. Different flight strategies have been analyzed. Optimal configurations have been
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on August 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038

obtained for various flight-time constraints and cruise altitudes. The result of the study is a set of hybrid airships with
optimal apportionment of total lift along with optimal flight profile. The set has been presented in the form of a design
chart, and an optimal hybrid airship can be obtained, corresponding to a maximum flight time and a cruise altitude.

Nomenclature 1 = constant-angle-of-attack phase

AR = aspect ratio 2 = constant-speed phase
BR = buoyancy ratio (0 ≤ BR ≤ 1)
CD = D∕qV 2∕3 , drag coefficient
CD0 = zero-lift drag coefficient I. Introduction
CL = L∕qV 2∕3 , aerodynamic lift coefficient
c
ct
=
=
power-specific fuel consumption
thrust-specific fuel consumption
A IRSHIPS are aerospace vehicles that derive their lifting
capability from “static” buoyant lift using lighter-than-air gases,
whereas airplanes depend only on aerodynamic lift to balance their
D = total drag
weight and carry out maneuvers. Airships need to overcome drag,
d = surface density (structural weight per unit wetted area)
which is independent of the buoyant lift, whereas airplanes spend
g = acceleration due to gravity, m∕s2
significant part of fuel to overcome lift-dependent drag. This does not
h = altitude above mean sea level
necessarily mean that the drag of an airship would be lower than that
K = induced drag coefficient
of an equivalent airplane because the airships are typically much
L = aerodynamic lift
P = power larger in size. A hybrid airship derives lift from a combination of
q = 1∕2ρu2 , dynamic pressure aerodynamic lift and buoyant lift. Optimal apportionment of the lift
S = range between the two sources of lift is one of the primary concerns in the
t = flight time design of a hybrid airship.
tmax = maximum duration of flight Many studies on hybrid airships have been carried out previously.
u = speed Ardema [1] presented results of the studies carried out by two teams
V = volume using their respective programs: GASP developed by The Goodyear
W = total weight Tire & Rubber Company and CASCOMP developed by The Boeing
Δρ = difference in density between air and lifting gas Company. The productivity, defined as payload times cruise velocity,
ηpr = propeller efficiency was evaluated, and trends with cruise velocity, range, and the ratio of
ρ = density buoyant lift to total lift were obtained on six configurations, including
hybrid airship configurations. The study did not discuss any generic
formulation to support the results.
Subscripts
Tianshu et al. [2] carried out an analysis to find the optimum lift
A = apparent apportionment in which the ratio of total lift to drag was maximized,
avg = average where the total lift coefficient of the airship was defined as a combi-
f = final nation of both the buoyant lift coefficient and the aerodynamic lift
i = initial coefficient. However, the effect of apportionment of total lift on the
PL = payload volume of the airship and the wing area was not studied. The author’s
s = structure analysis suggested that the total lift to drag ratio was maximum when
sw = switch phase the ratio of buoyant lift to total weight was 0.6041, which, surpris-
∞ = free stream corresponding to cruise ingly, is independent of aerodynamic coefficients. On detailed
analysis, it was seen that the analysis has an error in which a positive
term is written inadvertently as a negative term. The expression for
Received 9 July 2012; revision received 16 April 2014; accepted for
Ltotal ∕D, when corrected, was found to behave monotonically in the
publication 22 April 2014; published online 12 August 2014. Copyright ©
2014 by Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvanantha- feasible range and did not have an extremum, and the same is reported
puram, India. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and in [3]. However, for a given apportionment of buoyant and aerody-
Astronautics, Inc., with permission. Copies of this paper may be made for namic lifts, the presented analysis could be used to obtain the
personal or internal use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy optimum flight conditions.
fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Zhang et al. [4] presented performance analysis of a hybrid airship
MA 01923; include the code 1542-3868/14 and $10.00 in correspondence in a manner very similar to that of performance analysis of an aircraft.
with the CCC. In this paper, too, the performance and optimum flight conditions
*Student, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIST; currently Scientist/ were obtained for the given apportionment of two lifts. Mackrodt [5]
Engineer ‘SC’, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Indian Space Research
Organization, Trivandrum 695 022, India.
studied and presented results for fixed delta wing hybrid airships
†
Adjunct Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIST; also of aspect ratios varying from 1 to 3. The results were then compared
Scientist/Engineer ‘SG’, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Indian Space with conventional airships and aircrafts, and it was found that fixed
Research Organization, Trivandrum 695 022, India; pankaj.priyadarshi@ delta wing hybrid airships were superior to that of aircrafts and
gmail.com (Corresponding Author). airships in terms of payload capacity and fuel requirements.
AIAA Early Edition / 1
 2 AIAA Early Edition / VERMA, SAGAR, AND PRIYADARSHI

 
In a recent work by Carichner and Nicolai [6], the performance ηpr 1 W Ai W Af
analysis and design of hybrid airships is discussed in detail. A S
p tan−1 p 
 − tan −1 p 

c KCD0 q∞ V 2∕3 CD0 ∕K q∞ V 2∕3 CD0 ∕K
detailed performance and design analysis is given, and different flight
strategies are discussed for the practical operation of a given hybrid (6)
airship with a maximum flight-time constraint. However, optimal lift
apportionment for the design of a hybrid airship is not addressed. The flight time [6] for a constant angle of attack and constant altitude
The previous studies concentrated on finding optimal flight can be obtained as
conditions for a given apportionment of lift between buoyant and s


s
aerodynamic lift. But, if a hybrid airship needs to be designed for ηpr C3∕2 2ρV 2∕3 W Ai
minimum fuel consumption, the optimum lift apportionment has to t
L
−1 (7)
c CD Wi − B W Af
be obtained along with the optimum flight conditions. The buoyancy
ratio (BR) may also get constrained by takeoff, landing and handling
considerations. However, in the present study, the optimal BR has Equation (7), when expressed in terms of initial and final speeds,
been obtained based on only cruise requirements. The present work reduces to
addresses this problem of finding the optimum lift apportionment and

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on August 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038

flight strategy such that fuel consumption is minimized for a given 2ηpr L 1 1
t
− (8)
range and given hybrid airship external shape for a particular duration c D u f ui
of flight and cruise altitude.
A constant CL is always a better flight strategy in terms of fuel
efficiency. But the constraint on duration of flight may or may not
II. Methodology allow such a strategy. The constant-speed strategy may be used in
such cases. A combination of the two flight strategies is a promising
In a steady level flight of a hybrid airship, the total weight is option [6] (i.e., starts flying at constant CL and, after reaching a
balanced by buoyant force and aerodynamic lift: particular speed, continues the remainder of flight at constant speed).
The hybrid airship can either be of wing–body or a lifting-body
W
BL (1) shape. Awing–body hybrid airship consists of two distinct bodies, one
responsible for buoyant lift (from hull) and the other for aerodynamic
Aerodynamic lift and buoyant force can be expressed as a fraction of lift (from wings). The total drag depends on two different reference
total weight as follows: quantities: 1) the planform area of the wing to estimate the form drag
and induced drag of the wing, and 2) V 2∕3 for the hull drag. Hence, the
L
1 − BRW B
BR · W
drag of the two bodies must be computed separately and added.
In the present study, however, a lifting-body configuration has
Power-specific fuel consumption is defined as c
− 1∕Pshaft 
been considered for the hybrid airship. This body is responsible for
dW fuel ∕dt. Also, P
ηpr Pshaft
Du∞ and dW fuel
dW. There-
the generation of both aerodynamic lift and buoyant lift. The shape of
fore, using Eq. (1),
this body is assumed to be invariant in the optimization process. Only
Wf its size is changed to achieve different BRi .‡ Because the shape is
Zt Z

invariant, V 2∕3 is linearly related to the planform area S of the
ηpr L −dW
S
u∞ dt
(2) aerodynamic lifting surfaces and envelope area of the hull. This
c D W − B
0 Wi justifies the use of a V 2∕3 as reference area for aerodynamic param-
eters in this study. Also, the values of the lift independent drag CD0
As the fuel is consumed, the total lift produced by the hybrid airship and induced drag factor K remain invariant with the change in BR
needs to be reduced. Because buoyant lift is constant (at constant because the shape is invariant.
cruise altitude), aerodynamic lift has to be decreased for a steady level The aim of the current study is to obtain the optimal buoyancy ratio
flight in cruise. This can be done either by reducing the speed of the and flight strategy to satisfy the constraint of range and maximum
hybrid airship while maintaining constant altitude and CL or by duration of flight (or average speed). As discussed previously, for a
decreasing CL at constant speed and altitude. Another alternative is to given BRi , two phases in flight can exist. Hence, an optimization
increase the altitude while keeping the angle of attack and speed study is carried out to obtain an initial and switch speed along with
constant; however, it is not a preferred approach. Using apparent optimal BRi . The optimization problem can be stated as follows.
weight (defined as W A
W − B, also termed as “heaviness W H ” in Minimize
[6]) with a constant buoyant force B (i.e., constant altitude), W fuel
fBRi ; ui ; usw 
simplifies Eq. (2) to
subject to
W Af
Zs Z

ηpr L −dW A t ≤ tmax
S
ds
(3)
c D WA
0 W Ai
given payload weight W PL , range S, cruise altitude and therefore ρ∞ ,
external shape and therefore K and CD0 , surface density d, propeller
Assuming constant angle of attack and, therefore, constant L∕D and efficiency ηpr, and specific fuel consumption c, where
CL , along with constant ηpr and c, Eq. (3) simplifies [6] to
S
ηpr L W Ai BRi min ≤ BRi ≤ 1; uavg
; ui ≥ uavg ; 0 ≤ usw ≤ uavg
S
ln (4) tmax
c D W Af
Thus, an optimal buoyancy ratio BRi opt is obtained along with
On replacing the apparent weight term with W A
12 ρu2 CL V 2∕3 , optimal initial and switch speeds for minimum fuel consumption
Eq. (4) can also be expressed as such that the time constraint is satisfied for the required range.
ηpr L ui ‡
S
2 ln (5) BR keeps changing throughout the flight as fuel depletes. Hence, the
c D uf subscript i is used to denote the initial buoyancy ratio. The optimal BRi opt
denotes the initial buoyancy ratio corresponding to minimum fuel consump-
For a constant speed, ηpr , and c, Eq. (2) simplifies [6] to tion. But the airship volume, and hence buoyant lift, remains constant.
 AIAA Early Edition / VERMA, SAGAR, AND PRIYADARSHI
time tmax
time
a) b)
Fig. 1 A given range can be achieved with a time constraint with different initial speeds.
As discussed in the previous section, to satisfy the maximum
duration of flight, a hybrid airship can be flown in various combina-
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on August 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038
tions of the two flight strategies. Figure 1 depicts this methodology,
where the range (the area under the curve) is the same. The hybrid
airship can either fly at a constant average speed (case a) or start with
higher initial speed ui and constant CL in first phase of the flight
followed by constant speed phase (case b). The switch speed usw is
governed by W fuel. Thus, analysis needs to be carried out in two phase
(i.e., with constant CL and then with constant speed). In case c, ui is
increased further such that the distance can be covered in t < tmax in
the constant CL phase itself.
To carry out a hybrid airship design, the initial and final apparent
weights in Eqs. (4) and (6) need to be expressed in terms of structural
weight W s , payload weight W PL , fuel weight W fuel , and buoyancy B
as follows:
W Ai
W PL  W s  W fuel − B (9)
W Af
W PL  W s − B (10)
The propeller efficiency ηpr can be considered constant for a variable-
pitch propeller, and c can be considered a constant for a given piston
engine. W s is expressed as a function of the hybrid airship volume V
and is discussed later in this section. L∕D and CL are held constant in
the first phase of flight and can be calculated as follows:
1 − BRW
CL
(11)
q∞ V 2∕3
L 1 − BRW

(12)
D CD0  KC2L q∞ V 2∕3
Because the primary volume requirement is due to the buoyancy
force, which balances part of the weight, the required volume can be
computed as follows (by neglecting the skin volume):
BR · W
V
(13)
Δρg
where Δρ
ρ∞ − ρgas , with ρ∞ as the cruise altitude density and ρgas
as the buoyant gas density.
Equation (13) shows that, for BR
0, the volume requirement
becomes zero from buoyant lift considerations. However, to balance
weight by aerodynamic lift, a finite area is required because CL
cannot exceed CL max corresponding the given lifting-body shape.
Thus, the minimum volume V min required [Eq. (14)] is limited by
CL max . This results in nonzero buoyant lift and hence limits the
minimum buoyancy ratio to BRmin :

3∕2
1 − BRmin W
V min
(14)
q∞ CL max
The weight of the vehicle must be estimated as a function of BRi . The
structural weight W s is assumed to scale with surface area and is
estimated as
3
tmax tmax
time
c)
W s
d · V 2∕3 (15)
where d is defined as the surface density relating airship volume and
its structural weight.
Combining Eqs. (13) and (15), an implicit equation in V is
obtained as
BRi dV 2∕3  W PL  W fuel 
V
(16)
Δρg
The switch speed is determined by tmax and ui using the second phase
range and time as follows:
S2 S − S1 S − 2ηpr ∕cL∕D lnui ∕usw 
usw



t2 tmax − t1 tmax − 2ηpr ∕cL∕D1∕usw  − 1∕ui 
(17)
To estimate the fuel weight for given BRi , range S, maximum flight
time tmax , altitude, payload mass, structural properties, and aerody-
namic properties of the hybrid airship, an iterative scheme is employed
(Fig. 2). First, an approximate guess of the fuel weight is made. Based
on the guess, the volume and the structural weight of the airship are
estimated for given BRi [Eqs. (15) and (16)]. After estimating the total
weight, the aerodynamic parameters are estimated [Eqs. (11) and (12)].
For given ui and W fuel , the switch speed usw is iterated to convergence
using Eq. (17). Then, the fuel weight W fuel is iterated to convergence.
Using the previous algorithm, a parametric study has been carried
out to obtain the fuel weights by varying BR, altitudes, and tmax
constraint. It was seen that, in all cases, the minimal fuel consumption
was found at the constraint boundary t
tmax. Hence, for the
optimization study, the previous algorithm has been employed in
which usw is determined uniquely for particular BRi, ui , and tmax .
Therefore, only BRi and ui remain as optimization variables.
III. Results and Discussion
The parametric study has been carried out using constant
parameters given in Table 1.
Figure 3 shows the variation of fuel weight with BRi for two flight-
time constraints. The initial speed in both cases has been taken as 1.05
times the corresponding uavg . All other parameters are kept the same.
Figure 4 shows the corresponding variation of L∕D. It is seen that the
fuel consumption initially decreases with increase in BRi and then
increases for both flight-time constraints. The optimal fuel consump-
tion is significantly lower than that of the pure airship (BRi ≈ 1) and
pure airplane (BRi ≈ 0), especially for shorter time constraints. In
Fig. 3, for tmax
24 h, the fuel consumption for the optimal hybrid
airship is around 11% less than that of a pure airplane and around 55%
less than that for a pure airship.
The fuel consumption is directly proportional to the power
required, which is shown in Fig. 5.§ The power required consists of
two parts, given in Eq. (18). The first term corresponds to the power
required due to zero-lift drag, which increases with increase in BRi .
The second term corresponds to the power required due to lift-
induced drag, which decreases with increase in BRi . In Figs. 5 and 6,
§
Power required is computed for initial weight and average velocity.
 4 AIAA Early Edition / VERMA, SAGAR, AND PRIYADARSHI
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on August 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038

Fig. 3 Fuel weight vs BRi for different tmax .

Fig. 4 L∕D vs BRi for different tmax .

Fig. 2 Iterative scheme used to estimate fuel consumption and usw .

it can be seen that, with relaxed time constraint, the zero-lift drag
decreases substantially, thereby reducing the total fuel consumptions.
This is primarily because of the increase in average speed.
P
DV ∞



2 
1 W 2∕3 2 1−BRW

ρ∞ u3∞ CD0 BR K
2 Δρg ρ∞ u∞ BRW∕Δρg1∕3
(18) Fig. 5 Contribution of zero-lift and induced drag components in power
required for tmax
24 h.

Table 1 Parameters used for

It is seen from Fig. 3 that, if the time constraint is relaxed from
the study 24 to 36 h, the minimum fuel weight reduces by around 25%. The
tmax constraint has a strong impact on BRi opt , which increases
Parameter Value significantly (from 0.24 to 0.72). This observation is consistent with
Range S 3,000 km earlier studies [3] that indicate a pure airship (BR
1) as an optimal
Payload W PL 10,000 kg solution for an unconstrained fuel minimization problem. It is also
Altitude 2 km seen that BRi min increases from 0.14 to 0.34 with relaxation of time
ηpr 0.80 constraint from 24 to 36 h. Because CL max in both cases is the same,
ca 5.833 × 10−7 N∕W∕s the minimum V 2∕3 required for higher value of tmax (lower uavg ) will
d 2 kg∕m2
K 0.1
be higher. Because of the increase in requirement of V 2∕3 , BRi min
CD0 0.05 increases.
CL max 1.2 It is also seen that the minimum for tmax
24 h is at almost the
same BRi where L∕D is maximum (Fig. 4). However, it is interesting
a
Typical specific power consumption taken to note that, for tmax
36 h, the minimum fuel consumption occurs
as a representative of piston engine. at BRi opt
0.72, whereas the L∕Dmax is achieved at BRi
0.5.
 AIAA Early Edition / VERMA, SAGAR, AND PRIYADARSHI
Fig. 6 Contribution of zero-lift and induced drag components in power
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on August 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038
required for tmax
36 h.
Fig. 7 L∕D at BRi opt vs tmax and L∕D at BRi opt vs BRi opt .
This happens because optimal hybrid airship for relaxed tmax
constraint tends toward an airship rather than an airplane, as
discussed before (Fig. 7). Also, Fig. 7 shows that L∕D at BRi opt
approaches L∕Dmax with decrease in tmax .
Figure 8 shows the variation of fuel consumption with BRi for
three initial speeds that satisfy the tmax constraint for a given range.
The trend of fuel consumption versus BRi remains the same for low
values of ui . For higher initial speeds, a journey may be traversed in a
time shorter than the given tmax constraint, as discussed earlier for the
example of Fig. 1c, with considerably higher fuel consumption
(Fig. 8). It can be seen from Fig. 9 that, for hybrid airship configu-
rations with high ui , the tmax constraint is not active at low BRi, and
the complete flight takes place at constant CL (phase 1 only). At
higher BRi, when the tmax constraint becomes active, the fuel con-
sumption increases substantially.
The BRi opt is obtained for different time constraints and for
different altitudes. The tmax was varied from 20 to 55 h. All other
parameters were kept the same as in Table 1. It can be seen in Fig. 10
that, with a decrease in tmax , BRi opt decreases, thereby making it
Fig. 8 Fuel weight vs BRi with different initial speeds and tmax
24 h.
5
Fig. 9 Fuel weight vs BRi with t vs BRi for tmax
24 h.
Fig. 10 BRi opt vs tmax at various altitudes.
more like an airplane as expected. This is consistent with the fact that
airships perform better at lower speeds and airplanes perform better at
higher speeds. Airplanes at low speeds must fly at high CL , which
causes high induced drag, but pure airships do not have any lift-
induced drag associated with buoyant lift. Airships at high speed
produce higher drag than airplanes because of their huge size and
hence large zero-lift drag. As altitude increases, BRi opt increases
because, at higher altitudes and for the same tmax , the aerodynamic lift
reduces, and hence the buoyancy ratio has to increase. In Fig. 11, the
contributions of zero-lift and induced drags are shown for different
BRi and altitudes. With increase in altitude, the power required
corresponding to induced drag component increases more than that
required for zero-lift drag component. Thus, the BRi opt corre-
sponding to minimum power and hence minimum fuel consumption
tends to increase with altitude. As expected, the effect of increase in
altitude on induced lift drag is negligible near BRi
1, and the effect
of zero-lift drag is negligible at lower BRi limit. Figure 12 shows the
variation of fuel consumption at BRi opt with tmax at various
Fig. 11 Contribution of zero-lift and induced drag components in power
required.
 6 AIAA Early Edition
Fig. 12 Fuel consumption at BRi opt vs tmax at various altitudes.
Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on August 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032038
Fig. 13 BRi opt contour lines on altitude–tmax chart.
Fig. 14 Volume contour lines at BRi opt on altitude–tmax chart.
altitudes. With increase in altitude, the fuel consumption increases
as the contributions from both drag components increase with
altitude (Fig. 11).
Figures 13 and 14 presents optimal hybrid airship design in terms
of optimal buoyancy ratio BRi opt and optimal volume, respectively,
View publication stats
/ VERMA, SAGAR, AND PRIYADARSHI
for different tmax constraints and various altitudes. These charts are
created for a specific external shape of the lifting body represented by
parameters CD0 , K, d, ηpr , and c. Thus, similar design charts can be
created by varying any of the previous parameters, and an optimal
hybrid airship BRi can be selected for a given tmax and altitude. Also,
the optimal size and thus weight can be obtained from the
corresponding volume chart (Fig. 14). It is also evident in the chart
that BRi opt is predominantly sensitive to tmax constraint.
IV. Conclusions
A novel approach has been proposed to obtain optimal hybrid
lifting-body airship designs for different flight-time constraints
and altitudes. It is carried out by optimally apportioning buoyant
and aerodynamic lift to minimize fuel consumption. These optimal
designs can be generated for specific lifting-body shapes represented
by a CD0 and K, propulsion systems represented by ηpr and c, and
structures represented by surface density d.
It is seen that, for shorter flight durations, the optimal hybrid air-
ships consume more fuel and have more airplanelike characteristics.
At higher altitudes, the optimal hybrid airships consume more
fuel and tend to have more airshiplike characteristics. The optimum
apportionment is strongly governed by the flight-time constraint and
shows a weak dependence on cruise altitude. Another interesting
outcome of the study is that the optimal hybrid airship need not fly at
L∕Dmax . However, for shorter flight durations, the optimal hybrid
airship needs to fly at L∕Dmax .
A design chart has been proposed, from which the optimal hybrid
airship can be selected, corresponding to a given time constraint and
cruise altitude.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
excellent comments and suggestions, which lead to significant im-
provement in the content of the paper.
References
[1] Ardema, M. D., “Feasibility of Modern Airships: Preliminary
Assessment,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 14, No. 11, 1977, pp. 1140–1148.
doi:10.2514/3.58902
[2] Tianshu, L., Liou, W. W., and Schulte, M., “Aeroship: A Hybrid
Platform,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2009, pp. 667–674.
[3] Sagar, K. K., Verma, A. R., and Priyadarshi, P., “Comment on ‘Aeroship:
A Hybrid Flight Platform’,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2014,
p. 701.
doi:10.2514/1.C031974
[4] Zhang, K.-S., Han, Z.-H., and Song, B.-F., “Flight Performance
Analysis of Hybrid Airship: Revised Analytical Formulation,” Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1318–1330.
doi:10.2514/1.47294
[5] Mackrodt, P. A., “Further Studies in the Concept of Delta Wing Hybrid
Airships,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 17, No. 10, pp. 734–740.
doi:10.2514/3.57960
[6] Carichner, G. E., and Nicolai, L. M., Fundamentals of Aircraft and
Airship Design: Airship Design and Case Studies, Vol. 2, AIAA
Education Series, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2013, Chap. 4.