The Story of Airlander: The World's Weirdest Aircraft

Dive into the fascinating world of aviation with our documentary, "The Story of Airlander: The World's Weirdest Aircraft." In this captivating exploration, we uncover the unique features and history of the Airlander, an extraordinary hybrid between a blimp and an aircraft.
Originating from Bedford and developed at Cardington, this remarkable airship has taken flight in ways that defy conventional aeroplane design. Join us as we delve into the science and technology behind the Airlander, showcasing its innovative engineering and the feel-good story of its creation. Discover how this bizarre yet awe-inspiring vehicle has captured the imaginations of aviation enthusiasts and the general public alike.
With breathtaking visuals and insightful commentary, this video is sure to leave you in awe of the possibilities of flight. Whether you're an aviation aficionado or simply curious about the wonders of modern technology, this documentary promises to entertain and inform. Experience the magic of the Airlander and see why it's considered one of the most interesting aircraft in the skies today. Tune in now for a journey that will make you say "wow!"
The Story of Airlander is a documentary series that goes behind the trials and dramas of the building of Airlander, the giant hybrid airship built in Bedford in the UK. But this is first and foremost a human story of personal sacrifice, loss, loyalty, resilience and obsession.
Watch the documentary series on Amazon Prime,
or at www.vimeo.com/ondemand/airlandertv
or the extended version at www.vimeo.com/ondemand/airlander
or own it on DVD and Blu ray at www.airships.sparksflymedia.co.uk

[@1210divs]

Can it survive lightning strikes?

[@DeanArnett]

I believe so. Although it didn’t survive a bit of wind!

[@jamesharrison691]

FOD Foreign Object Debris will always inhibit Fixed and Rotary Wing VFR and IFR operations. YES. LTA. Is Fair Weather disaster relief Life Saver.

[@thedave7760]

Whomever chose that music has had far too many lines of coke..

[@BFree-ge6ms]

🤣🤣🤣

[@DeanArnett]

Riiiggghhhhttt

[@GlossaME]

And then it crashed. SMH

[@DeanArnett]

And then after that…

[@nellyt2807]

Thank God for skylon

[@DeanArnett]

There’s a few ‘others’ out there

[@georgewashington1621]

I dont understand how is it so expensive and hard to build a baloon with motors and rudders? Elon Musk built Falcon Heavy, the heavist rocket currently in operation, and partially reusable, for 500$ million dollars and some people in contract with US navy managed to spend the same amount on a baloon with motors and rudders and hardly make a working prototype. I mean you dont have to go for state of the art from scratch, make a reduced perfromance, simplified prototype first, baby steps you know. Seriously mindboggling. I mean its a baloon with motors and rudders, its not quantum physics or nuclear fusion! People built them in the 1930's with thier 1930's technology and they worked fine. I mean come on, people! I'm so mad that we still dont have massive amounts of airships soaring through our skies, you wouldnt believe!

[@chukching]

Yes, for people like you, most things are cheap and simple.

[@Zelurpio]

They honestly should have used designs from the 30's. They worked perfect. No need to improve something that is already perfected. Just take the hindenburg's design, and make it bigger. Simple as that.

[@thedailytoast4872]

@@Zelurpio there were quite a lot of crashes from the original blimps, the hindenberg is just the only famous one. The new models (Im assuming, as I don't know much about them) offer more stability and possibly more strength.

[@okbutthenagain.9402]

@GW. because while the F9 was developed for under 350 million dollars they actually used and improved upon idea's already developed by others. The aero complications are different for say the airlander v F9 For one Musk doesn't need to comply with ECAC, for European transportation vehicals, nor the The United States Department of Transportation both of which require a certain amount of testing, certification, proof of concept and finaly safety even before anything gets to fly trial passengers etc. Its no where near as simple as you make it out to be. Your 1930's comment has issues. In that safety requirements, passenger licenses, safety in general was poor in 1930. And while yes they flew. Many crashed and killed people as a result of the combustionable materials used. These days there are higher safety requiremnts qua material, transportation and operation. Airlander cost an approximate 150 million dollars. The constant alterations and changes made to the development by the US DOD drove up the price. Hell every project by the DOD is nerarly 200 to 500% over budget for development. Lastly you stated you"don't have to go for state of the art from scratch. Yes you do. Its called concept proofing. Ask the developers of the F35 and see what they say about it all. And was a requirement to achieving certification in the US and Europe for flights using the airlander. The US gave up on the Airlander, the UK didn't. And now its they who are about to make history with the reintroduction of the Blimps.

[@DeanArnett]

I think certification adds considerable costs

[@WeazelJaguar]

When it is all done, may I have 6 please?

[@DeanArnett]

If you mean the documentary, you can buy it at www.airships.sparksflymedia.co.uk or watch it on Amazon Prime or on Vimeo OnDemand. If you mean the aircraft, I'm sure theyd be pleased to get your order, go to Hybrid Air Vehicles.

[@aryakusunawardana4440]

hindenburg laughed seeing this 😂

[@MrAlex-ej8ov]

This is nothing like the Hindenburg, at all. If anything, this is laughing at the Hindenburg.

[@Zelurpio]

I think it's because the airlander crashed on its second flight because it wasn't built good. They didn't have prototypes, they just went for it first try. The Hindenburg had 5 flights before it crashed and is still the biggest flying machine to ever fly.

[@MrAlex-ej8ov]

@@Zelurpio Both wrong. Airlander crashed because mooring lines got caught, not because it was built poorly. And Hindenburg flew 63 times not 5.

[@okbutthenagain.9402]

@@Zelurpio First of all the Airlander 10 WAS a prototype, seriously research before you say anything. The Airlander 10 had been flown bythe joint development team in the US. So again NO it wasn;t the first time it was flown. Serioulsy dude do the frakking research. You've made yourself sound like a complete simpleton.

[@DeanArnett]

@@MrAlex-ej8ovNot totally true.

[@kurtislucien9052]

bang bang dramatic who cares, show me the ship

[@DeanArnett]

It’s called anticipation