The Aerocraft resembles
a blimp but we like the name
"flying luxury
hotel". The two-football-fields-long airship hasn't reached the prototype stage yet but one might be ready by
2010. The hotel in the sky has a range of several thousand miles with an estimated top speed of 174 mph. The interior
might include luxury rooms, restaurants, and a casino. Several cruise ship companies have expressed interest in the
project. Capacity is limited to 250 passengers. I like the flying hotel concept but the traveling speed suggests the
flying adventure is more important than the destination.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Phillip Feb 23rd 2006 7:40AM
That is too stinking big to be in the air
Wayne Feb 23rd 2006 8:00AM
Why? There are better ways to get high I'm sure. Seems like a bunch of engineers need to get a life and come up with something that would be more beneficial to humanity.
Just my opinion though.
Emily Feb 23rd 2006 8:08AM
Stupid idea, just imagine how much fuel it would take to get that in the air.
Ed Feb 23rd 2006 9:12AM
Emily, it would take less fuel to 'get that in the air' than the average family car uses during one trip to the mall and back. Lighter-than-air vehicles needn't expend much energy to become airborne -- they only require fuel expenditure for propulsion. But, can we say one word...'Hindenburg'?
James Feb 23rd 2006 9:13AM
What a compelling way to reduce air traffic noise. No need for long runways. More aerodynamic than a plane. Fuel cells and helium would be less fuel consumptive, more cost effective, It could land on buildings,and deliver goods better than any highways system. Naysayers should "lighten up". .
IRVIN LEE WARD JR. Feb 23rd 2006 9:16AM
IT'S A LARGE TRAGEDY JUST WAITING TO HAPPEN!
IRVIN LEE WARD JR. Feb 23rd 2006 9:16AM
IT'S A LARGE TRAGEDY JUST WAITING TO HAPPEN!
A. Marshall Feb 23rd 2006 9:25AM
To think that thing could go 174 MPH is rediculous.
Can you imagine hitting turbulence in that at 174,
besides look at all the drag. The amount of fuel to push that thing at 174 would be prohibitive.
russell chambliss Feb 23rd 2006 9:44AM
Just over a hundred years ago, people laughed at the Wright Brothers, and said flight was impossible. It is the drive to succeed that has made America great.A man walking on the moon, what a joke that was until we did it. Whether it fails or succeeds is not as important as the drive to make it happen. You sound like the same people that said we would never defeat England, and become a country. Open your eyes, the future is what we make it.
T. Evans Feb 23rd 2006 9:50AM
I love the idea! I would be one of the first to sign up. But what exactly is the purpose of having a room unless you're traveling for days? It would become the new "mile high" club.
Budoka Feb 23rd 2006 9:58AM
Im with Wayne. There are better and more efficient contraptions that engineers could be developing. That is exavtly what we need: one more thing for Americans to spend money on. The whole concept is rather self-indulgent. Is it not?
Budoka Feb 23rd 2006 10:06AM
Russell, you are right when you say that the future is what we make it. However, all of those things that you listed were quite beneficial in the development of industry and society. What could can come of this other than giving Americans another thing to make people think that they deserve Luxuries that they really don't need. The whole idea revolves around people spending money and someone making a profit. How does this progress society? How will this improve the nation's financial standing?
Joseph Jetson Feb 23rd 2006 10:08AM
Why not defy gravity, sleep, slurp down afew drinks and dance the night away with
a thousand others.
BILLYBOB Feb 23rd 2006 10:11AM
DA THEY MAKE IT IN A FAMILY CAMPER MODLE? THAT WOULD BE ONE HECK-A A RV. AND THINK NO MORE ROAD KILL STEW? NEVER MIND! I BEA LIKIN MAW ROAD KILL STEW. IN FAC SHE CAN MAKE DARN NEAR ANYTHIN TASTE LIKE CHICKEN. SO IFIN YER IN OUR NECK OF THE WOODS YOU BEA REMEMBERIN FRIDAY NITE BE MYSTERY STEW NIGHT. AND DONT BEA WORRYIN ABOUT BUBBA SHACKIN HANDS WITH YER LEG, HE DONE BE FIXED!
MAY THE GOOD LORD BEA BLESSING YA.
BILLYBOB N MAW
Steven Feb 23rd 2006 10:19AM
I think this is a great idea! Imagine being able to take a "sky-cruise" -- flying over and looking down upon all the great sights of the world (grand canyon, great wall of china, stonehenge, NYC skyline, etc.) all while enjoying great food and entertainment in comfort. Now THAT'S my kind of trip!
Kris Marshall Feb 23rd 2006 10:37AM
I think this looks like a fun idea. Sure, it is not going to replace Boeing or Airbus, I doubt they intend that. It would be like a cruise, only going to (or over, as the case may be) places that cruises can't reach. As for fuel efficiency, the Queen Elizabeth 2 gets 75 feet to the gallon. I'm sure it will do better than that.. Although I doubt the claims of 174 mph... Any dirigible I have seen has been a rather poky behemoth. It does seem that it would be very much subject to weather related delays and turbulence (and associated nausea)which would limit its economic viability.
Valerie Feb 23rd 2006 10:37AM
Just let me say this, I won't be staying in one.
Chris Feb 23rd 2006 11:09AM
Jesus!
Tony Brown Feb 23rd 2006 11:34AM
I agree with T. Evans. Where would you be going on a flight where you would need a room? With all the other stuff thats on this thing you would probably spend most of your time looking around and and eating.
Chris Couture Feb 23rd 2006 11:35AM
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's.....a hotel? Come on now. I can see a double or triple decker luxury aircraft in the coming decades, similarly designed to our current fleet, but nothing like the behemoth picture above. The capital risks, operating costs, Hindenburg horror, and un-practicality of this thing are way too much. Let's keep transportation and casino-style accomodations separate.