Airships have been proposed as a potential cheap alternative to surface rocket launches for achieving Earth orbit. JP Aerospace has proposed the Airship to Orbit project, which intends to float a multi-stage airship up to mesospheric altitudes of 55 km (180,000 ft) and then use ion propulsion to accelerate to orbital speed. At these heights, air resistance would not be a significant problem for achieving such speeds. The company has not yet built any of the three stages.

NASA has proposed the High Altitude Venus Operational Concept, which comprises a series of five missions including manned missions to the atmosphere of Venus in airships. Pressures on the surface of the planet are too high for human habitation, but at a specific altitude the pressure is equal to that found on Earth and this makes Venus a potential target for human colonization.

The advantage of airships over airplanes is that static lift sufficient for flight is generated by the lifting gas and requires no engine power. This was an immense advantage before the middle of World War I and remained an advantage for long-distance or long-duration operations until World War II. Modern concepts for high-altitude airships include photovoltaic cells to reduce the need to land to refuel, thus they can remain in the air until consumables expire.

The disadvantages are that an airship has a very large reference area and comparatively large drag coefficient, thus a larger drag force compared to that of airplanes and even helicopters. Given the large frontal area and wetted surface of an airship, a practical limit is reached around 130–160 kilometers per hour (80–100 mph). Thus airships are used where speed is not critical.

The lift capability of an airship is equal to the buoyant force minus the weight of the airship. This assumes standard air-temperature and pressure conditions. Corrections are usually made for water vapor and impurity of lifting gas, as well as a percentage of inflation of the gas cells at liftoff. Based on specific lift (lifting force per unit volume of gas), the greatest static lift is provided by hydrogen (11.15 N/m3 or 71 lbf/1000 cu ft) with helium (10.37 N/m3 or 66 lbf/1000 cu ft) a close second. At 6.13 N/m3 (39 lbf/1000 cu ft), steam is a distant third. Other cheap gases, such as methane, carbon monoxide, ammonia and natural gas have even less lifting capacity and are flammable, toxic, corrosive, or all three (neon is even more costly than helium, with less lifting capacity). Operational considerations such as whether the lift gas can be economically vented and produced in flight for control of buoyancy (as with hydrogen) or even produced as a byproduct of propulsion (as with steam) affect the practical choice of lift gas in airship designs.

In addition to the static lift, an airship can obtain a certain amount of dynamic lift from its engines. Dynamic lift in past airships has been about 10% of the static lift. Dynamic lift allows an airship to “take off heavy” from a runway similar to fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. However, this requires additional weight in engines, fuel and landing gear, negating some of the static lift capacity.

The altitude at which an airship can fly largely depends on how much lifting gas it can lose due to expansion before stasis is reached. The ultimate altitude record for a rigid airship was set in 1917 by the L-55 under the command of Hans-Kurt Flemming when he forced the airship to 7,300 m (24,000 ft) attempting to cross France after the “Silent Raid” on London. The L-55 lost lift during the descent to lower altitudes over Germany and crashed due to loss of lift. While such waste of gas was necessary for the survival of airships in the later years of World War I, it was impractical for commercial operations or operations of helium-filled military airships. The highest flight made by a hydrogen-filled passenger airship was 1,700 m (5,500 ft) on the Graf Zeppelin’s around-the-world flight. The practical limit for rigid airships was about 900 m (3,000 ft), and for pressure airships around 2,400 m (8,000 ft).

Modern airships use dynamic helium volume. At sea-level altitude, helium takes up only a small part of the hull, while the rest is filled with air. As the airship ascends, the helium inflates with reduced outer pressure, and the air is pushed out and released from the downward valve. This allows an airship to reach any altitude with balanced inner and outer pressure if the buoyancy is enough. Some civil aerostats could reach 100,000 ft (30,000 m) without explosion due to overloaded inner pressure.

The greatest disadvantage of the airship is size, which is essential to increasing performance. As for size increases, the problems of ground handling increase geometrically. As the German Navy changed from the P class of 1915 with a volume of over 31,000 m3 (1,100,000 cu ft) to the larger Q class of 1916, the R class of 1917, and finally the W class of 1918, at almost 62,000 m3 (2,200,000 cu ft) ground handling problems reduced the number of days the Zeppelins were able to make patrol flights. This availability declined from 34% in 1915, to 24.3% in 1916 and finally 17.5% in 1918.

So long as the power-to-weight ratios of aircraft engines remained low and specific fuel consumption high, the airship had an edge for long-range or -duration operations. As those figures changed, the balance shifted rapidly in the airplane’s favor. By mid-1917, the airship could no longer survive in a combat situation where the threat was airplanes. By the late 1930s, the airship barely had an advantage over the airplane on intercontinental over-water flights, and that advantage had vanished by the end of World War II.

This is in face-to-face tactical situations. Currently, a High-altitude airship project is planned to survey hundreds of kilometers as their operation radius, often much farther than the normal engagement range of a military airplane. For example, a radar mounted on a vessel platform 30 m (100 ft) high has radio horizon at 20 km (12 mi) range, while a radar at 18,000 m (59,000 ft) altitude has radio horizon at 480 km (300 mi) range. This is significantly important for detecting low-flying cruise missiles or fighter-bombers.

The most commonly used lifting gas, helium, is inert so presents no fire risk. Modern airships have a natural buoyancy and special design that offers a virtually zero catastrophic failure mode. A series of vulnerability tests were done by the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency DERA on a Skyship 600. Since the internal gas pressure was maintained at only 1–2% above the surrounding air pressure, the vehicle proved highly tolerant to physical damage or to attack by small-arms fire or missiles. Several hundred high-velocity bullets were fired through the hull, and even two hours later the vehicle would have been able to return to base. Ordnance passed through the envelope without causing critical helium loss. In all instances of light armament fire evaluated under both test and live conditions, the airship was able to complete its mission and return to base.

High-altitude platform station

High-altitude platform station (short: HAPS) is – according to Article 1.66A of the International Telecommunication Union´s (ITU) ITU Radio Regulations (RR) – defined as “a station on an object at an altitude of 20 to 50 km and at a specified, nominal, fixed point relative to the Earth”.

Each station shall be classified by the service in which it operates permanently or temporarily.

A HAP can be a manned or unmanned airplane, a balloon, or an airship. All require electrical power to keep themselves and their payload functional. While current HAPS are powered by batteries or engines, mission time is limited by the need for recharging/refueling. Therefore, alternative means are being considered for the future. Solar cells are one of the best options currently being used under trial for HAPS (Helios, Lindstrand HALE).

Whether an airship or an airplane, a major challenge is the ability of the HAP to maintain station keeping in the face of winds. An operating altitude between 17 and 22 km is chosen because in most regions of the world this represents a layer of relatively mild wind and turbulence above the jet stream. Although the wind profile may vary considerably with latitude and with the season, a form similar to that shown will usually obtain. This altitude (> 17 km) is also above commercial air-traffic heights, which would otherwise prove a potentially prohibitive constraint.

Since HAPS operate at much lower altitudes than satellites, it is possible to cover a small region much more effectively. Lower altitude also means much lower telecommunications link budget (hence lower power consumption) and smaller round-trip delay compared to satellites. Furthermore, deploying a satellite requires significant time and monetary resources, in terms of development and launch. HAPS, on the other hand, are comparatively less expensive and are rapidly deployable. Another major difference is that a satellite, once launched, cannot be landed for maintenance, while HAPS can.

One of latest uses of HAPS has been for radiocommunication service. Research on HAPS is being actively carried largely in Europe, where scientists are considering them as a platform to deliver high-speed connectivity to users, over areas of up to 400 km. It has gained significant interest because HAPS will be able to deliver bandwidth and capacity similar to a broadband wireless access network (such as WiMAX) while providing a coverage area similar to that of a satellite.

High-altitude airships can improve the military’s ability to communicate in remote areas such as those in Afghanistan, where mountainous terrain frequently interferes with communications signals.

One of the best examples of a high-altitude platform used for surveillance and security is Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV used by the US Air Force. It has a service ceiling of 20 km and can stay in the air for continuous 36 hours. It carries a highly sophisticated sensor system including radar, optical, and infrared images. It is powered by a turbofan engine and is able to deliver digital sensor data in real-time to a ground station.

Another future use that is currently being investigated is monitoring of a particular area or region for activities such as flood detection, seismic monitoring, remote sensing and disaster management.

Perhaps the most common use of high-altitude platforms is for environment/weather monitoring. Numerous experiments are conducted through high-altitude balloons mounted with scientific equipment, which is used to measure environmental changes or to keep track of the weather. Recently, NASA in partnership with The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has started using Global Hawk UAV to study Earth’s atmosphere.

Due to the height, more than 90% of atmospheric matter is below the high-altitude platform. This reduces atmospheric drag for starting rockets. “As a rough estimate, a rocket that reaches an altitude of 20 km when launched from the ground will reach 100 km if launched at an altitude of 20 km from a balloon.” Such a platform has been proposed to allow the usage of (long) mass drivers for launching goods or humans into orbit.

The United States Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency contracted Lockheed Martin to construct a High-Altitude Airship (HAA) to enhance its Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).

An unmanned lighter-than-air vehicle, the HAA was proposed to operate at a height of above 60,000 feet (18,000 m) in a quasi-geostationary position to deliver persistent orbital station keeping as a surveillance aircraft platform, telecommunications relay, or a weather observer. They originally proposed to launch their HAA in 2008. The airship would be in the air for up to one month at a time and was intended to survey a 600-mile (970 km) diameter of land. It was to use solar cells to provide its power and would be unmanned during its flight. The production concept would be 500 feet (150 m) long and 150 feet (46 m) in diameter. To minimize weight. it was to be composed of high strength fabrics and use lightweight propulsion technologies.

A subscale demonstrator unit for this project, the “High Altitude Long Endurance-Demonstrator” (HALE-D), was built by Lockheed Martin and launched on a test flight on July 27, 2011, to demonstrate key technologies critical to the development of unmanned airships. The airship was supposed to reach an altitude of 60,000 feet (18,000 m), but a problem with the helium levels occurred at 32,000 feet (9,800 m) which prevented it from reaching its target altitude, and the flight was terminated. It descended and landed at a speed of about 20 feet per second in a heavily forested area in Pennsylvania. Two days after the landing, before the vehicle was recovered from the crash site, the vehicle was destroyed by fire.

A stratospheric airship is a powered airship designed to fly at very high altitudes 30,000 to 70,000 feet (9.1 to 21.3 kilometers). Most designs are remote-operated aircraft/unmanned aerial vehicles (ROA/UAV). To date, none of these designs have received approval from the FAA to fly in U.S. airspace.

Stratospheric airship efforts are being developed in at least five countries.

The first stratospheric powered airship flight took place in 1969, reaching 70,000 feet (21 km) for 2 hours with a 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms) payload. On December 4, 2005, a team led by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), sponsored by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command (ASMDC), successfully demonstrated powered flight of the HiSentinel stratospheric airship at an altitude of 74,000 feet (23 km). Japan and South Korea are also planning to deploy HAAs. South Korea has been conducting flight tests for several years with a vehicle from Worldwide Aeros.

The Integrated Sensor is Structure (ISIS) was a program managed by the United States Air Force (USAF) Research Laboratory to research the feasibility of using an unmanned airship as a high-altitude aerial reconnaissance and surveillance platform. It is sometimes called Integrated Sensor is the Structure, as a fundamental innovation was the use of the airship structure as the sensing component of a state-of-the-art radar system.

In 2006, contracts were awarded to Raytheon for the development of a large-area, light, Active electronically scanned array antenna which could be bonded to the structure of a blimp, Northrop Grumman for antenna development, and Lockheed Martin for the development of the airship. As proposed, the 450-foot (140 m)-long surveillance airship could be launched from the US and stationed for up to 10 years at an altitude of 65,000 feet (20,000 m), observing the movement of vehicles, aircraft, and people below. At that altitude, the airship would be beyond the range of most surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. The airship would be filled with helium and powered, at least in part, by solar-powered hydrogen fuel cells.

On March 12, 2009, the USAF announced that it had budgeted $400 million for work on ISIS. In April 2009, DARPA awarded a $399.9 million contract to Lockheed Martin as the systems integrator and Raytheon as the radar developer for phase three of the project: the construction of a one-third scale model, which would remain in the air for up to a year. The ultimate goal was to provide radar capable of delivering persistent, wide-area surveillance tracking and engagement of air targets within a 600-kilometer area and ground targets within a 300-mile (480 km) area, according to DARPA. The model blimp was to have radar coverage of about 7,176 square yards (6,000 square meters) and be tested at an altitude of 6 miles (9.7 km) above the ground. The contract initially awarded $100 million to the two companies, with the rest to follow in phases, with a completion date of March 2013.

As of 2012, the development of the airframe had been delayed to focus on “radar risk reduction”. The United States Department of Defense ended the program in 2015. $471 million had been spent from 2007 through 2012.

Mystery airships or phantom airships are a class of unidentified flying objects best known from a series of newspaper reports originating in the western United States and spreading east during late 1896 and early 1897. According to researcher Jerome Clark, airship sightings were reported worldwide during the 1880s and 1890s. Mystery airship reports are seen as a cultural predecessor to modern claims of extraterrestrial-piloted flying saucer-style UFOs. Typical airship reports involved unidentified lights, but more detailed accounts reported ships comparable to a dirigible. Reports of the alleged crewmen and pilots usually described them as human-looking, although sometimes the crew claimed to be from Mars. It was popularly believed that the mystery airships were the product of some inventor of genius who was not ready to make knowledge of his creation public. For example, Thomas Edison was so widely speculated to be the mind behind the alleged airships that in 1897 he “was forced to issue a strongly worded statement” denying his responsibility.

It has been frequently argued that mystery airships are unlikely to represent test flights of real human-manufactured dirigibles as no record of successful sustained or long-range airship flights are known from the period and “it would have been impossible, not to mention irrational, to keep such a thing secret.” To the contrary, however, there were, in fact, several functional airships manufactured before the 1896–97 reports (e.g., Solomon Andrews made successful test flights of his “Aereon” in 1863), but their capabilities were far more limited than the mystery airships. Reece and others note that contemporary American newspapers of the “yellow journalism” era were more likely to print manufactured stories and hoaxes than modern news sources, and editors of the late 1800s often would have expected the reader to understand that such stories were phony. Most journalists of the period did not seem to take the airship reports very seriously, as after the major 1896-97 have concluded, the subject quickly fell from public consciousness. The airship stories received further attention only after the 1896-97 newspaper reports were largely rediscovered in the mid-1960s and UFO investigators suggested the airships might represent earlier precursors to post-World War II UFO sightings.

The best-known of the mystery airship waves began in California in 1896. Afterward, reports and accounts of similar airships came from other areas, generally moving eastward across the country. Some accounts during this wave of airship reports claim that occupants were visible on some airships, and encounters with the pilots were reported as well. These occupants often appeared to be human, though their behavior, mannerisms, and clothing were sometimes reported to be unusual. Sometimes the apparent humans claimed to be from the planet Mars.

Historian Mike Dash described and summarized the 1896–1897 series of airship sightings, writing:

Not only were [the mystery airships] bigger, faster and more robust than anything then produced by the aviators of the world; they seemed to be able to fly enormous distances, and some were equipped with giant wings… The 1896–1897 airship wave is probably the best investigated of all historical anomalies. The files of almost 1,500 newspapers from across the United States have been combed for reports, an astonishing feat of research. The general conclusion of investigators was that a considerable number of the simpler sightings were misidentification of planets and stars and a large number of the more complex the result of hoaxes and practical jokes. A small residuum remains perplexing.

The Sacramento Bee and the San Francisco Call reported the first sighting on November 18, 1896. Witnesses reported a light moving slowly over Sacramento on the evening of November 17 at an estimated 1,000-foot elevation. Some witnesses said they could see a dark shape behind the light. A witness named R.L. Lowery reported that he heard a voice from the craft issuing commands to increase elevation in order to avoid hitting a church steeple. Lowery added, “in what was no doubt meant as a wink to the reader” that he believed the apparent captain to be referring to the tower of a local brewery, as there were no churches nearby. Lowery further described the craft as being powered by two men exerting themselves on bicycle pedals. Above the pedaling men seemed to be a passenger compartment, which lay under the main body of the dirigible. A light was mounted on the front end of the airship. Some witnesses reported the sound of singing as the craft passed overhead.

The November 19, 1896, edition of the Stockton, California, Daily Mail featured one of the earliest accounts of an alleged alien craft sighting. Colonel H.G. Shaw claimed that while driving his buggy through the countryside near Stockton, he came across what appeared to be a landed spacecraft. Shaw described it as having a metallic surface which was completely featureless apart from a rudder and pointed ends. He estimated a diameter of 25 feet and said the vessel was around 150 feet in total length. Three slender, 7-foot-tall (2.1 m), apparent extraterrestrials were said to approach from the craft while “emitting a strange warbling noise.” The beings reportedly examined Shaw’s buggy and then tried to physically force him to accompany them back to the airship. The aliens were said to give up after realizing they lacked the physical strength to force Shaw onto the ship. They supposedly fled back to their ship, which lifted off the ground and sped out of sight. Shaw believed that the beings were Martians sent to kidnap an earthling for unknowable but potentially nefarious purposes. This has been seen by some as an early attempt at alien abduction; it is apparently the first published account of explicitly extraterrestrial beings attempting to kidnap humans into their spacecraft.

The mystery light reappeared over Sacramento the evening of November 21. It was also seen over Folsom, San Francisco, Oakland, Modesto, Manteca, Sebastopol and several other cities later that same evening and was reportedly viewed by hundreds of witnesses.

One witness from Arkansas – allegedly a former state senator Harris – was supposedly told by an airship pilot (during the tensions leading up to the Spanish–American War) that the craft was bound for Cuba, to use its “Hotchkiss gun” to “kill Spaniards”.

In one account from Texas, three men reported an encounter with an airship and with “five peculiarly dressed men” who asserted that they were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, and had learned English from the 1553 North Pole expedition led by Hugh Willoughby.

On February 2, 1897, the Omaha Bee reported an airship sighting over Hastings, Nebraska, the previous day.

An article in the Albion Weekly News reported that two witnesses saw an airship crash just inches from where they were standing. The airship suddenly disappeared, with a man standing where the vessel had been. The airship pilot showed the men a small device that supposedly enabled him to shrink the airship small enough to store the vessel in his pocket. A rival newspaper, the Wilsonville Review, playfully claimed that its own editor was an additional witness to the incident and that he heard the pilot say “Waiver eht rof ebircsbus!” The phrase he allegedly heard is “subscribe for the Review” spelled backward.

On April 10, 1897, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a story reporting that one W.H. Hopkins encountered a grounded airship about 20 feet in length and 8 feet in diameter near the outskirts of Springfield, Missouri. The vehicle was apparently propelled by three large propellers and crewed by a beautiful, nude woman and a bearded man, also nude. Hopkins attempted with some difficulty to communicate with the crew in order to ascertain their origins. Eventually, they understood what Hopkins was asking of them and they both pointed to the sky and “uttered something that sounded like the word Mars.”

On April 16, 1897, a story published by the Table Rock Argus claimed that a group of “anonymous but reliable” witnesses had seen an airship sailing overhead. The craft had many passengers. The witnesses claimed that among these passengers were a woman tied to a chair, a woman attending her, and a man with a pistol guarding their apparent prisoner. Before the witnesses thought to contact the authorities, the airship was already gone.

An account from Aurora, Texas, related to the Dallas Morning News on April 19, 1897, reported that a couple of days before, an airship had smashed into a windmill – later determined to be a sump pump – belonging to a Judge Proctor, then crashed. The occupant was dead and mangled, but the story reported that presumed pilot was clearly “not an inhabitant of this world.” Strange “hieroglyphic” figures were seen on the wreckage, which resembled “a mixture of aluminum and silver … it must have weighed several tons.” In the 20th century, unusual metallic material recovered from the presumed crash site was shown to contain a percentage of aluminum and iron admixed. The story ended by noting that the pilot was given a “Christian burial” in the town cemetery.In 1973, MUFON investigators discovered the alleged stone marker used in this burial. Their metal detectors indicated a quantity of foreign material might remain buried there. However, they were not permitted to exhume, and when they returned several years later, the headstone – and whatever metallic material had lain beneath it – was gone.

An account by Alexander Hamilton of Leroy, Kansas, supposedly occurred about April 19, 1897, and was published in the Yates Center Farmer’s Advocate of April 23. Hamilton, his son and a tenant witnessed an airship hovering over his cattle pen. Upon closer examination, the witnesses realized that a red “cable” from the airship had lassoed a heifer, but had also become entangled in the pen’s fence. After trying unsuccessfully to free the heifer, Hamilton cut loose a portion of the fence, then “stood in amazement to see the ship, cow and all rise slowly and sail off.” Some have suggested this was the earliest report of cattle mutilation. In 1982, however, UFO researcher Jerome Clark debunked this story and confirmed via interviews and Hamilton’s own affidavit that the story was a successful attempt to win a Liar’s Club competition to create the most outlandish tall tale.

There was a series of mystery airship sightings in 1909 in New England, New Zealand, and various European locations. Later reports came from the United Kingdom in 1912 and 1913. However, by this time airship technology was well advanced (Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin had been flying his massive passenger-carrying airships for nearly a decade by then), making the prospect that these may have been small, private airships rather than evidence of extraterrestrial visitation or newspaper hoaxes more reasonable.

Wallace Tillinghast, a Massachusetts businessman, gained notoriety for claims he was responsible for the 1909 wave due to an airship he had built, but his claims were never substantiated.

Jerome Clark writes, “One curious feature of the post-1887 airship waves was the failure of each to stick in the historical memory. Although 1909, for example, brought a flood of sightings worldwide and attendant discussion and speculation, contemporary accounts do not allude to the hugely publicized events of little more than a decade earlier.”

Clark writes that any attempt to “uncover the truth about the late 19th-century airship scare comes up against some unhappy realities: newspaper coverage was unreliable; no independent investigators (‘airship oologists’) spoke directly with alleged witnesses or attempted to verify or debunk their testimony; and, with a single unsatisfactory exception, no eyewitness was ever interviewed even in the 1950s, when some were presumably still living.”

The “single unsatisfactory exception” Clark cites is a former San Francisco Chronicle employee interviewed via telephone by Edward J. Ruppelt in 1952. Ruppelt wrote that the man “had been a copy boy…and remembered the incident, but time had canceled out the details. He did tell me that he, the editor of the paper, and the news staff had seen ‘the ship’, as he referred to the UFO. His story, even though it was fifty-six years old, smacked of others I’d heard when he said that no one at the newspaper ever told anyone what they had seen; they didn’t want people to think they were ‘crazy’.”

Jacobs notes, “Most arguments against the airship idea came from individuals who assumed that the witnesses did not see what they claimed to see. This is the crucial link between the 1896–97 phenomenon and the modern unidentified flying object phenomenon beginning in 1947. It also was central to the debate over whether unidentified flying objects constituted a unique phenomenon.”

In 2009, American author J. Allan Danelek wrote a book entitled The Great Airship of 1897 in which he made the case that the mystery airship was the work of an unknown individual, possibly funded by a wealthy investor from San Francisco, to build an airship prototype as a test vehicle for a later series of larger, passenger-carrying airships. In the work, Danelek demonstrates how the craft might have been built using materials and technologies available in 1896 (including speculative line drawings and technical details). The ship, Danelek proposes, was built in secret to safeguard its design from patent infringement as well as to protect investors in case of failure. Noting that the flights were initially seen over California and only later over the Midwest, he speculates that the inventor was making a series of short test flights, moving from west to east and following the main railway lines for logistical support, and that it was these experimental flights that formed the basis for many – though not all – of the newspaper accounts from the era. Danelek also notes that the reports ended abruptly in mid-April 1897, suggesting that the craft may have met with disaster, effectively ending the venture and permitting the sightings to fall into the realm of mythology.

During the 1896–97 wave, there were many attempts to explain the airship sightings, including suggestions of hoaxes, pranks, publicity stunts and hallucinations. One man suggested the airships were swarms of lightning beetles misidentified by observers.

Jacobs believes that many airship tales originated with “enterprising reporters perpetrating journalistic hoaxes.” He notes that many of these accounts “are easy to identify because of their tongue-in-cheek tone, and accent on the sensational.” Furthermore, in many such newspaper hoaxes, the author makes his intent obvious “by saying – in the last line – that he was writing from an insane asylum (or something to that effect).”

Some argued that the airship reports were genuine accounts. Steerable airships had been publicly flown in the U.S. since the Aereon in 1863, and numerous inventors were working on airship and aircraft designs (the idea that a secretive inventor might have developed a viable craft with advanced capabilities was the focus of Jules Verne’s 1886 novel Robur the Conqueror). In fact, two French army officers and engineers, Arthur Krebs and Charles Renard, had successfully flown in an electric-powered airship called La France as early as 1885, making no fewer than seven successful flights in the craft over an eleven-month period. Also during the 1896–97 period, David Schwarz built an aluminum-skinned airship in Germany that successfully flew over Tempelhof Field before being irreparably damaged during a hard landing. Both events clearly demonstrated that the technology to build a practical airship existed during the period in question, though if reports of the capabilities of the California and Midwest airship sighted in 1896–97 are true, it would have been considerably more advanced than any airship built up to that time.

Several individuals, including Lyman Gilmore and Charles Dellschau, were later identified as possible candidates for being involved in the design and construction of the airships, although little evidence was found in support of these ideas.

References

Aversa, R., R.V.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and F.I.T. Petrescu, 2017a. Nano-diamond hybrid materials for structural biomedical application. Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, B. Akash, R.B. Bucinell and J.M. Corchado et al., 2017b. Kinematics and forces to a new model forging manipulator. Am. J. Applied Sci., 14: 60-80.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella, I.T.F. Petrescu and J.K. Calautit et al., 2017c. Something about the V engines design. Am. J. Applied Sci., 14: 34-52.

Aversa, R., D. Parcesepe, R.V.V. Petrescu, F. Berto and G. Chen et al., 2017d. Process ability of bulk metallic glasses. Am. J. Applied Sci., 14: 294-301.

Aversa, R., R.V.V. Petrescu, B. Akash, R.B. Bucinell and J.M. Corchado et al., 2017e. Something about the balancing of thermal motors. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 10: 200.217. DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2017.200.217

Aversa, R., F.I.T. Petrescu, R.V. Petrescu and A. Apicella, 2016a. Biomimetic FEA bone modeling for customized hybrid biological prostheses development. Am. J. Applied Sci., 13: 1060-1067. DOI: 10.3844/ajassp.2016.1060.1067

Aversa, R., D. Parcesepe, R.V. Petrescu, G. Chen and F.I.T. Petrescu et al., 2016b. Glassy amorphous metal injection molded induced morphological defects. Am. J. Applied Sci., 13: 1476-1482.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, F.I.T. Petrescu and A. Apicella, 2016c. Smart-factory: Optimization and process control of composite centrifuged pipes. Am. J. Applied Sci., 13: 1330-1341.

Aversa, R., F. Tamburrino, R.V. Petrescu, F.I.T. Petrescu and M. Artur et al., 2016d. Biomechanically inspired shape memory effect machines driven by muscle like acting NiTi alloys. Am. J. Applied Sci., 13: 1264-1271.

Aversa, R., E.M. Buzea, R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and M. Neacsa et al., 2016e. Present a mechatronic system having able to determine the concentration of carotenoids. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1106-1111.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, R. Sorrentino, F.I.T. Petrescu and A. Apicella, 2016f. Hybrid ceramo-polymeric nanocomposite for biomimetic scaffolds design and preparation. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1096-1105.

Aversa, R., V. Perrotta, R.V. Petrescu, C. Misiano and F.I.T. Petrescu et al., 2016g. From structural colors to super-hydrophobicity and achromatic transparent protective coatings: Ion plating plasma assisted TiO2 and SiO2 Nano-film deposition. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1037-1045.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, F.I.T. Petrescu and A. Apicella, 2016h Biomimetic and Evolutionary Design Driven Innovation in Sustainable Products Development, Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1027-1036.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and F.I.T. Petrescu, 2016i. Mitochondria are naturally micro robots-a review. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 991-1002.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and F.I.T. Petrescu, 2016j. We are addicted to vitamins C and E-A review. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1003-1018.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and F.I.T. Petrescu, 2016k. Physiologic human fluids and swelling behavior of hydrophilic biocompatible hybrid ceramo-polymeric materials. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 962-972.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and F.I.T. Petrescu, 2016l. One can slow down the aging through antioxidants. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1112-1126.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and F.I.T. Petrescu, 2016m. About homeopathy or jSimilia similibus curenturk. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1164-1172.

Aversa, R., R.V. Petrescu, A. Apicella and F.I.T. Petrescu, 2016n. The basic elements of life’s. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1189-1197.

Aversa, R., F.I.T. Petrescu, R.V. Petrescu and A. Apicella, 2016o. Flexible stem trabecular prostheses. Am. J. Eng. Applied Sci., 9: 1213-1221.

Mirsayar, M.M., V.A. Joneidi, R.V.V. Petrescu, F.I.T. Petrescu and F. Berto, 2017 Extended MTSN criterion for fracture analysis of soda lime glass. Eng. Fracture Mechanics 178: 50-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.04.018

Petrescu, R.V. and F.I. Petrescu, 2013a. Lockheed Martin. 1st Edn., CreateSpace, pp: 114.

Petrescu, R.V. and F.I. Petrescu, 2013b. Northrop. 1st Edn., CreateSpace, pp: 96.

Petrescu, R.V. and F.I. Petrescu, 2013c. The Aviation History or New Aircraft I Color. 1st Edn., CreateSpace, pp: 292.

Petrescu, F.I. and R.V. Petrescu, 2012. New Aircraft II. 1st Edn., Books On Demand, pp: 138.

Petrescu, F.I. and R.V. Petrescu, 2011. Memories About Flight. 1st Edn., CreateSpace, pp: 652.

Petrescu, F.I.T., 2009. New aircraft. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Mechanics, Oct. 29-30, Brasov, Romania.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2016a Otto Motor Dynamics, GEINTEC-GESTAO INOVACAO E TECNOLOGIAS, 6(3):3392-3406.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2016b Dynamic Cinematic to a Structure 2R, GEINTEC-GESTAO INOVACAO E TECNOLOGIAS, 6(2):3143-3154.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2014a Cam Gears Dynamics in the Classic Distribution, Independent Journal of Management & Production, 5(1):166-185.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2014b High Efficiency Gears Synthesis by Avoid the Interferences, Independent Journal of Management & Production, 5(2):275-298.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu R.V., 2014c Gear Design, ENGEVISTA, 16(4):313-328.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2014d Balancing Otto Engines, International Review of Mechanical Engineering 8(3):473-480.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2014e Machine Equations to the Classical Distribution, International Review of Mechanical Engineering 8(2):309-316.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2014f Forces of Internal Combustion Heat Engines, International Review on Modelling and Simulations 7(1):206-212.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2014g Determination of the Yield of Internal Combustion Thermal Engines, International Review of Mechanical Engineering 8(1):62-67.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2014h Cam Dynamic Synthesis, Al-Khwarizmi Engineering Journal, 10(1):1-23.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu R.V., 2013a Dynamic Synthesis of the Rotary Cam and Translated Tappet with Roll, ENGEVISTA 15(3):325-332.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2013b Cams with High Efficiency, International Review of Mechanical Engineering 7(4):599-606.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2013c An Algorithm for Setting the Dynamic Parameters of the Classic Distribution Mechanism, International Review on Modelling and Simulations 6(5B):1637-1641.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2013d Dynamic Synthesis of the Rotary Cam and Translated Tappet with Roll, International Review on Modelling and Simulations 6(2B):600-607.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2013e Forces and Efficiency of Cams, International Review of Mechanical Engineering 7(3):507-511.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2012a Echilibrarea motoarelor termice, Create Space publisher, USA, November 2012, ISBN 978-1-4811-2948-0, 40 pages, Romanian edition.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2012b Camshaft Precision, Create Space publisher, USA, November 2012, ISBN 978-1-4810-8316-4, 88 pages, English edition.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2012c Motoare termice, Create Space publisher, USA, October 2012, ISBN 978-1-4802-0488-1, 164 pages, Romanian edition.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2011a Dinamica mecanismelor de distributie, Create Space publisher, USA, December 2011, ISBN 978-1-4680-5265-7, 188 pages, Romanian version.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2011b Trenuri planetare, Create Space publisher, USA, December 2011, ISBN 978-1-4680-3041-9, 204 pages, Romanian version.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu, R.V., 2011c Gear Solutions, Create Space publisher, USA, November 2011, ISBN 978-1-4679-8764-6, 72 pages, English version.

Petrescu, F.I. and R.V. Petrescu, 2005. Contributions at the dynamics of cams. Proceedings of the 9th IFToMM International Symposium on Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, (TMM’ 05), Bucharest, Romania, pp: 123-128.

Petrescu, F. and R. Petrescu, 1995. Contributii la sinteza mecanismelor de distributie ale motoarelor cu ardere internã. Proceedings of the ESFA Conferinta, (ESFA’ 95), Bucuresti, pp: 257-264.

Petrescu, FIT., 2015a Geometrical Synthesis of the Distribution Mechanisms, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 8(1):63-81. DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2015.63.81

Petrescu, FIT., 2015b Machine Motion Equations at the Internal Combustion Heat Engines, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 8(1):127-137. DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2015.127.137

Petrescu, F.I., 2012b Teoria mecanismelor – Curs si aplicatii (editia a doua), Create Space publisher, USA, September 2012, ISBN 978-1-4792-9362-9, 284 pages, Romanian version, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2917.1926

Petrescu, F.I., 2008. Theoretical and applied contributions about the dynamic of planar mechanisms with superior joints. PhD Thesis, Bucharest Polytechnic University.

Petrescu, FIT.; Calautit, JK.; Mirsayar, M.; Marinkovic, D.; 2015 Structural Dynamics of the Distribution Mechanism with Rocking Tappet with Roll, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 8(4):589-601. DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2015.589.601

Petrescu, FIT.; Calautit, JK.; 2016 About Nano Fusion and Dynamic Fusion, American Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(3):261-266.

Petrescu, R.V.V., R. Aversa, A. Apicella, F. Berto and S. Li et al., 2016a. Ecosphere protection through green energy. Am. J. Applied Sci., 13: 1027-1032. DOI: 10.3844/ajassp.2016.1027.1032

Petrescu, F.I.T., A. Apicella, R.V.V. Petrescu, S.P. Kozaitis and R.B. Bucinell et al., 2016b. Environmental protection through nuclear energy. Am. J. Applied Sci., 13: 941-946.

Petrescu, F.I., Petrescu R.V., 2017 Velocities and accelerations at the 3R robots, ENGEVISTA 19(1):202-216.

Petrescu, RV., Petrescu, FIT., Aversa, R., Apicella, A., 2017 Nano Energy, Engevista, 19(2):267-292.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 ENERGIA VERDE PARA PROTEGER O MEIO AMBIENTE, Geintec, 7(1):3722-3743.

Aversa, R., Petrescu, RV., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Under Water, OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences, 17(2): 70-87.

Aversa, R., Petrescu, RV., Apicella, A., Petrescu, Fit., 2017 Nano-Diamond Hybrid Materials for Structural Biomedical Application, American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 13(1): 34-41.

Syed, J., Dharrab, AA., Zafa, MS., Khand, E., Aversa, R., Petrescu, RV., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Influence of Curing Light Type and Staining Medium on the Discoloring Stability of Dental Restorative Composite, American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 13(1): 42-50.

Aversa, R., Petrescu, RV., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Chen, G., Li, S., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Kinematics and Forces to a New Model Forging Manipulator, American Journal of Applied Sciences 14(1):60-80.

Aversa, R., Petrescu, RV., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., Calautit, JK., Mirsayar, MM., Bucinell, R., Berto, F., Akash, B., 2017 Something about the V Engines Design, American Journal of Applied Sciences 14(1):34-52.

Aversa, R., Parcesepe, D., Petrescu, RV., Berto, F., Chen, G., Petrescu, FIT., Tamburrino, F., Apicella, A., 2017 Processability of Bulk Metallic Glasses, American Journal of Applied Sciences 14(2): 294-301.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Calautit, JK., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Yield at Thermal Engines Internal Combustion, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 10(1): 243-251.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Velocities and Accelerations at the 3R Mechatronic Systems, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 10(1): 252-263.

Berto, F., Gagani, A., Petrescu, RV., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 A Review of the Fatigue Strength of Load Carrying Shear Welded Joints, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 10(1):1-12.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Anthropomorphic Solid Structures n-R Kinematics, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 10(1): 279-291.

Aversa, R., Petrescu, RV., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Chen, G., Li, S., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Something about the Balancing of Thermal Motors, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 10(1):200-217.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Inverse Kinematics at the Anthropomorphic Robots, by a Trigonometric Method, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 394-411.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Calautit, JK., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Forces at Internal Combustion Engines, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 382-393.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Gears-Part I, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 457-472.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Gears-Part II, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 473-483.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Cam-Gears Forces, Velocities, Powers and Efficiency, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 491-505.

Aversa, R., Petrescu, RV., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 A Dynamic Model for Gears, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 484-490.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Kosaitis, S., Abu-Lebdeh, T., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Dynamics of Mechanisms with Cams Illustrated in the Classical Distribution, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 551-567.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Bucinell, R., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Kosaitis, S., Abu-Lebdeh, T., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Testing by Non-Destructive Control, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 568-583.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Li, S., Mirsayar, MM., Bucinell, R., Kosaitis, S., Abu-Lebdeh, T., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Electron Dimensions, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(2): 584-602.

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Kozaitis, S., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Deuteron Dimensions, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(3).

Petrescu RV., Aversa R., Apicella A., Petrescu FIT., 2017 Transportation Engineering, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(3).

Petrescu RV., Aversa R., Kozaitis S., Apicella A., Petrescu FIT., 2017 Some Proposed Solutions to Achieve Nuclear Fusion, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(3).

Petrescu RV., Aversa R., Kozaitis S., Apicella A., Petrescu FIT., 2017 Some Basic Reactions in Nuclear Fusion, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(3).

Petrescu, Relly Victoria; Aversa, Raffaella; Akash, Bilal; Bucinell, Ronald; Corchado, Juan; Berto, Filippo; Mirsayar, MirMilad; Apicella, Antonio; Petrescu, Florian Ion Tiberiu; 2017a Modern Propulsions for Aerospace-A Review, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, Relly Victoria; Aversa, Raffaella; Akash, Bilal; Bucinell, Ronald; Corchado, Juan; Berto, Filippo; Mirsayar, MirMilad; Apicella, Antonio; Petrescu, Florian Ion Tiberiu; 2017b Modern Propulsions for Aerospace-Part II, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, Relly Victoria; Aversa, Raffaella; Akash, Bilal; Bucinell, Ronald; Corchado, Juan; Berto, Filippo; Mirsayar, MirMilad; Apicella, Antonio; Petrescu, Florian Ion Tiberiu; 2017c History of Aviation-A Short Review, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, Relly Victoria; Aversa, Raffaella; Akash, Bilal; Bucinell, Ronald; Corchado, Juan; Berto, Filippo; Mirsayar, MirMilad; Apicella, Antonio; Petrescu, Florian Ion Tiberiu; 2017d Lockheed Martin-A Short Review, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, Relly Victoria; Aversa, Raffaella; Akash, Bilal; Corchado, Juan; Berto, Filippo; Mirsayar, MirMilad; Apicella, Antonio; Petrescu, Florian Ion Tiberiu; 2017e Our Universe, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, Relly Victoria; Aversa, Raffaella; Akash, Bilal; Corchado, Juan; Berto, Filippo; Mirsayar, MirMilad; Apicella, Antonio; Petrescu, Florian Ion Tiberiu; 2017f What is a UFO?, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 About Bell Helicopter FCX-001 Concept Aircraft-A Short Review, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Home at Airbus, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, MM., Kozaitis, S., Abu-Lebdeh, T., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 Airlander, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

Petrescu, RV., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Apicella, A., Petrescu, FIT., 2017 When Boeing is Dreaming – a Review, Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(1).

History of aviation, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation

History of ballooning, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ballooning

Airship, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

High-altitude platform station, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station

Integrated Sensor is Structure, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Sensor_is_Structure

Mystery airship, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Seaplane, Part I, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/seaplane-part-i.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Seaplane, Part II, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/seaplane-part-ii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Seaplane, Part III, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/seaplane-part-iii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Seaplane, Part IV, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/seaplane-part-iv.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Seaplane, Part V, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/seaplane-part-v.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Aircraft Carriers, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/aircraft-carriers.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 The Battle of MIDWAY, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/the-battle-of-midway.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 24, 2017 Ships STOVL, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/ships-stovl.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 24, 2017 Invisible Aircraft, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/invisible-aircraft.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 24, 2017 Planes which have made History, Part I, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/planes-which-have-made-history-part-i.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 24, 2017 Planes which have made History, Part II, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/planes-which-have-made-history-part-ii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 20, 2017 About Helicopters, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/about-helicopters.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 20, 2017 Flight memories, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/flight-memories.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 20, 2017 Special Aircraft, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/special-aircraft.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 6, 2017 About the Airlander, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/about-the-airlander.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part I, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-i.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part II, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-ii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part III, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-iii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part IV, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-iv.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part V, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-v.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part VI, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-vi.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part VII, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-vii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part VIII, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-viii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part IX, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-ix.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part X, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-x.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part XI, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-xi.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 NACA and NASA, Part XII, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/naca-and-nasa-part-xii.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Nano Energy, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/nano-energy.html

Petrescu RVV., Petrescu FIT., July 28, 2017 Glassy Amorphous Metal Injection, Articles Factory. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/technology/glassy-amorphous-metal-injection.html