https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/zeroavia-hydrogen-test-bed-crashes-after-off-airport-landing/?MailingID=604

If this was a "safe, off-airport landing", I'd sure hate to see a
dangerous off-airport crash. Anytime you rip a wing off, I think that
crosses the line between the two.

"Aircraft has sustained some damage..." is a masterful understatement for a totaled aircraft. But I have to ask: what exactly is the point of a hydrogen powered airplane? 96% of commercial hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, why not just use the fossil fuels? To fleece ignorant investors I'd assume, but still....
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 6:58:29 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/zeroavia-hydrogen-test-bed-crashes-after-off-airport-landing/?MailingID=604
>
> If this was a "safe, off-airport landing", I'd sure hate to see a
> dangerous off-airport crash. Anytime you rip a wing off, I think that
> crosses the line between the two.

On 5/3/21 8:59 AM, jfitch wrote:
> "Aircraft has sustained some damage..." is a masterful understatement for a totaled aircraft. But I have to ask: what exactly is the point of a hydrogen powered airplane? 96% of commercial hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, why not just use the fossil fuels? To fleece ignorant investors I'd assume, but still....
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 6:58:29 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/zeroavia-hydrogen-test-bed-crashes-after-off-airport-landing/?MailingID=604
>>
>> If this was a "safe, off-airport landing", I'd sure hate to see a
>> dangerous off-airport crash. Anytime you rip a wing off, I think that
>> crosses the line between the two.

It's not just ignorant investors getting fleeced, unwilling taxpayers
are the targets of these scams thanks to ignorant governments.

But some of these new projects are truly revolutionary. Take the ASKA.
Please. Here you have a car that fits in your garage, electric motors
in the wheels to run around town, and for longer trips, just push a
button and it unfolds into marvelous flying machine. For the same price
as a nice motorglider, you get six engines instead of one, with a 250
mile range, beating even a Jeta. And it does the vertical takeoff,
eliminating that annoying trip to the airport. This baby's going to be
flying next year. Since not even lithium batteries last forever, it's
got a dirty old ICE engine, but with the ever popular hydrogen option to
keep the greenie weenies happy. It's something George Jetson never
could have dreamed of. Just hope it meets California emission standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TGVSoejkW4

On Mon, 03 May 2021 09:22:58 -0600, kinsell wrote:

> On 5/3/21 8:59 AM, jfitch wrote:
>> "Aircraft has sustained some damage..." is a masterful understatement
>> for a totaled aircraft. But I have to ask: what exactly is the point of
>> a hydrogen powered airplane? 96% of commercial hydrogen is produced
>> from fossil fuels, why not just use the fossil fuels? To fleece
>> ignorant investors I'd assume, but still....
>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 6:58:29 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>> https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/zeroavia-hydrogen-test-bed-
crashes-after-off-airport-landing/?MailingID=604
>>>
>>> If this was a "safe, off-airport landing", I'd sure hate to see a
>>> dangerous off-airport crash. Anytime you rip a wing off, I think that
>>> crosses the line between the two.
>
> It's not just ignorant investors getting fleeced, unwilling taxpayers
> are the targets of these scams thanks to ignorant governments.
>
> But some of these new projects are truly revolutionary. Take the ASKA.
> Please. Here you have a car that fits in your garage, electric motors
> in the wheels to run around town, and for longer trips, just push a
> button and it unfolds into marvelous flying machine. For the same price
> as a nice motorglider, you get six engines instead of one, with a 250
> mile range, beating even a Jeta. And it does the vertical takeoff,
> eliminating that annoying trip to the airport. This baby's going to be
> flying next year. Since not even lithium batteries last forever, it's
> got a dirty old ICE engine, but with the ever popular hydrogen option to
> keep the greenie weenies happy. It's something George Jetson never
> could have dreamed of. Just hope it meets California emission
> standards.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TGVSoejkW4

Design, build prototype, test fly, certify, scale up into production in 5
years with apparently no hardware to show off yet? Really?

.... and there's always Alauda, https://airspeeder.com/ whose only visible
progress is a crash in 2019 that attracted the AAIB's attention and
generated a scathing report from them, AAIB-25876, last year.

Meanwhile, Joby Aviation say they've been working on their flying
electric taxi for 10 years and 1000 flights, yet are only planning
certification for 2023 and starting operations in 2024.

Of these, only the latter seem likely to have an eVTOL aircraft close to
commercial operation by 2025.

In any case, since these all have unshielded rotors, what are the chances
that any of them will ever be certified for off-airfield operations?

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 5/3/21 12:02 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2021 09:22:58 -0600, kinsell wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/21 8:59 AM, jfitch wrote:
>>> "Aircraft has sustained some damage..." is a masterful understatement
>>> for a totaled aircraft. But I have to ask: what exactly is the point of
>>> a hydrogen powered airplane? 96% of commercial hydrogen is produced
>>> from fossil fuels, why not just use the fossil fuels? To fleece
>>> ignorant investors I'd assume, but still....
>>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 6:58:29 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>>>> https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/zeroavia-hydrogen-test-bed-
> crashes-after-off-airport-landing/?MailingID=604
>>>>
>>>> If this was a "safe, off-airport landing", I'd sure hate to see a
>>>> dangerous off-airport crash. Anytime you rip a wing off, I think that
>>>> crosses the line between the two.
>>
>> It's not just ignorant investors getting fleeced, unwilling taxpayers
>> are the targets of these scams thanks to ignorant governments.
>>
>> But some of these new projects are truly revolutionary. Take the ASKA.
>> Please. Here you have a car that fits in your garage, electric motors
>> in the wheels to run around town, and for longer trips, just push a
>> button and it unfolds into marvelous flying machine. For the same price
>> as a nice motorglider, you get six engines instead of one, with a 250
>> mile range, beating even a Jeta. And it does the vertical takeoff,
>> eliminating that annoying trip to the airport. This baby's going to be
>> flying next year. Since not even lithium batteries last forever, it's
>> got a dirty old ICE engine, but with the ever popular hydrogen option to
>> keep the greenie weenies happy. It's something George Jetson never
>> could have dreamed of. Just hope it meets California emission
>> standards.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TGVSoejkW4
>
> Design, build prototype, test fly, certify, scale up into production in 5
> years with apparently no hardware to show off yet? Really?
>
> ... and there's always Alauda, https://airspeeder.com/ whose only visible
> progress is a crash in 2019 that attracted the AAIB's attention and
> generated a scathing report from them, AAIB-25876, last year.
>
> Meanwhile, Joby Aviation say they've been working on their flying
> electric taxi for 10 years and 1000 flights, yet are only planning
> certification for 2023 and starting operations in 2024.
>
> Of these, only the latter seem likely to have an eVTOL aircraft close to
> commercial operation by 2025.
>
> In any case, since these all have unshielded rotors, what are the chances
> that any of them will ever be certified for off-airfield operations?
>
>

here's another VTOL air taxi thingie, using hydrogen fuel cells. 2019
article sez they were hoping for FAA certification in 2020. You betcha.
Then the CEO says it'll be another 10 years before the service is
practical.

https://www.greenoptimistic.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-flying-car-reaches-400-miles-of-range-20190603/

It's "fundamentally human" and "here today" (in 2019). So let's see one.

Oh..come on Fitch.
TV science shows demonstrate solar panels powering electrolytic generation of hydrogen.
Unlimited hydrogen from the sun's power.
Same with cars. Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the batteries continuously for free.
Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power coming from solar panels.
Just like unlimited power from fission...it is only 10 years away.

On Tue, 04 May 2021 19:29:42 -0700, Guy Acheson wrote:

> Same with cars. Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the
> batteries continuously for free.
>
Sure have - but lightweight, single seat vehicled with large, flat top
surfaces covered with solar cells. Specially designed to race across
Australia.

> Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power coming
> from solar panels.
>
Yep, and one even flew round the world on solar power. But lets not
forget that it was huge, a single seater, flew at 35-40 kts and took
weeks to finish the journey.

> Just like unlimited power from fission...it is only 10 years away.
>
Thats the problem with the kids who should know better - they're unable
to distinguish between a hobby/proof of concept vehicle and something you
can buy right now and drive to Vegas for a weekend.

Isn't it wonderful to read about all those VTOL electric cars that will
be available for anybody to buy and fly in four years time, but right now
only exist as shiny graphics plus a price on some website? Not!

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 5/5/2021 12:20 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2021 19:29:42 -0700, Guy Acheson wrote:
>
>> Same with cars. Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the
>> batteries continuously for free.
>>
> Sure have - but lightweight, single seat vehicled with large, flat top
> surfaces covered with solar cells. Specially designed to race across
> Australia.
>
>> Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power coming
>> from solar panels.
>>
> Yep, and one even flew round the world on solar power. But lets not
> forget that it was huge, a single seater, flew at 35-40 kts and took
> weeks to finish the journey.
>
>> Just like unlimited power from fission...it is only 10 years away.
>>
> Thats the problem with the kids who should know better - they're unable
> to distinguish between a hobby/proof of concept vehicle and something you
> can buy right now and drive to Vegas for a weekend.
>
> Isn't it wonderful to read about all those VTOL electric cars that will
> be available for anybody to buy and fly in four years time, but right now
> only exist as shiny graphics plus a price on some website? Not!

Sometimes, I wonder what was said when automobiles were one-offs and horses
provided the local transportation for people and goods and trains for long
distances. Imagine how impractical they were in the beginning: poor roads, no
fueling or repair stations, very expensive. And not safe to use while drunk
because you'd crash, while a horse would keep you safe, maybe even get you home.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

On Wed, 05 May 2021 06:22:15 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> On 5/5/2021 12:20 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 May 2021 19:29:42 -0700, Guy Acheson wrote:
>>
>>> Same with cars. Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the
>>> batteries continuously for free.
>>>
>> Sure have - but lightweight, single seat vehicled with large, flat top
>> surfaces covered with solar cells. Specially designed to race across
>> Australia.
>>
>>> Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power
>>> coming from solar panels.
>>>
>> Yep, and one even flew round the world on solar power. But lets not
>> forget that it was huge, a single seater, flew at 35-40 kts and took
>> weeks to finish the journey.
>>
>>> Just like unlimited power from fission...it is only 10 years away.
>>>
>> Thats the problem with the kids who should know better - they're unable
>> to distinguish between a hobby/proof of concept vehicle and something
>> you can buy right now and drive to Vegas for a weekend.
>>
>> Isn't it wonderful to read about all those VTOL electric cars that will
>> be available for anybody to buy and fly in four years time, but right
>> now only exist as shiny graphics plus a price on some website? Not!
>
> Sometimes, I wonder what was said when automobiles were one-offs and
> horses provided the local transportation for people and goods and trains
> for long distances. Imagine how impractical they were in the beginning:
> poor roads, no fueling or repair stations, very expensive. And not safe
> to use while drunk because you'd crash, while a horse would keep you
> safe, maybe even get you home.
>
I think you're missing my point: there are a couple of eVTOL aircraft
that have been flying for several years, not yet certified but planned to
be on sale in four years or so.

I'm not talking about the Terrafugia either - that does fly - or even the
Moller Flying cars, which Paul Moller has been building for getting on 50
years: these have flown, though never without a safety tether and never,
AFAICT, with anybody on board.

As I said, I'm not talking about them. What I AM pointing the finger at
are several whose entire existence seems to art on a glossy website with
no news about financing, construction, or test flying development
progress yet with promises to be on sale on four years time at already-
announced prices.

These are the projects that deserve critical examination, not rave
reviews in glossy magazines.

One that comes close to this is the Alauda Airspeeder
https://alaudaracing.com/

This was a 1/3 scale prototype was built and flown, but crashed, thanks
to poorly thought systems which were also badly implemented. There's an
AAIB report about it, which is worth reading as an object lesson on how
not to develop a prototype aircraft:

AAIB investigation to Alauda Airspeeder Mk II, (UAS, registration n/a)
040719
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-alauda-airspeeder-
mk-ii-uas-registration-n-slash-a-040719

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 5/5/2021 7:39 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2021 06:22:15 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2021 12:20 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 May 2021 19:29:42 -0700, Guy Acheson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Same with cars. Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the
>>>> batteries continuously for free.
>>>>
>>> Sure have - but lightweight, single seat vehicled with large, flat top
>>> surfaces covered with solar cells. Specially designed to race across
>>> Australia.
>>>
>>>> Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power
>>>> coming from solar panels.
>>>>
>>> Yep, and one even flew round the world on solar power. But lets not
>>> forget that it was huge, a single seater, flew at 35-40 kts and took
>>> weeks to finish the journey.
>>>
>>>> Just like unlimited power from fission...it is only 10 years away.
>>>>
>>> Thats the problem with the kids who should know better - they're unable
>>> to distinguish between a hobby/proof of concept vehicle and something
>>> you can buy right now and drive to Vegas for a weekend.
>>>
>>> Isn't it wonderful to read about all those VTOL electric cars that will
>>> be available for anybody to buy and fly in four years time, but right
>>> now only exist as shiny graphics plus a price on some website? Not!
>>
>> Sometimes, I wonder what was said when automobiles were one-offs and
>> horses provided the local transportation for people and goods and trains
>> for long distances. Imagine how impractical they were in the beginning:
>> poor roads, no fueling or repair stations, very expensive. And not safe
>> to use while drunk because you'd crash, while a horse would keep you
>> safe, maybe even get you home.
>>
> I think you're missing my point: there are a couple of eVTOL aircraft
> that have been flying for several years, not yet certified but planned to
> be on sale in four years or so.
>
> I'm not talking about the Terrafugia either - that does fly - or even the
> Moller Flying cars, which Paul Moller has been building for getting on 50
> years: these have flown, though never without a safety tether and never,
> AFAICT, with anybody on board.
>
> As I said, I'm not talking about them. What I AM pointing the finger at
> are several whose entire existence seems to art on a glossy website with
> no news about financing, construction, or test flying development
> progress yet with promises to be on sale on four years time at already-
> announced prices.
>
> These are the projects that deserve critical examination, not rave
> reviews in glossy magazines.
>
> One that comes close to this is the Alauda Airspeeder
> https://alaudaracing.com/
>
> This was a 1/3 scale prototype was built and flown, but crashed, thanks
> to poorly thought systems which were also badly implemented. There's an
> AAIB report about it, which is worth reading as an object lesson on how
> not to develop a prototype aircraft:
>
> AAIB investigation to Alauda Airspeeder Mk II, (UAS, registration n/a)
> 040719
> https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-alauda-airspeeder-
> mk-ii-uas-registration-n-slash-a-040719

My apologies: my remarks weren't intended as criticism of your comments, but
more generally about the difficulty of predicting the future. I think there are
some parallels with horses/autos and now autos/evtol that are at least
interesting, maybe useful to know. I suspect there were also entities back then
making promises about their autos and the future of automobiles that were too
optimistic, and some of those were charlatans looking for investors to fleece.

As for flying cars, I think airport loaner cars, Hertz, and Uber are better
solutions to a pilot's ground transportation needs.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

On 5/5/2021 9:22 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 5/5/2021 12:20 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 May 2021 19:29:42 -0700, Guy Acheson wrote:
>>
>>> Same with cars.  Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the
>>> batteries continuously for free.
>>>
>> Sure have - but lightweight, single seat vehicled with large, flat top
>> surfaces covered with solar cells. Specially designed to race across
>> Australia.
>>
>>> Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power coming
>>> from solar panels.
>>>
>> Yep, and one even flew round the world on solar power. But lets not
>> forget that it was huge, a single seater, flew at 35-40 kts and took
>> weeks to finish the journey.
>>
>>> Just like unlimited power from fission...it is only 10 years away.
>>>
>> Thats the problem with the kids who should know better - they're unable
>> to distinguish between a hobby/proof of concept vehicle and something you
>> can buy right now and drive to Vegas for a weekend.
>>
>> Isn't it wonderful to read about all those VTOL electric cars that will
>> be available for anybody to buy and fly in four years time, but right now
>> only exist as shiny graphics plus a price on some website?  Not!
>
> Sometimes, I wonder what was said when automobiles were one-offs and
> horses provided the local transportation for people and goods and trains
> for long distances. Imagine how impractical they were in the beginning:
> poor roads, no fueling or repair stations, very expensive. And not safe
> to use while drunk because you'd crash, while a horse would keep you
> safe, maybe even get you home.
>

Ah yes, back then we even had "self driving cars" (horses)! :-)

On Wednesday, 5 May 2021 at 15:39:57 UTC+1, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2021 06:22:15 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > On 5/5/2021 12:20 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> These are the projects that deserve critical examination, not rave
> reviews in glossy magazines.
>
> One that comes close to this is the Alauda Airspeeder
> https://alaudaracing.com/
>
> This was a 1/3 scale prototype was built and flown, but crashed, thanks
> to poorly thought systems which were also badly implemented. There's an
> AAIB report about it, which is worth reading as an object lesson on how
> not to develop a prototype aircraft:
>
> AAIB investigation to Alauda Airspeeder Mk II, (UAS, registration n/a)
> 040719
> https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-alauda-airspeeder-
> mk-ii-uas-registration-n-slash-a-040719
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Interesting. My only previous knowledge of this accident was a regional TV news item, with a brief description, and including a photo from ~8000' in controlled airspace.

It brings to mind an old semi-famous comment by a gliding instructor about a certain aircraft: Fly it? I wouldn't walk under it..

On Wed, 05 May 2021 08:46:35 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> On 5/5/2021 7:39 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2021 06:22:15 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2021 12:20 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 04 May 2021 19:29:42 -0700, Guy Acheson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Same with cars. Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the
>>>>> batteries continuously for free.
>>>>>
>>>> Sure have - but lightweight, single seat vehicled with large, flat
>>>> top surfaces covered with solar cells. Specially designed to race
>>>> across Australia.
>>>>
>>>>> Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power
>>>>> coming from solar panels.
>>>>>
>>>> Yep, and one even flew round the world on solar power. But lets not
>>>> forget that it was huge, a single seater, flew at 35-40 kts and took
>>>> weeks to finish the journey.
>>>>
>>>>> Just like unlimited power from fission...it is only 10 years away.
>>>>>
>>>> Thats the problem with the kids who should know better - they're
>>>> unable to distinguish between a hobby/proof of concept vehicle and
>>>> something you can buy right now and drive to Vegas for a weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it wonderful to read about all those VTOL electric cars that
>>>> will be available for anybody to buy and fly in four years time, but
>>>> right now only exist as shiny graphics plus a price on some website?
>>>> Not!
>>>
>>> Sometimes, I wonder what was said when automobiles were one-offs and
>>> horses provided the local transportation for people and goods and
>>> trains for long distances. Imagine how impractical they were in the
>>> beginning: poor roads, no fueling or repair stations, very expensive.
>>> And not safe to use while drunk because you'd crash, while a horse
>>> would keep you safe, maybe even get you home.
>>>
>> I think you're missing my point: there are a couple of eVTOL aircraft
>> that have been flying for several years, not yet certified but planned
>> to be on sale in four years or so.
>>
>> I'm not talking about the Terrafugia either - that does fly - or even
>> the Moller Flying cars, which Paul Moller has been building for getting
>> on 50 years: these have flown, though never without a safety tether and
>> never, AFAICT, with anybody on board.
>>
>> As I said, I'm not talking about them. What I AM pointing the finger at
>> are several whose entire existence seems to art on a glossy website
>> with no news about financing, construction, or test flying development
>> progress yet with promises to be on sale on four years time at already-
>> announced prices.
>>
>> These are the projects that deserve critical examination, not rave
>> reviews in glossy magazines.
>>
>> One that comes close to this is the Alauda Airspeeder
>> https://alaudaracing.com/
>>
>> This was a 1/3 scale prototype was built and flown, but crashed, thanks
>> to poorly thought systems which were also badly implemented. There's an
>> AAIB report about it, which is worth reading as an object lesson on how
>> not to develop a prototype aircraft:
>>
>> AAIB investigation to Alauda Airspeeder Mk II, (UAS, registration n/a)
>> 040719
>> https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-alauda-
airspeeder-
>> mk-ii-uas-registration-n-slash-a-040719
>
> My apologies: my remarks weren't intended as criticism of your comments,
> but more generally about the difficulty of predicting the future. I
> think there are some parallels with horses/autos and now autos/evtol
> that are at least interesting, maybe useful to know. I suspect there
> were also entities back then making promises about their autos and the
> future of automobiles that were too optimistic, and some of those were
> charlatans looking for investors to fleece.
>
> As for flying cars, I think airport loaner cars, Hertz, and Uber are
> better solutions to a pilot's ground transportation needs.

No problem!

BTW, did you ever see those videos circulating a year or two back about
electric flying taxis that small Chinese outfits were developing? They
were designed to carry 1-2 people in what looked like urban areas. They
all looked like giant drones with four unshielded rotors, but the scary
feature was that the cabin sat in the middle above the rotors, which were
at roughly knee level when on the ground. The riders had to walk between
the rotors to get in or out, and they didn't look exactly safe for
pedestrians on a windy, gusty day either.

I think I'd prefer a rickshaw pulled by a robot, especially if it was one
of the clanking, coal-powered, steam driven variety from a Harry Harrison
Stainless Steel Rat novel. That would be fun even if I did get cinders in
my eye.

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 5/5/21 1:20 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2021 19:29:42 -0700, Guy Acheson wrote:
>
>> Same with cars. Solar panels covering the surface will recharge the
>> batteries continuously for free.
>>
> Sure have - but lightweight, single seat vehicled with large, flat top
> surfaces covered with solar cells. Specially designed to race across
> Australia.
>
>> Airplanes have already demonstrated powered flight with all power coming
>> from solar panels.
>>
> Yep, and one even flew round the world on solar power. But lets not
> forget that it was huge, a single seater, flew at 35-40 kts and took
> weeks to finish the journey.
>

You're speaking of the Solar Impulse 2? Took a year and a half, a large
support team of meteorologists, a cargo plane following them carrying a
huge inflatable hangar, and lots of supplies. They fried their
batteries and had to replace in the field.

A noble experiment, proved it could be done, but also proved it's a hell
of a long ways from being practical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qbROmxxIOU