Joe-fbs wrote:
Airships have flown in icing conditions throughout their history
Not really. The North Pole expedition in 1926 were one of the few with icing. This can be read:
After crossing the pole, ice encrustations kept growing on the airship to such an extent that pieces breaking off would be blown by the propellers and strike the fabric hull.
The ice forming on the propellors as we went through the fog, and hurled against the underside of the bag, had pretty well scarred up the fabric covering the keel, though it had not opened up the gas bags or caused any hydrogen loss. We had used up all our cement in repairing the fabric…
Joe-fbs wrote:
Antonio, please provide a reference for your comment as it is not stated in the various documents about the Italia flight that I have studied so I am interested to see what you have seen please.
11 years ago I read Wilbur Cross’ excellent account of the Italia expedition in Disaster at the pole.
I felt inspired to set our own expedition to the pole in our lowly non-deiced 177RG to commemorate the 80th anniversary and then did some more research on period (New York Times amongst others) and subsequent accounts.
I seem to recall envelope icing was mentioned as one of the causes of the loss of lift of the airship, together with overheating-caused venting after flying out of the clouds and some other causes, but am currently away and I do not have the sources handy. I also recall the difficult efforts in scraping the ice off of the envelope by crewmen secured with ropes…
I think there was a lot of controversy (not just technical but also political) on the causes for the accident.
What is your own view as to the [technical] causes?
RNAS WW1 and US Navy 1942 to 1962 both did large amounts of safe and successful flying in icing conditions
Any references?
So, in effect you have no case, and airships will ice down like everything else, this includes your airship 
Joe-fbs wrote:
Pages and pages of them which my employer has paid me to gather and summarise over the past year. I am not publishing the list here for our competitors to use.
I can see that, but if you have that many references, surely positing one or two of them here would not substantially help any competitors?
Airborne_Again wrote:
I can see that, but if you have that many references, surely positing one or two of them here would not substantially help any competitors?
Most of R&D references are already on public domains, especially those from Academia
Still your ex-employer could come after you with your own signature of the “confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement”, this is even more valid in aviation/defense where your employer is {private+state} and competitors are “aliens countries”…
The funny bit, when it is too much specialized research/topic even your colleagues/boss don’t understand what you do with all references, let alone a competitor
Surely anything will ice up in the right conditions.
Blunt leading edges collect less ice than sharp ones; that’s probably the main difference…
Ibra wrote:
Most of R&D references are already on public domains, especially those from Academia
Yes, but Joe-fbs was referring to a list of references. Quite a bit of work could have gone into producing that list, finding out what references there are and what references are relevant. I can see that such a list could have value to a competitor, but if there really are “pages and pages” of them, I don’t see any harm in letting us know one or two.
Agree, one public reference by itself is no harm, the full list probably falls under proprietary work…
Today, the “scientific value or truth of a paper or work” relates to how much references it point to/from (same as many other “truths in the internet”, including fake news & bitcoin looks like PageRank which was originally derived from this ArticleScoring), other than this you can claim what you like “as science”….
Joe’s posts removed on his request.
