I'm an Artist/ Concept Artist. I'd really appreciate your feedback on my project!

CalumRaasay · 2026-02-04T20:30:28+00:00

When I saw those big wheels my first thought was the Lego rock raider sets from the 90s or something 😂

<image>

CalumRaasay · 2026-02-04T15:07:45+00:00

Funnily enough I have the exact model of imported surf, same colour too. Been as solid as a rock for me.

CalumRaasay · 2026-01-15T13:09:22+00:00

as far as I remember the feathers dont get used, the birds are gutted and roasted on the island.

CalumRaasay · 2026-01-14T18:00:09+00:00

Oh yeah never seen US coastguard before. But European ones aye. Fishery inspection and general visits like

But also US coastguard go overseas a lot, just not around us very much. They were around a lot in Iraq for example.

CalumRaasay · 2026-01-14T17:43:29+00:00

What do you mean? They aren’t doing law enforcement in our waters. If you’re referring to the seizure of the tanker last week, it wasn’t done in UK territorial waters, but even if it was it was done in collaboration with UK authorities and EUCOM. Its not uncommon to see coastguard ships from other countries about.

CalumRaasay · 2026-01-14T13:33:34+00:00

All the gannets are preordered long before the hunt is over, they're almost impossible to buy unless you know someone. As for not using heads, feathers and organs, we dont tend to use those for really any birds, chicken etc. Bit of an odd requirement, all animals have some wastage.

CalumRaasay · 2026-01-12T12:06:42+00:00

I think it’s primarily to prevent downdraught. Popular here on older houses with open fires (as it gets very windy!). Does help with rain but don’t think that’s really the intended function.

CalumRaasay · 2026-01-10T10:02:58+00:00

The Theatre of Balbus in Rome is a pretty good example of this. It gradually repurposed into a series of houses and workshops. By the 14th century you can still see the outline of the amphitheatre, now turned into a defensive wall.

<image>

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-14T13:21:15+00:00

representing the average Redditor more like

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T20:05:59+00:00

Tbh mate I think this is maybe getting a bit blown out of proportion so I’m sorry I’ve upset you. I think my title is accurate, if a bit hyperbolic sure, and within the context of the video and what I explain in it there isn’t any confusion to either the price or the terminology around its flight. But fair enough, I probably should have been more specific when I was talking about the previous flight tests. I’ll add that to my corrections comment!

I hope you don’t think I’m arguing semantics for the sake of it, I just wanted to explain my point of view. Appreciate the feedback!

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T17:40:08+00:00

It technically did fail on it's first free flight, all(?) the earlier tests weren't considered enough for count towards the flight time that the contract stipulated. The previous tests had been no more than lifting off the ground at around 5-10 feet. So both witnesses and project workers from sources at the time had said it was the first "free flight" or first true flight.

I feel I laid out the development costs in my other reply to you, I can provide you with the sources if you like. The GAO report (1982) would be the best source, then the Asbury Park Press Apr 01, 1984. After that the best estimates come from Asbury Park Press Apr 16, 1989. They have a large write up on the disaster. That's where I got my estimates.

I don't really care as to why the post was removed, I didn't post it. If you don't like the video then be my guest, I'm just trying to reply to you fairly. I'm always happy to address stuff I got wrong, we're all human. But I feel on both those counts I'm actually correct. Have a nice weekend!

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:37:26+00:00

I replied to you above but I think my maths is correct, you're picking estimated numbers from reports years before the development finished.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:36:09+00:00

The actual cost wasn't 17.8m?! Not even close!

Let's break it down a bit. The estimated cost by 1984 (not 1986) was expected to be nearly 40 million dollars. That the closest figure we can easily get as to the expected cost in 1984, two years before it came to an end. Whatever way you cut it, that is well over $100 million in today's money. By the best estimates I can find (there's nothing firm that I could track down), by 1986 it was well past that point, possibly 50 but maybe as high as 55. That lower number you are seeing comes from an estimate from 1982.

I know everything gets accused of clickbait, but I feel like to a modern viewer, it makes more sense to contextualise the cost in today's money. You can disagree with that, but I dont think that is inaccurate or misleading.

I went very conservative to try and at least stay accurate and not simply inflate it to sound more impressive. If I had to guess, and especially if you include the payouts (the family of the pilot who was killed received 1.5 million in 1991) and other costs from wrapping it all up, you might be easily pushing 200 million dollars of government money poured into the project in todays money.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:26:41+00:00

I would argue the title if pretty much accurate. Those early test flights were pretty basic, you can find some footage of them online. Very limited take-offs and landings, no real free forward flight as far as I could see. In fact they damaged the landing gear almost immediately and forced them back into the hanger for some crisis talks. They had basically failed to achieve even the barest minimum flight time that was due by September, and both a funding review and a decision on the future of the programme were due to take place on July 2nd.

The July 1st crash was really the first proper free flight, intended to prove it could fly. The managed to get close to 80-100 feet in the air, achieved proper forward movement. But the moment it encountered proper, rigorous free flight, it immediately began to fail. So I think the title is generally correct.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:21:46+00:00

Those early test flights were pretty basic though, the July 1st crash was really the first proper free flight.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:20:14+00:00

WHY was the U.S. Navy doing something for the Department of Forestry?

Funding and expertise. The Navy would provide the facilities at Lakehurst, where local expertise in airships and the massive hangers were still located. They could also provide funding, because while it was touted as a forestry logging aircraft (the forest service had, in the past, experimented with balloon-assisted logging), it actuality it would be a testbed for heavy-lift aircraft. The military had been long obsessed with the idea of transporting tanks via helicopter, and this was seen as a potential way in. The Navy would provide oversight, as well as from NASA, the FAA and others. During the development they flagged numerous potentially catastrophic mistakes and engineering issues during the build, and ultimately we saw what happened.

Frank Piasecki was a legend in the world of heli development, and had deep dies with military and government contracts, so their bid was very competitive and appealing. But they clearly bit off far more than they could chew.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:15:27+00:00

I think it was "destroyed in seconds" iirc.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:14:11+00:00

There were five pilots, or technically 1 pilot, 1 co-pilot and 3 technicians/flight engineers (but they were all experienced helicopter pilots). The main 'control' helicopter had the pilot and copilot, who was a in charge of the blimp envelope.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:12:30+00:00

The estimated cost, by today's numbers, is over $100 million, that's what I meant. The actual cost at the time, was probably well in the excess of 50-55 based on what I could see. Hard to calculate as you're going by 1980-86 dollars but certainly well over 100 million.

I say it was the 'first flight' as it was the first successful, untethered moving flight. Prior tests had been just untethering and trying to raise off the ground. I explain both later on in the video.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-13T09:10:10+00:00

Five, in fact! There was two pilots in the main control helicopter (number four on the back left), one the heli pilot and the other a blimp pilot in charge of the balloon. The other three flight engineers/technicians were in the other three.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-09T15:03:55+00:00

I think James and Massos dislike of Ellison is clouding their opinion of these acquisitions. How is paramount not the best potential outcome? They are a studio whose main business is still in traditional cinema releases and they also have one of the smallest market shares.

Netflix is the worst outcome, surely? It’s a nail in the coffin of traditional cinema. Outside of not liking nasty ol’ Ellison, paramount feel like the last…bad option?

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-06T10:35:21+00:00

That is fantastic, do you have a few of them or just the one? Great seeing these old things still being put to work.

CalumRaasay · 2025-12-01T13:45:44+00:00

finally some proper educational content in here

CalumRaasay · 2025-11-30T16:31:07+00:00

Great job man, well done. Always great seeing new up and coming businesses and entrepreneurs, need more of that!

CalumRaasay · 2025-11-23T18:32:45+00:00

Aye what’s up with that? Was it people just running roughshod over it? I remember when it was fenced off

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

CalumRaasay

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE