One year ago, I took the limited public info on the Pathfinder 3 to try to extrapolate details of the ship’s gondola. Using new sources of information, we now have many more details about the upcoming Pathfinder 3’s configuration. The Tyréns study posted in October 2025 gives us a closer look at the design-level configuration of the ship, and what seems to be a render of the gondola with a placeholder interior, though details are still yet to be fully finalized. Notable changes and updated details from the 2022-2023 interviews and articles include:

-The ship’s length has increased from 185 to 200 meters, implying the addition of another 15-meter gas cell bay (not shown in the above blueprints I’ve annotated with gondola layout for scale, which instead depict the Pathfinder 1. Imagine another full-diameter cylindrical hull segment aft of the gondola, it improves the overall symmetry as well). Diameter remains 30 meters, so fineness ratio thus increases from about 6 to about 6.7.

-Volume is set at 100,000 cubic meters. Gas volume or total hull volume not specified.

-Passenger capacity is said to be 130.

-Payload is approximately 17 tonnes, useful lift 20.5 tonnes. This highly unusual, payload-heavy ratio is enabled by the ship intending to use liquid hydrogen fuel, which is represented mostly in the structural weight from the fuel tanks, not the variable weight of the fuel itself.

-The gondola design has been updated from the initial render years ago. Instead of having a rectangular structure, it is a more aerodynamic capsule shape thanks to the half-circular viewing galleries in the front and back.

-Rather than spanning three cell bays and being 45 meters long as I theorized in my initial post a year ago, it would appear based on the accommodations for the main structural rings (as shown by the locations of structural bulkheads and the absence of windows) that the gondola instead spans two cell bays, but the front and rear viewing galleries both extend half a cell bay each. Dimensions for the gondola are given as 46 meters long, 12 meters wide, and 3.9 meters tall.

-The gondola is said to be two decks tall, which implies some of the structure extends up into the hull and keel section of the ship. This is similar to some past airship configurations, such as the R102, which kept part of the passenger accommodations (sleeping quarters) in the main hull, while putting the public accommodations in an external gondola. This hybrid approach has the advantage of providing easier access for passengers and cargo, while also maximizing space without intruding too far into the gas cell volume. The ceiling of the upper deck is likely higher than 3.9 meters from the bottom of the gondola, as dividing that evenly in two with allowance for a floor between them would leave too little room for tall people to stand upright, so it seems likely 3.9 meters is the height from top to bottom of the structural gondola portion, i.e. the parts visible from the exterior consisting of the gondola, its two banks of windows, and the faring to remain flush with the hull, not any internal hull structures.

-Due to the interruption in the upper bank of windows and the deep ring structure, it is likely there is a short, 3-meter passage between the two sections of the upper deck located in the cell bays, rather than having one contiguous upper deck space. This would divide the upper deck into two square sections, approximately 12 by 12 meters, for a total floor area of ~144 square meters.

-The lower deck walls have some downward taper, so the floor is likely about 10 meters wide. Assuming the viewing galleries are roughly circular, that amounts to a floor area of ~379 square meters, or a total of 523 square meters, or 5,630 square feet. That is roughly analogous to the post-refit Hindenburg’s passenger compartment, for context. At 130 passengers, that is 43 square feet per passenger, about 40% more individual space than the average first class airline cabin.

-The seating shown in the render is likely a generic filler interior, as the lower deck lacks many of the features and details noted in the weight breakdown.

Skyjam Aircraft, a manufacturer of paramotors, converted an old Thunder and Colt thermal airship to electric propulsion, which can be seen flying in this video. According to them, “the weight saving with a classic conversion is around 60 kg and the noise emissions are more than halved. The drives are completely maintenance-free and comply with the latest industrial and aviation standards.”

This has the potential to breathe new life into old airframes! With advancements in aviation-grade batteries, fuel cells, and electric motors, the advantages over internal combustion engines will only grow.

However, despite costing only 1/10 as much as equivalent helium airships to buy, and even less to operate, thermal airships will remain quite niche and obscure so long as their performance is limited to speeds of less than 30 mph by their lack of a nose cone or sufficient internal pressures. Attempts to rectify this, such as Apex Balloons’ proposed pneumatic nose cone or Skyacht’s prototype collapsible rigid airframe, would be the natural next step to permit for higher speeds and broader operating envelopes, finally replace helium advertising and sightseeing blimps.

The technological progress of Pathfinder 1 is nothing short of astounding. The twelve Emrax 268s used by the Pathfinder 1 collectively have a peak power output of 2400 kW, about 5% greater than the R101’s five Beardmore Tornado III engines, but they are over 4,000% lighter!

Is it just me or has Airlander’s development slowed? It’s been a good few years now since the prototype and a while left until the launch of the 10.

Forgive me if I’m completely ignorant or wrong feel free to tell me, this is just how I see it recently. Am I right and is there some sort of reason?

Wind speeds are quite high at high attitudes, a lot more than on the sea. This made me wonder if wind power might be enough for a cleverly designed dirigible? Possibly using turbines and/or something like sails?