Wasn't the Hindenburg crash really weird
Discussion
TGCOTF-dewey said:
Noting the recent dwindling He supplies, they really could have been a much greener way of inter-continental travel.
It's not just a question of He supply, it's the fact that airships are huge, and therefore slow, both of which make them affected by winds and storms much more than an aeroplane.'Green' is all very well, but has a habit of being more expensive. So the business traveller who wants to be in NY by tomorrow money no object will take a jet; the ecomentalist can't afford an airship ticket and won't use a jet so stays at home. 'Green' is so often lovely in theory but falls at the cost or practicality hurdles.
Simpo Two said:
TGCOTF-dewey said:
Noting the recent dwindling He supplies, they really could have been a much greener way of inter-continental travel.
It's not just a question of He supply, it's the fact that airships are huge, and therefore slow, both of which make them affected by winds and storms much more than an aeroplane.'Green' is all very well, but has a habit of being more expensive. So the business traveller who wants to be in NY by tomorrow money no object will take a jet; the ecomentalist can't afford an airship ticket and won't use a jet so stays at home. 'Green' is so often lovely in theory but falls at the cost or practicality hurdles.
But had airship development continued in parallel to aircraft development, they needn't have cost more. They will now as airliner costs have long been amortised... Airships not at all.
What they offer is the ability to move very very large payloads faster than by sea and land. It's why the US DoD have thrown a chunk of money at them as alternative HL capability.
Their green credentials needn't cost more as none of the tech is particularly high tech... Photovoltaics, batteries (weight not as critical as heavier than air vehicles) and emotors.
It's all moot anyway as He supply is screwed and will get much much worse as O&G exploration gets smaller.
TBH, the whole thread is reminding me of the Archer episode on an airship
https://youtu.be/vzYLTnI7TUI
https://youtu.be/vzYLTnI7TUI
I've been on the Zeppelin NT on a trip over Bodensee (Lake Constance), Fantastic experience and I recommend the Zeppelin Museum at Friedrichaven.
There is a full size replica section of the Hindenburg lounge which lets you experience the feeling of being in the ship.
Having been an Airship enthusiast for a while,the technology behind the large rigids is very impressive.Flying Aircraft carriers, water recovery and collection e.t.c.
Taking off is quite an experience. Nothing like a plane or helicopter where you can feel the struggle to overcome gravity, in an airship, the ground seems to fall away...
As for the accident, I agree with the potential leaking rear gas bag caused by the sharp turn (ballast can be seen being dumped from the rear) causing the vent tubes to be filled with a mix of H2 and air which was ignited by static between the cover and the frame,
Oh and the Graf Zeppelin covered over 1,058,000 miles with no injuries to passengers or crew!
There is a full size replica section of the Hindenburg lounge which lets you experience the feeling of being in the ship.
Having been an Airship enthusiast for a while,the technology behind the large rigids is very impressive.Flying Aircraft carriers, water recovery and collection e.t.c.
Taking off is quite an experience. Nothing like a plane or helicopter where you can feel the struggle to overcome gravity, in an airship, the ground seems to fall away...
As for the accident, I agree with the potential leaking rear gas bag caused by the sharp turn (ballast can be seen being dumped from the rear) causing the vent tubes to be filled with a mix of H2 and air which was ignited by static between the cover and the frame,
Oh and the Graf Zeppelin covered over 1,058,000 miles with no injuries to passengers or crew!
ZedLeg said:
TBH, the whole thread is reminding me of the Archer episode on an airship
https://youtu.be/vzYLTnI7TUI
Danger Zone!https://youtu.be/vzYLTnI7TUI
Hammersia said:
LotusOmega375D said:
You can pay airlines more for Business and First Class seating though and still get to your destination much quicker than an airship.
But no kitchen, no bar, no piano, no lounge... not really comparable.That said, I agree that travelling by airship would be brilliant these days. I actually wrote my dissertation on the physics of it at uni.
FourWheelDrift said:
There are more lighter than air gases that hydrogen and helium. So what's an abundant or easy to produce non-explosive gas replacement? Just have a bigger airship.
"Just make it bigger" is a self-defeating strategy - a bit like building rockets, there's a limit to how big they can be before they don't really work. Helium is the best to use, and not that difficult to extract in industrial process.
Edited by Krikkit on Monday 13th March 12:04
Krikkit said:
"Just make it bigger" is a self-defeating strategy - a bit like building rockets, there's a limit to how big they can be before they don't really work.
Helium is the best to use, and not that difficult to extract in industrial process.
Aye, anything that has to get off the ground to start it's journey is limited by the energy needed to do that.Helium is the best to use, and not that difficult to extract in industrial process.
Edited by Krikkit on Monday 13th March 12:04
FourWheelDrift said:
There are more lighter than air gases that hydrogen and helium. So what's an abundant or easy to produce non-explosive gas replacement? Just have a bigger airship.
There are. Which do you fancy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_gasFurthermore, how many of the super-giant airships will you need, where will they land/take off, where will you put them in a Force 10 gale and how will you keep the snow off in winter?
Scotty2 said:
Oh and the Graf Zeppelin covered over 1,058,000 miles with no injuries to passengers or crew!
Zeppelin, DELAG and DZR were very proud that, up to the loss of the Hindenburg, not a single passenger had been so much as injured on one of their airships in service.Hugo Eckener was fastidious - to the point of obsession - about implementing and enforcing safe operating practices on his ships, to the point of incurring high operating costs, missed schedules or even commercial loses for the company. The inherent dangers of commercial operation (of which there were many) were countered by rigorous and safety-concious operations.
Eckener was very critical of how the ships were operated under DZR and believed they contributed to the loss of the Hindenburg; despite being subsidised by the German state, DZR was under pressure to reduce costs to keep that subsidy to a minimum. Eckener wasn't happy with how intensively the Hindenburg was used for propaganda, demonstration and military intelligence flights (which put more strain on the craft while reducing the time available for proper inspection and maintenance). He also criticised how the Hindenburg was operated on its final flight, making passage at high speed through bad weather to make up time, attempting landings in windy conditions and tight turns to manoeuvre to try and make the mooring time instead of standing off or diverting; supposedly for both commercial reasons and to maintain the image of German efficiency and fascist power over nature. Eckener believed this all factored into his theory that the disaster was caused by a structural failure and a punctured gas bag.
Airship technology in the 1930s was a bit like the Space Shuttle in the 2000s; inherently dangerous and risky but capable of safe and regular operations if tight operational and servicing procedures are scrupulously adhered to. And if that doesn't happen the risks will quickly become manifest!
Somewhat amusing thread given that one of the news sites today has passengers screaming and praying because the pilot had to go around from his final approach!
The weather window for operating (well actually taking off and landing mainly) for an airship is pretty small. So huge numbers of flights would be cancelled if we all flew in airships. I've not looked recently but recall the Goodyear airship (a tiddler by the standards of the Hindenburg) dragging its landing crew and docking tower across an airfield - its probably on Youtube still.
As for the successful flights before the pretty obvious risks caused the fire? Well 'silver doped finish' is mainly aluminium 'dust' in a flammable solvent. Hydrogen is notorious for leaking out of even steel pipework (hence much of the resistance to putting it into gas mains), if also has one of the widest flammability ranges and requires little energy to ignite it.
In short the Hindenburg, like all the other hydrogen lifted airships was destined to burn. That it did so at a point where there was some much media coverage was probably a very good thing - it pretty much killed off airships. And that is before you start looking at the other problem of airships - structural failure, which most of them were prone to!
Nevil Shute's book on his work with the R100 is a good read and gives a huge amount of background tot he technical issues.
Oh and finally - do you fancy long distance flying at less than 70kts instead of 400 plus? That is what the Hindenburg managed.
The weather window for operating (well actually taking off and landing mainly) for an airship is pretty small. So huge numbers of flights would be cancelled if we all flew in airships. I've not looked recently but recall the Goodyear airship (a tiddler by the standards of the Hindenburg) dragging its landing crew and docking tower across an airfield - its probably on Youtube still.
As for the successful flights before the pretty obvious risks caused the fire? Well 'silver doped finish' is mainly aluminium 'dust' in a flammable solvent. Hydrogen is notorious for leaking out of even steel pipework (hence much of the resistance to putting it into gas mains), if also has one of the widest flammability ranges and requires little energy to ignite it.
In short the Hindenburg, like all the other hydrogen lifted airships was destined to burn. That it did so at a point where there was some much media coverage was probably a very good thing - it pretty much killed off airships. And that is before you start looking at the other problem of airships - structural failure, which most of them were prone to!
Nevil Shute's book on his work with the R100 is a good read and gives a huge amount of background tot he technical issues.
Oh and finally - do you fancy long distance flying at less than 70kts instead of 400 plus? That is what the Hindenburg managed.
Pete54 said:
Oh and finally - do you fancy long distance flying at less than 70kts instead of 400 plus? That is what the Hindenburg managed.
For some journeys, absolutely if I had a cabin, a bed, and could wander down to a dining room and eat non microwaved food that wasn't served on a fold down plastic tray. Given the highest speed for an unpowered balloon is 245mph, I'm sure with judicious use of the wind, modern propulsion systems, and semi lifting body designs, you could comfortably exceed 70kts.
Scotty2 said:
<<snip>> I recommend the Zeppelin Museum at Friedrichshafen.
There is a full size replica section of the Hindenburg lounge which lets you experience the feeling of being in the ship.<<snip>>
Absolutely this. Fascinating, especially the sheer scale of these monsters. Here’s a couple of pictures, including a scale model comparison with an A380… There is a full size replica section of the Hindenburg lounge which lets you experience the feeling of being in the ship.<<snip>>
Krikkit said:
Helium is the best to use, and not that difficult to extract in industrial process.
But we are running out of it, we can never make any more & once it's released It's gone from the planet. One day we won't have MRI/CAT scanners because of all the party balloons we decided to waste it on.
Mr Pointy said:
Krikkit said:
Helium is the best to use, and not that difficult to extract in industrial process.
But we are running out of it, we can never make any more & once it's released It's gone from the planet. One day we won't have MRI/CAT scanners because of all the party balloons we decided to waste it on.Mr Pointy said:
But we are running out of it, we can never make any more & once it's released It's gone from the planet. One day we won't have MRI/CAT scanners because of all the party balloons we decided to waste it on.
Not true, although it's reasonable to say it would be expensive to do so...FourWheelDrift said:
1.1 million metric tons of Helium on the moon that's why everyone is so interested in going there again.
...but less expensive than that. 
Mr Pointy said:
Krikkit said:
Helium is the best to use, and not that difficult to extract in industrial process.
But we are running out of it, we can never make any more & once it's released It's gone from the planet. One day we won't have MRI/CAT scanners because of all the party balloons we decided to waste it on.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff