HINDENBURG ANNIVERSARY

[digger]

May 6th was 70th anniversary of the 'demise' of the HINDENBURG,
The "concorde" of the sky became the Titanic of the sky...

interesting article.. (american)

70 years on, Hindenburg horror remains - US news - Life - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18508779/ns/us_news-life/t/years-hindenburg-tragedy-resonates/#.T6QvgdWwWsQ)

[JDNSW]

To a significant extent the disaster can be laid at the feet of the Nazis - it seems likely that it would not have happened if they had not forced Dr Eckener out of the company management, and it certainly would not have happened if the USA had not refused to supply the helium for which it was designed. The ban on the supply was because of the Nazi government of Germany.

It is interesting to speculate what would have been the future of airships without the disaster.

John

[drivesafe]

Hi John and while have not read digger’s link, I’m not sure that the disaster would not have happened if helium had been available.

The primary cause of the fire was the coating applied to the outside covers of the air ship.

Aluminium power was used to reflect sunlight off the gas bags so reducing the amount of change that occurred when the hydrogen is heated or cooled.

If those designing the Hindenburg had had access to those working on Germany’s rocket engines, they would have been aware that aluminium makes a great basis for rocket propulsion fuel.

[p38arover]

It is interesting to speculate what would have been the future of airships without the disaster.

But there was also the disaster of the British R101

from Wikipedia


The crash of R101 effectively ended British airship development, and was one of the worst airship accidents of the 1930s. The loss of life was greater than in the Hindenburg disaster of 1937 and was second only to that of the USS Akron crash in 1933.

[d@rk51d3]

But helium doesn't burn, does it? Or would the aluminium act as a catalyst and change it somehow into a flammable?

[JDNSW]

The fire in the Hindenburg was almost certainly started by a spark from a breaking wire stay igniting hydrogen that had accumulated in a ship designed for helium and without the ventilation system that was installed in the Graf Zeppelin. The aluminium filled doped skin, plus the diesel fuel, were what gave the visibility and smoke to the flames, and contributed most of the thermal energy - a hydrogen flame is almost colourless. Aluminium filled dope (celluloid dissolved in acetone as a solvent plus filler) had been used on fixed wing aircraft since about 1914, and its flammability was well known - no rocket scientists were needed. It continues to be used to this day on fabric covered aircraft, and, as far as I know, has never been suggested as a source of ignition (I recall a replica Vickers Vimy being destroyed by a spontaneous fire starting in the covering - but that was not aluminium filled dope, but was unfilled, making the covering translucent - may have been planned to add extra coats of filled dope). But it does burn well once ignited - but then, so does any hydrocarbon fuel!.

As Ron comments, the crash of the R101 was a far greater disaster than the Hindenburg, and effectively ended British airship development. However, it was a far less public disaster - it happened at night, in heavy rain. The cause was also well known, and not applicable to airships in general, or hydrogen inflation in particular. The R101 flew into rising terrain in bad weather, having run out of negative bouyancy due to weight gain from the rain. However, it was overweight, untested, and was issued with a certificate of airworthiness by the political head of the air ministry after the technical head refused to do so and offered his resignation.

The R101 disaster needs to be compared with the successful two way Atlantic crossing of the R100, developed at the same time to meet the same requirement. Similarly, the Hindenburg disaster should be compared to the success of the Graf Zeppelin, but none of this mattered after the very public disaster of the Hindenburg!

John

[langy]

I wasn't going to say anything about Mr D's post but now there have been some replies (Including by those who may appear to be a little pedantic about grammar ) may I point out something obvious:

The article linked to the post was written in 2007.

It's 75 years since the Hindenburg went down.

[VladTepes]

Irrespective of R101 or Hindenberg the development of, and future of, big airships like the Hindenberg was always limited and finite.

Much like the great Ocean Liners competitng for the Blue Riband (shortest time to cross the Atlantic to New York) once heavier-than-air craft were developed sufficiently to carry passengers, those older slower (albeit more romantic) means of transport became largely irrelevant.

There is, it is true, a huge recreational cruising market in shipping these days howver the same would not apply to airships. Only a real enthusiast would want to "cruise" the Atlantic by air ship and it would be VERY expensive. It would never draw the crowds to fly on them as you cant go to a casino, giant smorgasboard, show, swimming pool etc)

[p38arover]

The R100 disaster needs to be compared with the successful two way Atlantic crossing of the R100, developed at the same time to meet the same requirement. Similarly, the Hindenburg disaster should be compared to the success of the Graf Zeppelin, but none of this mattered after the very public disaster of the Hindenburg!


Some of you may have heard of the novelist, Nevil Shute, (I'm sure JDNSW has) and may have enjoyed his work in book or film form, e.g. A Town Like Alice, No Highway, On the Beach, etc. He was also an aeronautical engineer who worked on the R100.

He also formed the aircraft company, Airspeed Airspeed Ltd. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. You may know of the Ambassador and the Oxford, etc. I can recommend his autobiograhy, Slide Rule

He migrated to Oz (Langwarrin, Victoria) in 1948 (or thereabouts).

From Wiki:


Shute worked as Chief Calculator (stress engineer) on the R100 airship project for the subsidiary Airship Guarantee Company. In 1929, he was promoted to Deputy Chief Engineer of the R100 project under Sir Barnes Wallis.

The R100 was a prototype for passenger-carrying airships that would serve the needs of Britain's empire. The government-funded but privately-developed R100 was a success in that it made a successful return trip to and from Canada and also while in Canada local trips to Ottawa, Toronto and Niagara Falls from Montreal. But the fatal 1930 crash in France of its government-developed counterpart R101 while flying to India ended Britain's interest in airships. The Secretary of State for Air, Lord Thomson, died in this crash. The R100 was grounded and scrapped. Shute gives a detailed account of the episode in his 1954 autobiographical work, Slide Rule. He strongly hinted in this autobiography that if there had been co-operation between the two teams the tragedy of R101 could well have been averted. But according to Shute there was virtually no contact between him and Sir Harold Roxbee Cox who was the Head of Development of R101 project until the very end.

[JDNSW]

Irrespective of R101 or Hindenberg the development of, and future of, big airships like the Hindenberg was always limited and finite.

Much like the great Ocean Liners competitng for the Blue Riband (shortest time to cross the Atlantic to New York) once heavier-than-air craft were developed sufficiently to carry passengers, those older slower (albeit more romantic) means of transport became largely irrelevant.

There is, it is true, a huge recreational cruising market in shipping these days howver the same would not apply to airships. Only a real enthusiast would want to "cruise" the Atlantic by air ship and it would be VERY expensive. It would never draw the crowds to fly on them as you cant go to a casino, giant smorgasboard, show, swimming pool etc)

In 1929 the Graf Zepelin flew nonstop across the Atlantic carrying 25 fare paying passengers plus mail and freight. To put fixed wing aircraft into perspective at the time, this was only two years after Lindbergh barely managed a non-stop crossing with pilot only and no payload. And no fixed wing aircraft carried paying passengers across the Atlantic before WW2, although there were test flights (with intermediate stops) in 1937.

Certainly by 1937 it was apparent that fixed wing aircraft had the promise of beating airships for long distance transport, but it was not until the introduction of the big flying boats right at the end of the thirties (Boeing Clipper and Shorts Empire) that fixed wing aircraft could compete on range - and even then, their range was nothing comparable to airships; the Graf Zeppelin for example, had a range of close to 10,000km, and carried twenty passengers, with a crew of forty. For comparison, the Boeing Clipper, ten years later, carried up to 74 passengers (but only 36 overnight), with a crew of 13, but only had a range of 6,000km, although admittedly it travelled at twice the speed. Nearer to the same era, in 1936, the Hindenberg had similar range to the Graf Zeppelin, but carried up to seventy passengers although still at about half the speed of the Boeing.

No, in 1937, fixed wing aircraft could not outperform airships for long range passenger travel. Of course, it needs to be borne in mind that only a tiny proportion of travellers used air at this time anyway - the DC-3 in 1936 introduced short haul air travel for business, and the era of mass long distance air travel did not arrive until the jets or even jumbos.

Not usually noted, the weak point of rigid airships was not so much the fact that they used hydrogen, but the fact that they were very vulnerable to weather. Given their size and relatively weak structure, and the fact that they cannot travel 'above the weather', they are very vulnerable, for example to thunderstorms and turbulence due to ground effects. This said, despite the fate of the Hindenberg, a larger proportion of airship accidents have probably been survivable.

John

[TeamFA]

Irrespective of R101 or Hindenberg the development of, and future of, big airships like the Hindenberg was always limited and finite.

Much like the great Ocean Liners competitng for the Blue Riband (shortest time to cross the Atlantic to New York) once heavier-than-air craft were developed sufficiently to carry passengers, those older slower (albeit more romantic) means of transport became largely irrelevant.

There is, it is true, a huge recreational cruising market in shipping these days howver the same would not apply to airships. Only a real enthusiast would want to "cruise" the Atlantic by air ship and it would be VERY expensive. It would never draw the crowds to fly on them as you cant go to a casino, giant smorgasboard, show, swimming pool etc)

Agreed.

Though I would gladly pay for a "cruise" in an airship, whereas I would avoid like the plague an ocean-going cruise ship, specifically BECAUSE of the casino, giant smorgasbord, show, swimming pool, etc.

I reckon it would be an awesome way to travel...

[vnx205]

I have an interesting book published in 1914 about the history of the aeroplane.

Airships get a mention in Chapter XIV.

One chapter that has some amusing bits is the chapter called. "Twenty Years Hence". As you might expect, the attempt to predict in 1914, what the aeroplane would be like in the mid 30's was not a complete success. I have highlighted a bit on page 277 that particularly amuses me.

It didn't seem to occur to the authors that engines might become so reliable that they didn't need maintenance in mid-flight. :)


http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/16/2005444/The%20aeroplane-160529.jpg

I have just this minute discovered that the whole book can be read online at:
The aeroplane (http://www.archive.org/stream/aeroplane00grahrich#page/n7/mode/2up)

The copy they used is from the University of California Library. Mine was awarded to Thomas Burns as First Prize for Class Work at Maori Hill School in December 1915. I don't know who Thomas Burns was. I don't even know where Maori Hill School is.

Correction: I know where it is now. I just googled it . It is in Dunedin.

[JDNSW]

While with hindsight it is quite obvious to us that the future in the 1930s was heavier than air aircraft, this was not necessarily obvious at the time. The problem with heavier than air aircraft in the 1930s for long range was the lack of sufficiently powerful and reliable engines to allow an aeroplane to built big enough to have adequate range and still have a useful payload. There has almost never been successful civil aircraft with more than four engines, so that the maximum size was dictated by four of the largest available engines at any time. There have been attempts to use more, but a good example would be the twelve engined Dornier Do X flying boat or the eight engined Tupolev ANT-20 landplane. Both were complete flops

Another problem facing long range aeroplanes because of their necessarily large size was that they had to be flying boats because of the lack of large airfields. Designing an aerodynamically clean hull that also was acceptable on water was not simple, and the problem was not solved until the end of the thirties. Even then, the newer landplane designs were a lot cleaner aerodynamically, as a result of retractable undercarriage and effective wing flaps..

The airfield problem was solved as a result of WW2, during which it was found on all sides that the easiest way to extend the range and bomb load of bombers was to make the runway longer. Since the war extended worldwide, this meant that by 1945 most potential aviation destinations were equipped with runways suitable for the new long range aeroplanes such as the Lockheed Constellation, DC-6, Boeing Stratocruiser, as well as the turbojets being designed as soon as the war finished. The failure to realise this meant that a lot of money was spent on designing new flying boats such as the Convair R3Y and the Saro Princess. The last large transport flying boat design to actually enter service was the Martin Mars, first flying in 1942. But only seven were built. Two are still (sort of) in service as firefighting aircraft. (The Sandringham flying boats of the immediate post war period were conversions of military Sunderlands, not new aircraft.) There have been quite a few experimental medium to large flying boats since the war, and some have even flown, if only briefly, like the Hughes 'Spruce Goose'.

John

There have been

[VladTepes]

Hmmm, I wonder how long before someone mentions ground effect aircraft like the "Caspian Sea Monster"....

[drivesafe]

Hi John and there is a documentary on the Hindenburg that showed that the coating, the reflective dope, was most likely the cause of the of the ignition point, somewhere near the top rear section of the blimp.

The doco follows a NASA hydrogen expert who not only tracked down a piece of the original doped covering from the Hindenburg but, through leads, he also found documents in the Hindenburg museum in Germany, where the Germans, while at the time were claiming the Hindenburg was sabotaged, had already discovered how dangerous the specific doping used on the Hindenburg was.

[3toes]

Always liked the concept of the airship and went for a joy ride in one of the Bond (cant remember the name of the company) ones in the mid eighties.

Based on the links below seems those who have never given up on the concept are moving the technology forward and have orders for new ships.

Just to the south of Bedford is where the British airships were constructed in huge hangers which were built for the purpose. When I was last over that way one of them was still in use by an airship building company.

Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd - For Persistent Surveillance and Heavy Lift Logistics (http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/)

The airship finally takes off - Hybrid Air Vehicles has first civil customer (http://www.gizmag.com/hybrid-air-vehicles-airship/19746/)

http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/images/aboutblimp.jpg

The vehicle is capable to operate:

At 20,000 feet above sea level
With a 21-day on-station availability
With a 2,000 mile radius of action
Runway independent

[JDNSW]

Hi John and there is a documentary on the Hindenburg that showed that the coating, the reflective dope, was most likely the cause of the of the ignition point, somewhere near the top rear section of the blimp.

The doco follows a NASA hydrogen expert who not only tracked down a piece of the original doped covering from the Hindenburg but, through leads, he also found documents in the Hindenburg museum in Germany, where the Germans, while at the time were claiming the Hindenburg was sabotaged, had already discovered how dangerous the specific doping used on the Hindenburg was.


The technical investigation headed by Hugo Eckener (at the time by far the most qualified person, despite his being pushed out of the Zeppelin company because he refused to support the Nazis - Goebbels had banned his name being mentioned in the press) right after the accident concluded that it was due to sparks from a broken bracing wire (in turn due to exceeding design rate of manoeuvre). It is possible that his conclusions were incorrect, but I would prefer to believe him rather than a documentary made many years later. Eckener's findings, while not exactly suppressed (after all, the investigation was partly by the FAA and in the USA), were not accepted by the German Government, who insisted on sabotage, although the FAA found nothing to support this.

Regardless of the reason for ignition, the reason it turned into a disaster was that an airship designed for helium was filled with hydrogen. After reviewing the fate of 57 airships, I find that the only one apart from the Hindenberg to be destroyed by fire in flight was the L2 in 1913, with this attributed to design changes imposed on Zeppelin by the German Navy. (Most airships seem to have ended their lives due to structural failure or unintended collisions with the ground, usually due to loss of bouyancy, apart from those destroyed by enemy action. There were several fires during gasbag filling.)

I hate to be a grammar Nazi, but the Hindenberg, as with all those discussed in this thread, was a rigid airship, not a blimp!

John