Printable View
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
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...
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/...ane-160529.jpg
I have just this minute discovered that the whole book can be read online at:
The aeroplane
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.
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
Hmmm, I wonder how long before someone mentions ground effect aircraft like the "Caspian Sea Monster"....
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.
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
The airship finally takes off - Hybrid Air Vehicles has first civil customer
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
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