Today (May 6th, 2017) marks 80 years since the Hindenburg disaster.
Newsreel footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgWHbpMVQ1U
Herb Morrison broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ2qP4wd4LE
Wow, that disaster completely ruined the airship industry. It is crazy that one accident could have so much impact.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 06, 2017, 03:00:42 PM
Wow, that disaster completely ruined the airship industry. It is crazy that one accident could have so much impact.
Not really, airships had a terrible safety record and airplanes were already on the cusp of completely dominating the aviation anyways. You'd be surprised how many German airships actually crashed leading up to the Hindenburg Disaster. I seem to recall hydrogen was used much more because of cost versus the much more expensive but yet safer helium.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 06, 2017, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 06, 2017, 03:00:42 PM
Wow, that disaster completely ruined the airship industry. It is crazy that one accident could have so much impact.
Not really, airships had a terrible safety record and airplanes were already on the cusp of completely dominating the aviation anyways. You'd be surprised how many German airships actually crashed leading up to the Hindenburg Disaster. I seem to recall hydrogen was used much more because of cost versus the much more expensive but yet safer helium.
I did read in a history book that this incident completely ruined the industry.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 06, 2017, 04:39:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 06, 2017, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 06, 2017, 03:00:42 PM
Wow, that disaster completely ruined the airship industry. It is crazy that one accident could have so much impact.
Not really, airships had a terrible safety record and airplanes were already on the cusp of completely dominating the aviation anyways. You'd be surprised how many German airships actually crashed leading up to the Hindenburg Disaster. I seem to recall hydrogen was used much more because of cost versus the much more expensive but yet safer helium.
I did read in a history book that this incident completely ruined the industry.
You seriously think that the industry had much of a mainstream future especially after all the advances in airplanes during WWII? A rigid airship can compete at all with the speed, carrying capacity, or reliability of an airplane. About the whole thing that the airships had by the time of Hindenburg disaster was that it was a known and considered reliable technology. That sure went out the window in a ball of falls when it happened to be caught on a news reel.
Technologies get replaced all the time. Even early cars had much more variation in terms of powertrain technology than there is today. It just turned out the combustion engine was much more reliable than any of them, it has taken until recently even for electric to get somewhat close. The same could be said about steam trains or even the horse and buggy...transportation means get replaced when something better comes along.
National Socialist Germany was not seen as a friend by the US under FDR, so there went a chance for the Germans to use helium and thus avoid the fire hazard. Zeppelins are great for slow and low cost air transport, offering tremendous range and the ability to get to areas where airports are not. Had there been no Hindenburg disaster, the rigid airship industry would have found a niche in transportation.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 06, 2017, 10:48:58 PM
National Socialist Germany was not seen as a friend by the US under FDR, so there went a chance for the Germans to use helium and thus avoid the fire hazard. Zeppelins are great for slow and low cost air transport, offering tremendous range and the ability to get to areas where airports are not. Had there been no Hindenburg disaster, the rigid airship industry would have found a niche in transportation.
Rick
It would be VERY niche...imagine if rigid airships were in the mix competing for what little helium resources there are today. I can't imagine aviation agencies in the modern sense would be really all that keen on hydrogen given the hazards it presents. I could see some interest just like how steam trains have now or small scale recreational usage. Blimps occupy a niche market today commercially but they still have viable uses in non-combat military functions. I used to be able to see "Fat Albert" from my apartment on a clear day in the Lower Keys up on a tiny Air Force Installation. The Fat Albert blimps apparently broadcast pirate TV signals into Cuba and have done so for decades. There used to be two Fat Alberts but one of them got loose and was shut down. Depending on who you listen to the story is pretty mundane to outright bizarre:
http://www.n-the-florida-keys.com/Fat-Albert.html
http://www.n-the-florida-keys.com/Fat-Albert.html
(https://le0pard13.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/f5229d2e4cb318ed75de543641e3eb2b.jpg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 06, 2017, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 06, 2017, 03:00:42 PM
Wow, that disaster completely ruined the airship industry. It is crazy that one accident could have so much impact.
Not really, airships had a terrible safety record and airplanes were already on the cusp of completely dominating the aviation anyways. You'd be surprised how many German airships actually crashed leading up to the Hindenburg Disaster. I seem to recall hydrogen was used much more because of cost versus the much more expensive but yet safer helium.
Actually, the German airships had an excellent safety record before the Hindenburg crash. It was other countries, most notably the UK and the US, whose rigid airships crashed with regularity. What ultimately caused the Hindenburg disaster, and was not known for decades after until Zeppelin company records were released after the fall of the Soviet Union, was a change in the coating of the outer skin. While the skin of the
Graf Zeppelin and previous German airships were covered in a paint that was relatively benign, the Hindenburg's skin was painted with a formulation that was effectively liquid thermite (i.e. rocket fuel). The current theory about the disaster is that, when the mooring lines - which were water soaked - hit the ground, a static charge that had been building in the ship from the electrical storm it had passed through raced through the frame. Arcing across poor welds in the frame ignited the skin. Because of leaks in the adjacent gas bags, the resulting fire ignited the hydrogen, which then exploded.
There is an excellent but long out of print book,
The Great Dirigibles (John Toland), that chronicles the development of the rigid airship. It discusses the successes and failures of airship programs in different countries.
Oh the humanity!
Helium would not necessarily have been safer than hydrogen. Helium is lighter than air, but heavier than hydrogen so it has less lifting power than hydrogen.
A helium airship would have to be bigger than a hydrogen one, with lighter-weight construction, to do the same job. This makes it more vulnerable to breaking up during a storm, or even in moderate winds during ground handling. That could easily have outweighed any fire-safety advantage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Frg1d31p.gif&hash=272330c05c88e1ba1b31bd61c73a91a63652c6ee)