What would the world look like if the Hindenburg hadn't crashed?

Oh, I see, you mean inertial mass. What you say is true but unimportant. Because a dirigible like the Hindenburg uses internal gas bags, and therefore encloses about as much air as lifting gas. So ruffly 50000 cu meters times a kilo per cubic meter equals 50000 kilo or 110000 lb. 130000 lb vs. 150000 lbs. Plus the weight of the airframe, etc. Not much difference really.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The volume given was for the lifting gas only - about 200k cubic meters, in the Hindenburg, I used half that to illustrate.

The airframe has to be heavier to deal with helium. All the structural stuff has to be stronger and heavier. The power engine has to be bigger. etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But I think you're missing the point. The inertial mass of the enclosed volume, which is the only real difference between H and He, is little different because in a rigid frame (dirigible) airship enough of the enclosed volume is air so that in the end it doesn't matter. The much greater density of air swamps out the result.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Zeppelin built another airship:

http://www.zeppelinflug.de/seiten/E/default.htm

And SkyCat propose more:

http://www.worldskycat.com/

So airships are still in the pipe dreams of fringe engineers,.... I don't think the Hindenburg changed anything. Everything wrt airships is slow, including their development and deployment, it seems.

 

Ah, I see - I was simplifying, trying to avoid the question of distribution etc., simply reminding.

For consideration: The enclosed air in a dirigible is more central, the lifting gas a much greater percentage of the volume farther from the center of mass along all axes. The Hindenburg design is turn of the century, even as a dirigible; the enclosed air mass percentage is much smaller in modern blimps, more modern designs of dirigible, etc. And small percentages of weight that must be accelerated at the ends of long levers can be large contributions to cost - in airships, small percentage changes in streamlining as well. UPS, as the ad brags, spends a lot of money to wash very small amounts of grime off of their jets.

In point of circumstance, the US Navy had a lot of trouble handling the inertial mass of their helium balloons, even the straight blimps. True, probably the cost and availability of helium is a larger factor - but the inertial mass difference and the 8% lift gain is nothing to sneeze at.

Because they make basic engineering sense anywhere you can't easily lay track or float a boat - mountains, tundra, densely built up areas. The comparison would be with helicopters, airports.

As with external combustion engines, solar electrical power, passenger trains, etc, the critical insoluble problems are not engineering ones. The engineering has reached the point of elegance.

 

So, it seems helium has some military purpose. Does anyone know the purpose?

 

Um myth. The majority of German tanks (Pzkpfw I - IV, Panther, Tiger) were petrol (gasoline) engined, like ours.
The Russians more or less led the way on diesel engined AFVs.

 

Reference Dywyddyr's post, "the reason the gasoline went up was that the rounds hitting the tanks introduced hot gases and flame into the gasoline", no, Gasoline is not pressure sensitive, point of fact to be useable for propulsion it must be vaporized, and then must be placed under pressure, typically around 10 to 1 to achieve the most efficient energy out put.

Hydrogen on the other hand can be set off just by the passage of a bullet through the envelope containing the gas.

One trick that we used for shows, is to place hydrogen into a plastic gallon milk jug, and then shooting it, the explosion is quite impressive.

 

Yes. Dirigibles. They were used as bombers in ww1. By the way, has anyone seen the movie "Flyboys". Great scenes of many types of ww1 aircraft and air combat, _including_ a German military (hydrogen filled) dirigible getting blown to kingdom come. Some wild dogfights with era fighters as well.

 

Yet the only deployments we see for airships are for pleasure flights. Seems nobody wants to exploit the areas you list utilising them.

Elegance,.... I'd hardly call it that. Taking two days to cross the Atlantic vs four hours in a Concorde is hardly elegance. The mass market would far rather something in between it seems, the cheapest, fastest route, and if not that, there's real luxury in a cruise. I don't see the market for airships beyond fringe use.

 

Brute force launching is elegance - with meals served on little lap trays, recycled air, a tiny little window you can by craning your neck see a bit of wing from, and your little assigned seat?

Or was it the grace and style of waiting in line to grab your 50 lbs of allotted luggage off the carousel, and waiting in line for the back seat of a none too clean cab to sit in traffic in, as you continue for hours to your actual destination?

Talk to the people who fill passenger ships to the rails, and book train trips for the pleasure of the journey.

The Hindenburg carried a grand piano. Meals were served from kitchen to tables, with silverware. The view was spectacular. Modern designs are more stable, with better views (glass bottom gondolas, binoculars, relief maps, anyone?) and higher travel speeds, etc.

But I was talking about engineering state of development, anyway.

The point was that the barriers are not engineering ones. They are not economic ones either, strictly. They make a lot of sense for a good many applications, but are beset by many more or less capricious afflictions and qwerty effects - among them the assumption of helium for lift, which dates from the Hindenburg.

 

WIN.:bravo:

 

There are also some very cool looking, ambitious airship projects being tossed around:

http://www.google.com/search?q=WB-1010&um=1&hl=en&biw=1152&bih=749&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

http://www.google.com/search?source...sQBSgA&q=moby air&spell=1&fp=8d8dc79919fbb9a2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRTxD_WGSEM



Or how about genetically manipulating a whale and turn it into an airship?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYiw5vkQFPw

Anyone else read that book?

 

Supposedly....

...The diary of one of the Hindenberg's owners implicated thatt he final voyage was a planned disaster. Supposedly the vesseel was transporting an unknown number of german spies who were coing to america for espeionage and sabotage. This prompted the owner to refuse to crew the ship making the Luftwaffe do it. But he still prepared the vessel by filling it with helium and painting the entire dirgible in a paint that would double as solid rocket fuel.

Note this is second hand and supposition on the part of my source. But it would explain why the relatively safe Dirigible turned into a flaming wreck.