-
How successful were dirigibles prior to the Hindenburg disaster? With the advent of fixed-wing aircraft it would seem that their future was always iffy. At the time did people really believe that the skies one day would be filled with both airplanes and dirigibles?
-
Dirigibles were slow, subject to high winds and sometimes difficult to maneuver, yet they continued to be developed even after the Hindenburg. Why didn’t switching from hydrogen to helium make them viable as a form of transportation, even if only in limited numbers? Simply too slow? Yes, I know about the Goodyear Blimp, but it’s not really a commercially viable form of transportation.
-
Looking at the film of the Hindenburg disaster I notice that it is still up in the air when it catches fire. How did passengers normally get off an on it? Where there elevators or stairs in the mooring tower, or was it lowered to the ground for boarding and unboarding?
If they could have been made safer, then I guess they might have stayed around for romantics, much like train travel is today. Speed is the most favored characteristic for long distance travel. Once teleporters are invented, airplanes will become obsolete as well.
Let’s see:
[ol]
[li]The Hindenburg was simply the last straw as dirigible accidents with numerous deaths occurred throughout the 1920s and 1930s - Even if the Hindenburg hadn’t crashed, it’s likely that dirigibles never would have more than a minor blip on the radar, slightly behind flying boats. They were too slow and too accident-prone.[/li][li] The United States had a lock on the world’s helium market - Germany used less safe hydrogen because the US was loath to sell them helium ,especially after the Nazis came to power.[/li][li]For safety, most lighter than airships were grounded before passengers and crew disembarked - The top of the Empire Star Building was intended as a mooring for airships. But commonsense and their slow decrease in popularity ended that idea.[/li][/ol]
The problem is that dirigibles were very susceptible to weather, especially winds. The Hindenburg was just one of a series of such large airships. Almost all eventually came to a tragic end.
I assume the problem was that they were too dangerous, and eventually large aircraft became more practical. If the competition was biplanes and Ford Tri-motors, dirigibles looked good. But when DC-3 and better came along, they could do the job a lot faster and cheaper, and were reasonably comfortable.
Of course, they were useless in war except for a few niche applications - like blimps attached to convoy supply ships watching for submarines. Even in WWI the blimps were sitting ducks for aircraft. They were too slow, too vulnerable and too fragile a target. Cosnequently, the technical development produced even bigger aircraft that meant that longer distances - transcontinental and transoceanic - could be done by airliners faster and safer.
As I understood it, the ship was moored to the mast and then hauled down almost to the ground. At that point, a drop-down staircase or a wheeled one would allow passengers to walk off like an airplane.
The Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen because the USA was the major supplier of helium (from natural gas wells in the midwest and Texas, IIRC). As things heated up in Europe, it was considered a war material due to use of blimps in WWI, so its export was restricted. The Hindenburg was supposed to be filled with helium, but without it the Germans substituted hydrogen. Interestingly, about 2/3 of the passengers survived, as the cabin landed slowly and the fire was going upward; many had a chance to escape before it was engulfed. Some critics feel the flammable doped fabric skin was the worse fire hazard.
Regardless, a lot of the dirigible crashes happened despite using helium.
Dirigibles were essentially cruise ships. They catered to small numbers of very-high paying customers with as much luxury as the ludicrously limited space allowed. Their biggest advantage was that they could fly trans-Atlantic routes. The Hindenburg had already crossed the Atlantic 35 times, the Graf Zeppelin kept flying after the Hindenburg crash and made a total of 136 transits. Those flights took from 2-3 days, faster than a ship, and didn’t require periodic stoppages.
They were still better than long-distance airplanes, therefore, in the 1930s. It’s hard to believe they would have been competitive in the next decade when planes would have surpassed them. If the question is limited to the previous four decades when zeppelins had the advantage, then why shouldn’t people think that the skies would be filled with them? Flying was for adventurers and the rich. Flight for the masses was not even considered as a possibility until the mid-1920s and not as a working reality until the 1960s. The zeppelins were simply better - until they weren’t.
The only difference switching from hydrogen to helium makes is that it makes airships more expensive. The Hindenburg disaster was mostly a matter of the material the envelope was made out of, not the gas inside.
Because the only thing worse than a Nazi is a Nazi with a weird high pitched voice.
All lighter-than-air gases result in a high-pitched voice when inhaled, and all heavier-than-air gases result in a low-pitched voice. Hydrogen, being lighter than helium, will give even more extreme results.
The US Navy tried dirigibles: USS Shenandoah, USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) - Wikipedia, USS Akron and the USS Macon.
All of them but the Los Angeles ended in disaster.
Especially if you’re smoking at the time. 
Yes, but a flying aircraft carrier is damn cool.
OP: One of the cabin boys escaped by kicking through the fabric wall and jumping to the ground.
Screwed up the links again!:smack:
Fixed them.
Were dirigibles inherently unsafe? Or just a technology that was still in the early stages of its development? What was the crash rate for dirigibles in comparison to airplanes during the same period?
And it’s not just the aircraft. You need a support system for commercial flight to be a success. World War II led to the development of the technology for making modern airports. The same systems that put hundreds of fighters and bombers into the air on a daily basis would later be used to launch hundreds of passenger planes.
They are necessarily large, and thus inherently vulnerable to high - and especially gusty - winds. And they generally lack the speed to reliably stay clear of bad weather. I’d say this adds up to ‘inherently unsafe’.
At one point airplanes were tiny things made of canvas and strung wire with limited range, while even the earliest airships could carry substantial loads long distances. It wasn’t hard to think that airplanes couldn’t compete with dirigibles. Of course now we have large long-range airplanes like the 747 or the A380, which were science fiction in the 1930s. And not only did airplanes get bigger and faster but the container ship dropped the price of ocean-going cargo, further underbidding the freight cost that dirigibles would have to compete against.
Another inherent problem with dirigibles is that by definition they weigh less than an equal volume of air- meaning that they will always be extremely vulnerable to wind. Modern designs attempt to address this with computer-controlled pivoting propellers, but it’s still difficult to cope with strong variable winds.
Could modern airships with pressurized cabins float/fly above the weather?
-
The 36 or 37 passengers killed in the Hindenburg fire were the only paying passengers to ever be killed in dirigibles.
-
The highest flying dirigibles that I recall were the German high-flyers used to bomb London in WWI. I think they got to around 20 or 21 thousand feet. A major problem with high altitudes in dirigibles is expansion of gas. This was usually accommodated by valving off the gas as the dirigible went higher, but this was very wasteful, and in the case of helium, very expensive. As far as I know from my readings, the German high-flyers were at about the maximum altitude possible.
They actually did carry planes, both the Akron and the Macon. On hooks, and they could launch and land on them. I’m not sure but I think the term tailhook originated from the dirigibles and the planes.
Vulnerability to winds (mentioned upthread) was exacerbated by lack of infrastructure, or support mechanisms (also mentioned upthread). Today there are General Aviation airports almost everywhere, and a G.A. pilot caught out by weather is rarely more than a dozen minutes away from a runway where the plane can be landed. And in “barnstorm” days, light aircraft were routinely landed on a handy empty field or rural roadway, at need. Weather was and is still a danger to small aircraft, but at least in developed countries one is rarely far from a “safe port in a storm” and a bit of attention paid to weather forecasts goes a long way.
In contrast, dirigibles require not just specialized hardware, but large and well trained ground crews as their interface with the earth. Lacking these, dirigibles had few safe options even if building bad weather could be seen some distance/time away.