The hook on the aircraft, Sparrowhawks, I believe, was over the wings, the best place to support an aircraft, since the wings support it in the air.
Nope, refers to carrier-based planes and arresting gear.
…And your link shows that. I apologize, and thank you for the link, I’ve not seen that one before.
You might run into a diminishing returns issue with that. Pressurizing a cabin means adding weight. So you’ll need more lift (i.e. He) just to get the thing airborne, not even considering the weight of the crew/passengers, fuel, and cargo.
To fly at high altitudes (where air is much less dense than near sea level) an airship would need to be much larger (and thus more costly to build and operate) for each passenger (or ton of freight) carried.
There is also the issue of high winds routinely found at high altitudes.
So this doesn’t look at all practical.
What about the 48 people killed in the 1930 crash of the R-101? Were none of these paying passengers?
Weather balloons flew to high altitudes, until they burst.
My Father watched one through my 3" telescope when I was a kid, thought it was pretty cool.
I think dirigibles could still have an application in moving freight into and out of generally remote and inaccessible places.
Also, they would have a long operating range, so could get to remote locations such as the middle of the Amazon jungle.
Once over the loading area, they would be more stable and have a longer linger time than helicopters.
Onsite, they could just drop cables to the ground and lift the load for transport elsewhere.
However, the market for this service would probably be very small, so the economics would probably kill the practicality of their use.
I realized after seeing this thread yesterday that there was a lot of info about the Hindenburg disaster that I just didn’t know, including:
There were only 36 passengers total on the ship!
There were 61 crewmen on it.
I always thought everyone had died, but only 13 passengers and 22 crew died.
Storing them is also a pain in the ass. At Moffet Field in Mountain View they have three blimp hangars and they are absolutely immense structures.
The envelopes that held the gas were also sensitive to temperature and humidity. Also at Moffet was the “Cork Room” so named because it was lined with a very thick layer of insulating cork. This was where the envelopes were stored. Apparently military personnel liked to hang out in this room on hot days because the insulation made it the most comfortable room on the base 
I’ve always found that concept of a dirigible mooring/unloading platform at that height rather fascinating. From this site, look at this image of the proposed passenger boarding of a dirigible moored to the mast. Even better, the boarding gangway in that image is depicted as open, similar to a ship’s gangway, running from the loading platform to the dirigible which is probably being buffeted around by wind. Fall off the shaking gangway, oops, 34th Street is a bit of a ways down.
And they were expecting rich out-of-shape WWI-profiteers and their snooty fur-clad overweight wives (Laurel and Hardy films are period documentaries, right?) to walk down that gangway?
Actually, He has 25% of the lifting power of H. I don’t know if that is a practical difference or a theoretical one.
That seems as though an airship with He would have to be four times the size of one using H.
:dubious:
According to airships.net, the Akron could lift 0.022 lbs per cubic foot of gas while the Hindenburg could lift 0.072 lbs per cubic foot of gas. The airships were not different sizes but the lift generated was certainly different.
The Akron carrier five aircraft, the Hindenberg a few people.
From Wikipedia, they are about the same size, 785’ x 152’ for the Akron, 803’ x 135" for Hindenburg. Surely there was more space given to gas bags in the Akron.
Hydrogen does have more lift than helium, but it’s not all that big a difference. Hydrogen has a molecular mass of 2, helium has a molecular mass of 4, and air has an average molecular mass of about 29. The lift is proportional to the difference between the lift gas and air, so hydrogen has a lift of about 27/25 times helium.
Comparing the densities of hydrogen, helium and air at STP yields the conclusion that hydrogen offers a 7.95% lift advantage over helium. IOW, Chronos’ 27/25 (= 8%) advantage is correct.
This is a useful but not enormous difference.
And obviously much more safe.
I saw some special on the tube about hauling something out of some jungle and they used lighter than air aircraft as cranes to lift something out of the canopy and off to where ever they wanted it.
To get some practical use out of LTA craft, you have to play to their strengths; what are they good for? Not speed or altitude. What they’re good for is hovering without using fuel. They only need fuel for station-keeping. During WWII, the USN used blimps for anti-submarine patrols off the US coasts. If they spotted one, they’d radio it in and Navy Air would come and deal with the submarine. I don’t know if they ever scored any kills or assists, but that was the idea.
More recently, they’re using tethered unmanned aerostats as radar platforms for intercepts of drug and people smuggling. I suppose they’re less expensive than satellites. And more likely to stay on station.
I believe they were all civil servants and other support staff or guests of the Air Minister, Lord Thomson on it’s maiden voyage to India. In retrospect, the whole project was full of errors and it should never have been signed off as fit for the flight.
As I recall, the opening scenes of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow involve a zeppelin docking at the Empire State building and discharging it’s passengers on the building’s roof…