# Would passenger dirigibles be feasible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 16, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939 "2011-03-16T17:48:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/101 "2012-06-28T01:31:14Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > DC3s on the transatlantic route? When was that? I wouldn’t have thought they had the range. I’m not good with geoography, and this was aound 8 years ago so my memory is hazy to say the least. I think that it was Hong Kong to Australia and Hong Kong to England I think - the trip was done over multiple days with many stop-overs. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/102 "2012-06-28T10:51:29Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > DC3s on the transatlantic route? When was that? I wouldn’t have thought they had the range. I’m pretty sure they did; but it’d be “Transatlantic from somewhere like Nova Scotia via Greenland and/or Iceland,” as opposed to a non-stop flight. There was a documentary on SBS a few months ago about the RAF ferry pilots who had to get aircraft from Canada to the UK that way (IIRC they were flying Bristol Beauforts or something like that), so it was certainly doable in a DC-3. ---
**Author:** ![Orionizer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orionizer/32/4442_2.png) [@Orionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orionizer)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/103 "2012-06-28T12:15:51Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I can’t see that being feasible, for something the size of the Hindenburg. Heated air provides much less lift than H or He, so you would need a much, much larger ‘balloon’. Looking at hot air balloons, it seems like you need several times the volume of balloon vs. payload. Seems like it would take a really big balloon! > > Then there is the cost of heating the air. Buoyant H or He stays buoyant; air must be kept hot to remain buoyant. That requires fairly frequent heating, possibly even continuous at higher altitudes. The cost of the natural gas (or other fuel) to keep the air heated would be pretty high. As well as the weight & space occupied by this fuel. > > I don’t see this as being cost effective. I shoulda known this would have been a stupid question… Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/104 "2012-08-11T04:36:27Z")
The U.S. Army has three new big blimps: [http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/armys-all-seeing-super-blimp-makes-debut-flight/?hpt=hp\_c2](http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/armys-all-seeing-super-blimp-makes-debut-flight/?hpt=hp_c2) ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/105 "2012-08-11T04:46:16Z")
Beware of wind turbines at night. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/106 "2012-08-12T15:59:27Z")
I’d happily pay for an aerial cruise. Perhaps over the Amazon jungle, or the African savannah. I think that many more would do so as well. I’ve never understood the mindset of people who go on sea cruises in an environment where they might as well be on a land resort ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/107 "2013-12-10T19:59:07Z")
A new proposal to use them in the Arctic: [http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/business/airship-cargo-revolutionize-arctic-transportation/index.html?iid=article\_sidebar](http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/business/airship-cargo-revolutionize-arctic-transportation/index.html?iid=article_sidebar) ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/108 "2013-12-10T21:32:42Z")
Popular Mechanics recently had an article about an airship revival, but for cargo, not passengers. [Link](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/airships/airship-20-inside-the-lighter-than-air-revival-15933252?click=main_sr). Looks like this is the same company as in Elendil’s Heir’s link. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/109 "2013-12-11T07:02:47Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > A new proposal to use them in the Arctic: [http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/business/airship-cargo-revolutionize-arctic-transportation/index.html?iid=article\_sidebar](http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/business/airship-cargo-revolutionize-arctic-transportation/index.html?iid=article_sidebar) Let’s see: a major problem for airships is wind – most (all?) of the US Navy ones were destroyed by windstorms, and even today the Goodyear blimps cancel flights when the wind is too high. And the arctic area is known for very common winds, in all seasons. Yet someone thinks this is a good environment for airships? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/110 "2015-08-25T13:05:12Z")
Bumped. Diving on the wreck of the USS _Macon_, a Navy dirigible which carried four biplanes: [http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/us/last-navy-flying-aircraft-carrier/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/us/last-navy-flying-aircraft-carrier/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/111 "2016-02-24T13:44:24Z")
“Superblimps” to help with resource extraction in Africa?: [Can 'superblimp' unlock hidden riches of Africa? - CNN Style](http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/africa/superblimp-africa/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/112 "2016-02-25T16:39:19Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > True enough. But the selling point has to be the experience and the view. Flying low and slow over somewhere pretty while you sit in a comfortable chair enjoying the view and having some decent drinks and food served to you would be an interesting and pleasant experience. > > Days at a time where its the stuff INSIDE the ship thats supposed to entertain you? Yeah probably not. > > Day trips or two days with a night would probably be what would fly demand/price wise. And at best it would probably be a very small niche market. Throw in some hookers and blow and market the flights as super luxurious memberships to the Mile High Club. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/113 "2016-02-26T09:26:28Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > You might want to read a book called “Syd’s (or Sid’s) Pirates” > > He was one of the original pilots for Cathay Pacific, flying DC3s on the transatlantic route. Really lovely guy…and some great stories to be heard Not the DC3. The DC6 has twice the range, and competed with the Constellation when the first transatlantic flights started up, just after WW II… ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/114 "2016-02-26T10:01:41Z")
As a child in the 50s, I flew in BOAC DC3’s from London, England to Freetown, Sierra Leone - 4,150 miles. We had to stop over at Gibraltar and Fael (in the Sahara Desert) or Casablanca for re-fueling. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/115 "2016-02-26T12:51:03Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > One fact that most people don’t realize is that Zeppelin flew remarkably low. The standard cruising altitude was 650 feet. This works well for the short tourist flights mentioned, but I’m not sure would be possible, i.e. legally allowed, for a coast-to-coast flight today. Crossing the Rockies would be difficult. Old time zepps flew that low because they could – one of the selling points for passengers was the views. These days, between tall buildings and airspace rules flying that low is impractical and/or unsafe in urban areas, but between cities it’s probably quite doable. Certainly, fixed wing and rotor craft can legally cruise that low in certain types of airspace, airspace that is outside built-up areas. Crossing the Rockies would be more a problem of managing around the weather and low pressure/temperature for the passenger rather than any technical problem regarding the airship. > [@CalMeacham](#): > > Yes, you’d use composites _because_ they’re light. It’s half the density of aluminum, with twice the modulus. _That’s_ a big difference, and the reason that man-powered flying machines (like _Daedalus_) were made of composites rather than aluminum. A factor of two in weight is a considerable difference, especially if it can be made stiffer. Just want to note that stiffer isn’t always better in aircraft construction, which is why modern aircraft have some flex built in. > [@Polycarp](#): > > There’s one othert point worth making – jet fuel is not always going to cost what it does today; as the cost of crude and of refining increases, the price of jet fuel will skyrocket. Plus we are using the figures for 1936 airspeeds in calculating airship travel times here – which to be frair should be equated to 1936 aircraft, not modern jets, or else a reasonable estimate of what it would be possible to fly an airship safely at today substituted for the 75-80 MPH of 1936. Why are you assuming the use of jet fuel? Jet engines are most efficient at high speeds, and airships, even the most modern, are inherently slower. There is no reason you have to use jets. You don’t need that level of power because the ship is inherently buoyant and your engines don’t have to provide lift, just propulsion. Not sure if solar would be up to it (though that would be neat if it was) but you could use less-energy dense fuels in internal combustion engines (or even, in theory, external combustion engines for a true steam-punk experience) for propulsion. It would involve a payload trade-off if you used less energy dense fuels, but there’s no reason you couldn’t power them on something like a diesel engine. > [@Delayed\_Reflex](#): > > How maneuverable are airships? It seems to be possible to design them to be dynamic so they can be neutrally buoyant at various elevations, so likely they would be able to go up and down fairly efficiently, so I’m curious as to whether they might be viable competition for helicopters for sightseeing tourism. Why do we have traffic helicoptors instead of traffic blimps? Sheer size makes airships less maneuverable than smaller aircraft. We have traffic helicopters because helicopters can handle more severe weather than airships, making them more useful for reporting on traffic and weather. > [@Koxinga](#): > > Regarding the weather, would it be possible (perhaps with some future technology) to have zeppelins rise up to airline cruising altitude at 40K feet, or even near earth orbit at 80K feet? No pesky storms up there, and (especially for the latter) a much more spectacular view. No technological reason we couldn’t do that today – the problems are that you’ll have a much lower payload compared to a similar sized airship that stays low, and need a much larger lifting envelope, and the need for pressurized quarters for the human beings. > [@Agnostic\_Pagan](#): > > Question: how does insurance work for hot-air balloon rides? Or airlines? Are they required to sign a waiver or is the operator liable? Or could I sell those airplane policies that used to be common? When I took a hot air balloon ride I was required to sign a waiver acknowledging a certain inherent risk to the activity. Despite waivers, the pilot is ultimately held responsible for anything that happens on the flight. Whether or not your life insurance and/or medical policy will cover you in event of an accident depends on the wording of your policy. > [@Daylate](#): > > Also the Germans during WWI developed a series of “high-flying” airships that could cruise at 20,000 to 27,000 feet (or thereabouts). I understand that this was not too pleasant for the crew. > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Too cold? Air too thin? Too much bucking up and down? Something else? Low pressure and temperature – pilots in WWII were subjected to conditions modern pilots are no longer forced to tolerate. Low pressure results in impaired judgment and performance, and frostbite just plain sucks. Oxygen for pilots and crew is now required for flights at that altitude. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/116 "2016-02-26T13:59:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Just want to note that stiffer isn’t always better in aircraft construction, which is why modern aircraft have some flex built in. But having enough stiffness to retain shape and provide support has historically been the hard thing to do. Modern composites give you all the flex you need. Don’t confuse “stiffness” with “brittle”. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/117 "2016-02-26T17:27:28Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > … > > Low pressure and temperature – pilots in WWII were subjected to conditions modern pilots are no longer forced to tolerate. Low pressure results in impaired judgment and performance, and frostbite just plain sucks. > > Oxygen for pilots and crew is now required for flights at that altitude. Wonder why the fuck pilots and aircrews in WW2 aircraft wore oxygen masks then? I always thought it was for…oxygen. But then, I don’t know everything there is to know about all aviation matters. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/118 "2016-02-26T20:56:16Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Why are you assuming the use of jet fuel? Jet engines are most efficient at high speeds, and airships, even the most modern, are inherently slower. There is no reason you have to use jets. You don’t need that level of power because the ship is inherently buoyant and your engines don’t have to provide lift, just propulsion. Erm… do you realize you’re asking this question of someone who is now (at least, if his beliefs were correct) in a Place far higher than any dirigible, airship, jet or other flying vehicle can travel? I don’t think you’ll get an answer, in short. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/119 "2016-02-26T22:51:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Wonder why the fuck pilots and aircrews in WW2 aircraft wore oxygen masks then? I always thought it was for…oxygen. But then, I don’t know everything there is to know about all aviation matters. While in-flight oxygen was available during WWII it was not used as much as it is nowadays. Less was known about human performance at high altitudes and low oxygen. Certainly, towards the end of the war use of them became more common. I would also like to point out that the main age of military airships was more WWI and the inter-war period, when even less was known than during WWII. I was, in fact, responding to a question about the WWI era but I guess my finger stuttered and I wound up with two “I” in my reply. These days, anytime you spend 30 minutes or longer about 12,500 feet the pilots are supposed to be using oxygen, constantly above 14,000 feet, and oxygen for all aboard above 15,000 feet. Early in aviation - that is, around WWI and the interwar period - you had pilots routinely going to 20,000 without oxygen. They often got away with it, but if/when a pilot passed out at that altitude the results were not always good. There was a period of time when airships could typically reach higher altitudes than airplanes, and that’s why airships did in an attempt to evade airplanes in combat. The crews on those airships were not always adequately equipped by modern standards. then again, a number of early aviation accidents occurred due to a lack of seat belts, which strikes us modern folks as a no-brainer but very early airplanes didn’t routinely have them. > [@choie](#): > > Erm… do you realize you’re asking this question of someone who is now (at least, if his beliefs were correct) in a Place far higher than any dirigible, airship, jet or other flying vehicle can travel? Nope, did not make the connection that I was responding to someone who had slipped the surly bonds, thanks for the update. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939/120 "2016-02-27T01:00:37Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > While in-flight oxygen was available during WWII it was not used as much as it is nowadays. Less was known about human performance at high altitudes and low oxygen. Certainly, towards the end of the war use of them became more common. > > … Your post is very inaccurate. Here, from a B-17 site. \*…Once above 10,000 feet they donned oxygen masks as the planes continued to climb to their operational level that could be as high as 29,000 feet… \* That was WW2. They clearly understood oxygen and altitude. \*The first flight of an aircraft using an purpose-provided oxygen system in fact seems to have occurred in **1913** , when a French aviator (Georges Lagagneux) flew a Nieuport biplane to an altitude of 20,014 feet \* emph mine. [http://webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero/Articles/A\_Brief\_History\_of\_US\_Military\_Aviation\_Oxygen\_Breathing\_Systems.pdf](http://webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero/Articles/A_Brief_History_of_US_Military_Aviation_Oxygen_Breathing_Systems.pdf) Even the Dreyer system was available in **1917** (supplemental oxygen for aviators) \*The old fashioned manually reduced, continuous flow oxygen system that the ‘Clark-Dreyer System’ had been intended to replace came back into interim use for most immediately post-war flight operations. **By the mid-1920** , when the ‘Type Designation System’ standard nomenclature came into US military use, the old Clark-Dreyer System regulator was designated the ‘Type A-1 Regulator’. \* emph mine. 1913 as is 1917 was way before WW2. So was the “mid-1920s.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-passenger-dirigibles-be-feasible/574939.md?page=7)