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.
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.
I shoulda known this would have been a stupid question… Thanks!
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
Beware of wind turbines at night.
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
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
Popular Mechanics recently had an article about an airship revival, but for cargo, not passengers. Link.
Looks like this is the same company as in Elendil’s Heir’s link.
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?
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
“Superblimps” to help with resource extraction in Africa?: Can 'superblimp' unlock hidden riches of Africa? - CNN Style
Throw in some hookers and blow and market the flights as super luxurious memberships to the Mile High Club.
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…
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.
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.
Just want to note that stiffer isn’t always better in aircraft construction, which is why modern aircraft have some flex built in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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. 
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.
Nope, did not make the connection that I was responding to someone who had slipped the surly bonds, thanks for the update.
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
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.”