Matrix Games Forums

Whenever the Hindenburg is mentioned, most people jump to its fiery end and the demise of airship travel, which is understandable. Admittedly, the overall record of airship survivability wasn't good but they were incredible machines that served as air transport for 27 years, beginning, incredibly, in 1910.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DELAG

The Hindenburg class were the longest and largest flying machines ever built. Hindenburg was 245 metres long and had a volume of 200,000 cubic metres. The link below is an account of a crossing from Germany to the U.S. in 1936. It includes some interesting details I was previously unaware of.

The concept of lighter-than-air transport has never completely gone away and is undergoing a resurgence of interest, especially with regard to surveillance and super-heavy cargo lift to remote areas.

https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- ... KT_TaVPck4

Just fill them with Helium, not hydrogen.

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just fill them with Helium, not hydrogen.

Yes. It's not as efficient but much safer. At the time, the U.S. wouldn't sell Germany helium.

I remember reading about the cargo airships 20 or 30 years ago but nothing has come out of it. I would say that the lightest element (hydrogen) is absolutely necessary to make the airship viable. All later developments have tried to use helium and that is just too heavy to be commercially or practically viable.

ORIGINAL: Red_L.E.D.

I remember reading about the cargo airships 20 or 30 years ago but nothing has come out of it. I would say that the lightest element (hydrogen) is absolutely necessary to make the airship viable. All later developments have tried to use helium and that is just too heavy to be commercially or practically viable.

Helium weighs 4, while hydrogen weighs 2, but air weighs about 15, so the lift of hydrogen versus helium is only 13 : 11, which is a small, non-essential difference. Basically it is not about the weight of the light gas, but of that of the displaced air.

ORIGINAL: springel

ORIGINAL: Red_L.E.D.

I remember reading about the cargo airships 20 or 30 years ago but nothing has come out of it. I would say that the lightest element (hydrogen) is absolutely necessary to make the airship viable. All later developments have tried to use helium and that is just too heavy to be commercially or practically viable.

Helium weighs 4, while hydrogen weighs 2, but air weighs about 15, so the lift of hydrogen versus helium is only 13 : 11, which is a small, non-essential difference. Basically it is not about the weight of the light gas, but of that of the displaced air.

It's not a non-essesntial differece. Even hydrogen is just barely viable. Airships are huge with a very small carry capacity in comparison.

Edit:
If helium provided significantly more lifting force it could be feasible. As it is now it is just too rare and expensive.

lifting force:
hydrogen (71 lbf/1000 cu ft)
helium (66 lbf/1000 cu ft)

price:
hydrogen $2 per 1000 cubic feet
helium $86 per 1000 cubic feet

If only we could tap helium from Jupiter or the Suns core... [;)]

As a matter of interest. In 1917 zeppelin L-59 attempted a resupply mission from Bulgaria to German East Africa, now Tanzania. The ship got as far as Khartoum in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan before being recalled. At 4200 km it was the longest distance flight by any aircraft to date and at 95-hours, the longest duration of any military aviation sortie to this day.

Wikipedia Article

National Interest Article

-C

ORIGINAL: Red_L.E.D.

ORIGINAL: springel

ORIGINAL: Red_L.E.D.

I remember reading about the cargo airships 20 or 30 years ago but nothing has come out of it. I would say that the lightest element (hydrogen) is absolutely necessary to make the airship viable. All later developments have tried to use helium and that is just too heavy to be commercially or practically viable.

Helium weighs 4, while hydrogen weighs 2, but air weighs about 15, so the lift of hydrogen versus helium is only 13 : 11, which is a small, non-essential difference. Basically it is not about the weight of the light gas, but of that of the displaced air.

It's not a non-essesntial differece. Even hydrogen is just barely viable. Airships are huge with a very small carry capacity in comparison.

Edit:
If helium provided significantly more lifting force it could be feasible. As it is now it is just too rare and expensive.

lifting force:
hydrogen (71 lbf/1000 cu ft)
helium (66 lbf/1000 cu ft)

price:
hydrogen $2 per 1000 cubic feet
helium $86 per 1000 cubic feet

If only we could tap helium from Jupiter or the Suns core... [;)]

Wait until we can make it.

ORIGINAL: Red_L.E.D.

I remember reading about the cargo airships 20 or 30 years ago but nothing has come out of it. I would say that the lightest element (hydrogen) is absolutely necessary to make the airship viable. All later developments have tried to use helium and that is just too heavy to be commercially or practically viable.

The difference in lifting potential is only 8%. There are many commercial vehicles that use helium, such as blimps, dirigibles used by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Luftschiffbau Zeppelin tourist flights. A read of the last part of this details why lighter than air craft may have a serious future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship