~~~~~~~~~~
Airship / blimp / zeppelin general
First of it's kind
Lets discuss the greatest and safest flying machines known to mankind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTv1bhlUCTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tbrlkDJsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDWmh0iX7bU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sT1aNzcksw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z72GPZ3MI2M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>897710
Do drone blimps use hydrogen or helium?
It seems unlogical to me to use helium in drone blimps since they are unmanned
>>897711
No blimps, derigibles or other forms of airship use hydrogen in the modern day, too many fireballs
>>897722
Such a serious (public) fixation or obsession on the LZ129 disaster....Heavier-than-air passenger disasters are usually way worse than Hindenburg where 2/3 of people onboard survived...-Only about 35 people died. It's not unusual for heavier-than-air crash fatalities to be many times that..-no one walks away
I think commercial passenger airships today would have a small but very viable niche. People like to cruise, sightsee, etc.. It would fit in with passenger train and the ocean cruise type consumers. And would probably be popular in that niche, since cruise tours could go overland to observe wilderness and wildlife and such.. In fact, it might be advantageous, if not lucrative, for existing ocean cruise line operations to incorporate airship cruising into their cruise business.
Vacuum airships are the future. Right now the materials science isn't there, but it soon will be. And vacuum is neither flammable nor in short supply. An intermediate step might be low-pressure helium. No reason the helium has to be at exactly 101 kPa, right? I suspect that the materials are able to handle 50 kPa right now. And soon, 25 kPa and, after that, 10.
>>897710
>>897734
>>897735
What is that?
>>897745
Looks like 2 planes, one laying smoke, plus a zeppelin that flies through the smoke trail, all filmed from a third aircraft.
>>897745
perhaps an airborne version of a water cannon salute?
>>897745
>What is that?
me too., guessis,, dryice dump?, theres a clear cutoff to the "curtain effect, in Webm.
http://aeroscraft.com/
We blimptrain now.
What were these blimps used for
>>897882
barrage ballons for air defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon
>>897885
I like it
Daily reminder that hydrogen is a safe buoyant and that the Hindenburg accident was grossly exaggerated by the media. Only 37 people died of the 97 onboard.
Due to political pressure to keep the airship on schedule, it flew in weather it was NOT suppose to be flying in and engaged in very sharp turns (exceeding a limitation set by engineers) in an attempt to dock, stressing the airframe until internal cables snapped, rupturing the hydrogen bladders.
Daily reminder that even Hydrogen airships are much, much more safer compared to standard airplanes, if you compare the statistics and death-per-flight ratio.
The pressure inside the envelope of an airship is so low, and the volume of helium inside it so great (more than 1000 m3 of helium per tonne of buoyancy) that even if there is a hole, or even several holes, in the envelope the helium will only leak out very slowly. In 1994 the British Ministry of Defence carried out some tests on a non-rigid airship. These tests included firing several hundred bullets into the envelope. It came down to Earth of course - more than five hours later.
During the 1920s and 1930s there were three very highly publicised accidents involving airships: the American Shenandoah, the British R101 and the German Hindenburg. However, only the Hindenburg involved the death of a passenger, not one of these accidents was caused by a hydrogen fire; all of them were the direct result of political interference. The accidents to the Shenandoah, R101 and Hindenburg were and still are very much the exception: all the published accident statistics show that airships are now and have always been much safer than aeroplanes
>>898196
>However, only the Hindenburg involved the death of a passenger
>A total of 46 of the 54 passengers and crew were killed immediately.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101#Final_flight
>>897710
>blims
You had one job anon.
>>897790
Not a blimp.
>>898196
>Due to political pressure to keep the airship on schedule, it flew in weather it was NOT suppose to be flying in and engaged in very sharp turns (exceeding a limitation set by engineers) in an attempt to dock, stressing the airframe until internal cables snapped, rupturing the hydrogen bladders.
It takes 3 days to cross the atlantic, how the fuck were they supposed to know that there would be thunder when they arrived?
It made no difference as they merely flew over NY until the weather was clear for them to land.
The sharp turn was a mistake by Pruss.
>>897727
>In fact, it might be advantageous, if not lucrative, for existing ocean cruise line operations to incorporate airship cruising into their cruise business.
Gentlemen, I present to you…
The BlimpShip.
>>897710
>blims
blims are awesome OP, thank you for making the thread
>>898553
OH SHI-
>>898553
GODDAMMIT
>>898553
>>898553
you stole this idea
>>898688
>us navy
>not blimpshipping for leisure
>>898553
As someone who works with cruise ships on the summers and ever so occasionally gets lunch from the ship, that would be fucking awesome.
Can anyone recommed me some good games with controllable Airships in them
>>898690
>blimpshipping for leisure
here you are
http://themaritimeblog.com/blimp-on-a-cruise-ship/
dude wtf
I asked a question and nobody answerd
>>898739
Unrelated note, but the magnitude of those boats is beyond comprehension. They have a boardwalk with storefronts, pools, mini-golf courses, condos, a small amusement park and a stadium.
>>898340
>what is radio
> daily reminder
>>898812
i find their shape to be ugly as all fucks. id prefer ships like the queen mary II, at least these ain't just floating commieblocks
>>897727
>t's not unusual for heavier-than-air crash fatalities to be many times that..-no one walks away
Not true at all. A plane that suddenly plunges from cruising altitude, yeah, no one survives. In the ARFF business we call that a high-impact crash.
A plane that has enough control to make it to an airport, or even just to the ground in a controlled fashion, usually does have survivors. Of those that die most survive the impact but are then overcome by post crash fire and smoke inhalation.
>>899322
Fun Fact:
The Hindenburg carried roughly 200.000m3 Hydrogen. With a mass of 0,09kg/m3 at atmospheric pressure thats something like 18.000 kg Hydrogen.
Modern passenger jets on long-distance flights carry up to ten times that amount of kerosene. A 747 can take 220m3 fuel. At roughly 800kg/m3 thats something like 176.000 kg kerosene.
>>899362
Apples to oranges, the hydrogen on the Hindenburg was not fuel. By any measure the 747 is exponentially more efficient transportation.
>>899406
I just wanted to give an impression how little hydrogen a giant airship like the Hindenburg actually needs, at least in terms of actual mass.
Of course they didn´t use the hydrogen for fuel. The Hindenburg used diesel. According to Wikipedia the Hindenburg carried carried something like 80.000 liters diesel for an atlantic crossing.
>>899080
>floating commieblocks
sounds pretty dope if you ask me
>>898717
FlightGear is opensource and free to download. There are some airship models for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB_dkoy7pN8
R-100 on the wrong side of the pond.
>>898197
The R101 wasn't carrying any paying passengers. It's "passengers" were government officials on a demonstration flight.
>>898717
X-plane has airships with actual buoyancy physics (rather than being "big slow planes" like most mainstream flight simulators treat them), though it's simplified and you never run out of lift gas or ballast.
The old combat flight sim Dawn of Aces had an even better airship flight model at one time, but it's broken in the only version I've been able to find online (the ballast has no weight, so the airship shoots up to 13,000 feet immediately, and there's no way to arrest your descent when you come back down).
>>900555
>Backtracking
They weren't crew - that makes them passengers and by extension, makes your original claim false.
>>900560
I'm not the person that made the original post, just explaining what their reasoning most likely is. But how exactly would you define crew? Back in WWI some of the German zeppelins occasionally carried engineers from the Zeppelin company whose only job was to observe how well the airship functioned under operational conditions. Would they count as crew?
>>900558
>X-plane
wow that game has pretty good graphics
This short documentary / zeppelin film is awesome.
http://airshipcenter.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30
>>898688
and thats just a tender ship....'blimpship' still original idea.
>>898798
the answer is.....no?
>>898688
That doesn't even have any Lifeblimpboats
>>898196
if i recall correctly, it was sabotaged right? something something french resistance, british spies? I really doubt the "static electricity" reason
>>902185
That was a common theory from the beginning, however there's never been much evidence to support it. Most likely it was due to carelessness. The Hindenburg was already delayed by weather, and there was some big event going on in Europe in a few days, so the Germans wanted to land and head back as quickly as possible. They attempted landing before the storm had fully cleared, and also likely damaged one of the gas cells by turning too sharply rather than execute a go-around. This sort of thing would never have happened under the former director of Zeppelin flights, Hugo Eckener who always put safety as a very high priority, but he was removed by the Nazis, and his replacements were more concerned with impressing their superiors than safety.
>>902968
hmm..carelessness..seems very possible. Regardless of the reason, it's a damn shame the Hindenburg went down..at least now the new airships are safer than ever, safer than most planes these days
