What if the Hindenburg never explodes in 1937? Would they still eventually be phased out by the airplane? Would Hydrogen eventually be replaced with a less explosive gas?
WI: Hindenburg never explodes
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
Then the Reichstag fire probably gets blamed on communists or something besides his spontaneous combustion.
(Sorry, very puerile.
)
(Sorry, very puerile.
)
IIRC dirigibles had been on the way out and losing public popularity for some time even before then, whilst the Hindenburg was the cherry on the top and the most symbolic incident but it surviving isn't really going to change anything. Flying boats already had them beaten in the 1930s and the passenger aircraft that were coming through in the 1940s had cruising speeds two or three times faster than its maximum speed. People always go on about their alternative possibilities as cargo transports but I generally find it illustrative that in the intervening seventy-five years even with all the advances in technology and materials design that the idea has never come to widespread fruition and when it periodically comes up in the news it's always just five years development away by the latest company that's doing it.
my latest foray into this was
using carbon monoxide from the engines to be pumped into hollow tubes that would comprise the frame, thus lightening them. But, those are also fire hazards as much as the Hydrogen. One other idea was the one of producing the hydrogen gas from the atmosphere as one flew along, thus ensuring a ready supply of lifting gas in event of venting. I didn't "invent" that one.
using carbon monoxide from the engines to be pumped into hollow tubes that would comprise the frame, thus lightening them. But, those are also fire hazards as much as the Hydrogen. One other idea was the one of producing the hydrogen gas from the atmosphere as one flew along, thus ensuring a ready supply of lifting gas in event of venting. I didn't "invent" that one.
No change as far as air transport goes; dirigibles were slow and uneconomical compared to the aircraft that were already in development just a few years after 1937.
Hydrogen as a lifting agent was well-known to be hazardous; IIRC, the reason Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen versus helium was the decision by the US government not to export helium to Germany.
One place where dirigibles might have found a role absent the Hindenburg was in anti-submarine warfare during the Battle of the Atlantic. As long as they're out of the range of German aircraft, they had the capacity for conducting extended duration patrols over convoy routes in the North Atlantic and along the US coastline.
Hydrogen as a lifting agent was well-known to be hazardous; IIRC, the reason Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen versus helium was the decision by the US government not to export helium to Germany.
One place where dirigibles might have found a role absent the Hindenburg was in anti-submarine warfare during the Battle of the Atlantic. As long as they're out of the range of German aircraft, they had the capacity for conducting extended duration patrols over convoy routes in the North Atlantic and along the US coastline.
thaddeus
Donor
believe the Hindenburg was to be filled with BOTH hydrogen and helium. an inner envelope of hydrogen surrounded by envelope(s) of helium (sort of a safety gas.)
instead of the unavailable helium maybe nitrogen could have been used? if hydrogen leaks into the outer nitrogen envelope ammonia would have been created.
in fact it might be possible to fuel the airship with ammonia or add it to diesel carried for fuel?
all that process the Germans would be expert in from fertilizer industry.
as to Hindenburg explosion possibly they needed to switch to cargo service instead of passenger service anyway?
(my scenario, during 1930s, would be regular flight between Germany and Japan)
Here's one possibility: the Hindenberg is taken out of service and overhauled to be the same safety specification as the Graf Zeppelin II. That means much better protection against static electricity and possibly a change in the canvas doping compound to reduce the fire hazard (given the hazardous nature of the original doping compound, note why the canvas cover burned off so fast if you've seen that famous newsreel).
That stuff was a response to Hindenburg's loss though. Honestly butterflying Hindenburg is going to be a question of details. You will get Graf II in passenger service, as well as probably LZ-131 (Somewhat larger Hindenburg derivative that had a few frames laid before things shut down). I'd guess by the time the war starts there will be a 132 under construction butonce Poland is invaded the ships are going to be grounded.
There might be a little more reluctance to scrap an operational multi ship fleet than there was for the two Graf's OTL, but if they aren't scrapped the hangars will be bombed, so either way nothing cones out of the war intact. If you got really wankish I suppose you could envision an attempt to supply north Africa with the ships, but they would inevitably be slaughtered in short order, and it's about the only conceivable military use.
Hugo Eckener did visit the United States after the war and spoke to Goodyear Zeppelin, but even with a more functional pre war German airline I don't see much hope of him getting anything built at that stage. The only realistic customer.at that stage would be Pan Am and they are just too experienced with fixed wing at this point to go to airships in a serious way, especially with the Pacific opening up to landplanes.
Honestly the place to play with if you want some more interwar airships is probably the USN ships. If you can save Macon (not that hard) or better yet Akron (might be tough) its much more conceivable for Pan Am to build an American Hindenburg like ship based on the Akron class, and quite likely we see at least one or two ships operational in the opening phase of the Pacific War. They aren't hugely likely to survive, let alone have much impact, but it seems the best Zeppelin wank you can get without messing with WWI. Save the 1919 incarnation of DELAG, or push WWI out a few years and things could be very different, but so much depends on the geopolitical situation I'm not even going to speculate right now.
I feel it's important to link this here. Truly a great timeline, one of the ones I'd rank as a board classic...and really short!
Got pre-empted by e of pi, but here's another good one.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=310325
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=310325
Ah! That's the revised version of the one I linked to, that's better to read.
That will all please the allies, the more the Nazis spend on airships, the less they can spend on military aircraft.
helium is, and, of course, has been, the only
sane gas to use in an airship.
The inner envelope idea described by someone above, was based on that, actually, right? Though it would have had Hydrogen in it, it's surrounded by helium to preclude explosion, fire, or expansion thereof.
IF you fed your atmosphere-gathered hydrogen into that, to ensure a back up lift if you needed to gain altitude or maintain altitude in an emergency, that would be a gaseous method to use. Still shaky on the fire risk end, though, iirc.
But other things might come into play, such as a hybrid thing, using rotor blades, etc.
The playing around with the CO in the exhaust would lighten the frame, but add to the risk of fire. Again, you'd have to have that part of the frame surrounded by a flame retardant. (Nitrogen is relatively heavy gas.)
It'd have to be the case that something happened to prevent WW2 from developing, at least in the format that it did: built as it was on heavier-than-air craft, it was the death knell, at least until other situations developed after the War. We'd even had a glimpse in WWI, when the Zeps over Britain were taken down by aeroplanes after a time.
We could postulate an post-WW2 scenario, I guess. Such as today, even, with people debating these various pipe dream visions. A solar-powered helium filled ship that never had to land, just have the crews and passengers changed out via aircraft that did the little trapeze thing like with the Akron, etc. In other words, like the ISS but within the atmosphere.
You seem to always be at the mercy of the wind. Somehow, that's what people dislike most, that feeling of being out of control. Jets are really probably more dangerous, at least a good part of the time, but you feel as if you are in control more, even so.
sane gas to use in an airship.
The inner envelope idea described by someone above, was based on that, actually, right? Though it would have had Hydrogen in it, it's surrounded by helium to preclude explosion, fire, or expansion thereof.
IF you fed your atmosphere-gathered hydrogen into that, to ensure a back up lift if you needed to gain altitude or maintain altitude in an emergency, that would be a gaseous method to use. Still shaky on the fire risk end, though, iirc.
But other things might come into play, such as a hybrid thing, using rotor blades, etc.
The playing around with the CO in the exhaust would lighten the frame, but add to the risk of fire. Again, you'd have to have that part of the frame surrounded by a flame retardant. (Nitrogen is relatively heavy gas.)
It'd have to be the case that something happened to prevent WW2 from developing, at least in the format that it did: built as it was on heavier-than-air craft, it was the death knell, at least until other situations developed after the War. We'd even had a glimpse in WWI, when the Zeps over Britain were taken down by aeroplanes after a time.
We could postulate an post-WW2 scenario, I guess. Such as today, even, with people debating these various pipe dream visions. A solar-powered helium filled ship that never had to land, just have the crews and passengers changed out via aircraft that did the little trapeze thing like with the Akron, etc. In other words, like the ISS but within the atmosphere.
You seem to always be at the mercy of the wind. Somehow, that's what people dislike most, that feeling of being out of control. Jets are really probably more dangerous, at least a good part of the time, but you feel as if you are in control more, even so.
It's kind of like being in a car
in which you have cruise control, but don't have the option of turning it off once it's turned on. Or, alternately, like being in a car with no brakes.
Landings were always...up in the air (pardon the pun), especially. The flight itself could be ...beautiful, peaceful, enjoyable in a way virtually nothing else could be. Leisurely.
But when it came time to land, all bets were really off, weren't they? You really had to have it together about accurate weather forecasts involving wind directions, wind speed, and the characteristics of the winds you'd be dealing with going into and at the landing site.
Even today, local winds are one of the most difficult to predict at the micro level.
in which you have cruise control, but don't have the option of turning it off once it's turned on. Or, alternately, like being in a car with no brakes.
Landings were always...up in the air (pardon the pun), especially. The flight itself could be ...beautiful, peaceful, enjoyable in a way virtually nothing else could be. Leisurely.
But when it came time to land, all bets were really off, weren't they? You really had to have it together about accurate weather forecasts involving wind directions, wind speed, and the characteristics of the winds you'd be dealing with going into and at the landing site.
Even today, local winds are one of the most difficult to predict at the micro level.
Speaking of ISS, space stations, etc., recall
the old von Braun-style "inner tube" space station?
Well, check this one out, if you haven't already:
http://www.economist.com/node/17136331
a wheel-shaped lifter.
Probably still totally vulnerable in a war situation, but possibly more stable and less vulnerable to winds at landing.
Throw in the Akron airplane option, you might have something feasible for some applications. Throw in solar power, you cut your operational costs and possibly minimize the necessity of having to land in the full sense.
the old von Braun-style "inner tube" space station?
Well, check this one out, if you haven't already:
http://www.economist.com/node/17136331
a wheel-shaped lifter.
Probably still totally vulnerable in a war situation, but possibly more stable and less vulnerable to winds at landing.
Throw in the Akron airplane option, you might have something feasible for some applications. Throw in solar power, you cut your operational costs and possibly minimize the necessity of having to land in the full sense.
Throw in electromagnets
there at the base of our wheel's long shaft nearer the ground. Activate the electromagnets when preparing to land, so that powerful ground magnet mates can be strong enough to counteract updrafts.
Downdrafts could still be a problem, if you've been lowering altitude via degassing. If you had the option of extending the long shaft below the wheel in that situation, you could increase, to some extent, your distance from the ground to counteract the downdrafts--again, to some extent, and if you had the assistance of onboard computers to help quickly calculate and compensate for said downdrafts via lengthening the shaft.
For downdrafts, too, you'd want to have the computer possibly turn off or weaken the level of magnetic pull at each end, both in the end of the shaft and at your ground magnet site (when available).
If you could have some rapid re-gas device, also, that, too could help cope with sudden downdrafts. That, too, would require computer guidance and speed.
Re-inflation, on a limited and fast scale, using some atmosphere-connected system, could be an option--though, again, hydrogen is about the only really fast thing you can draw out of the air. You'd have to have an empty or near-empty inner envelope, surrounded by fire-retardant gas (ideally helium) in which to draw and hold it.
And you'd want to be able to promptly--and safely--exhale hydrogen when the downdraft was over.
Lots to consider, even with this one. Trapeze aircraft would have to be constructed, I guess, from whole cloth nowadays. But maybe those, too, could have some new twists and turns in design?
there at the base of our wheel's long shaft nearer the ground. Activate the electromagnets when preparing to land, so that powerful ground magnet mates can be strong enough to counteract updrafts.
Downdrafts could still be a problem, if you've been lowering altitude via degassing. If you had the option of extending the long shaft below the wheel in that situation, you could increase, to some extent, your distance from the ground to counteract the downdrafts--again, to some extent, and if you had the assistance of onboard computers to help quickly calculate and compensate for said downdrafts via lengthening the shaft.
For downdrafts, too, you'd want to have the computer possibly turn off or weaken the level of magnetic pull at each end, both in the end of the shaft and at your ground magnet site (when available).
If you could have some rapid re-gas device, also, that, too could help cope with sudden downdrafts. That, too, would require computer guidance and speed.
Re-inflation, on a limited and fast scale, using some atmosphere-connected system, could be an option--though, again, hydrogen is about the only really fast thing you can draw out of the air. You'd have to have an empty or near-empty inner envelope, surrounded by fire-retardant gas (ideally helium) in which to draw and hold it.
And you'd want to be able to promptly--and safely--exhale hydrogen when the downdraft was over.
Lots to consider, even with this one. Trapeze aircraft would have to be constructed, I guess, from whole cloth nowadays. But maybe those, too, could have some new twists and turns in design?
Last edited:
Not much would change. 1937 is too close to the outbreak of WW2. The Germans would continue flying the Hindenburg with hydrogen and her sister, the new Graf Zeppelin (II) would enter service and fly reliably on the transtlantic runs until the fall of 1939. The Zeppelin company would be completing LZ 131, a larger passenger ship. Despite the efforts of Eckener and US promises, it is doubtful the US would ever release helium to Hitler's Germany. Then in 1939 war breaks out and the zeppelins have no military value. As in OTL, they are grounded and then broken up for scrap so their hangers can be used to manufacture aircraft and other valuable war materiel. Then after the war, even if the zeppelin company somehow resurrected itself and proposed to build more civil airships, there would be no viable market. Large airplanes were now too large, too capable, too fast, and too plentiful. Rigid airships would still have a (partially undeserved) reputation for structural weakness and vulnerablity to severe weather even without the Hindenburg exploding to punctuate things. With 400 kt airliners entering service and jets only a few years off, I just can't see zeppelins lasting past WW2. Perhaps they could have been "rediscovered" decades later for some niche purposes, but flying across the Atlantic in luxurious zeppelins was gone.
easy to go off topic
which is actually a "what if" running from circa 1937 til now, including potential impact on subsequent history
I was trying to speculate...since we see what's been done already, and could be done in some kind of a combination of techniques applied to various airships over time, whether what we have already seen develop post-War would be accelerated.
But clearly zeppelin-style aircraft were doomed as weapons of war going into WW2, at least going into it from 1937, since the set-pieces were already in place by then, as to projected weaponry and methodologies.
Once the war was over, if we hadn't had the drastic memory of the one crash at Lakehurst to recall, would we be significantly--or only slightly--different in our thinking post-War?
We'd have to, imho, go back further than the 1937 crash to set up a different scenario.
As far as the science, I can't own "inventions" I didn't make, either. The gadget to pull hydrogen from the atmosphere...I took it at face value from another's posting(s). But I've been a skeptic on it, too, as the poster above.
I can't resist trying to imagine what further could be done with combining all we've accomplished in the past with what we've learned lately.
MaxS
which is actually a "what if" running from circa 1937 til now, including potential impact on subsequent history
I was trying to speculate...since we see what's been done already, and could be done in some kind of a combination of techniques applied to various airships over time, whether what we have already seen develop post-War would be accelerated.
But clearly zeppelin-style aircraft were doomed as weapons of war going into WW2, at least going into it from 1937, since the set-pieces were already in place by then, as to projected weaponry and methodologies.
Once the war was over, if we hadn't had the drastic memory of the one crash at Lakehurst to recall, would we be significantly--or only slightly--different in our thinking post-War?
We'd have to, imho, go back further than the 1937 crash to set up a different scenario.
As far as the science, I can't own "inventions" I didn't make, either. The gadget to pull hydrogen from the atmosphere...I took it at face value from another's posting(s). But I've been a skeptic on it, too, as the poster above.
I can't resist trying to imagine what further could be done with combining all we've accomplished in the past with what we've learned lately.
MaxS