The Hindenberg Lands!

Looking at the map of the passenger compartment on the Hindenberg - well a) it's a bit cramped (I love to walk around a lot, so I'd prefer a ship) and b) there's just one shower/bath for all those people? Or did I misread it?
 
Looking at the map of the passenger compartment on the Hindenberg - well a) it's a bit cramped (I love to walk around a lot, so I'd prefer a ship) and b) there's just one shower/bath for all those people? Or did I misread it?

http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors

This only mentions "a" shower (for a maximum of 124 people - 52 crew, 72 passengers), and it does seem ill designed for long strolls along the deck sort of walking about - not sure if I'd say cramped in any other sense, but certainly no great points there.

Is that the site with the maps you're looking at, or something else?
 
It only needs a mooring mast to "make port", plus the kind of passenger facilities that would be needed for any craft (so counting that as a zep expense and not a general thing is unreasonable)

And airfields are small and cheap, right? They can be put right downtown...wait, can they? Why have I never been able to take advantage of this? I mean, San Fransisco doesn't count, but seriously?

Gas works? Its not like you need to refill at every port - a zeppelin's gas sacks stay full* between flights.

* Or about as full as normal procedures are.

Vulnerable to winds? Ah yes, this explains the fact no zeppelins ever claimed to altitudes of any significance (except that they did), dealt with windy conditions (except, again, that they did) in flight, or otherwise dealt with it. Sure a major storm is a disaster, but I wouldn't want to fly anything in the storm that brought the Shenandoah down.

As for the ground crew: Let's see something specific on those figures compared to the investment made for airplanes.

An airship traditionally bleds off gas in order to maintain level flight and to descend to land. So an airship is typically 'topped off' with additional lifting gas at the beginning of each flight.

When mentioning 'vulnerable to winds' I was addressing usually the most vulnerable portion of an airship's voyage and that is when it is walked out of the hanger. Maneuvering those giant craft into and out of the hangers are potentially dangerous moments. Eckener lost an airship before the war that was thrown against its hanger.

These large hangers produce turbulence around them in the lightest winds. In order to mitigate this the US built aerodynamic hangers for the Akron and Macon. The Germans designed an arrangement with two hangers adjacent to each other built upon a huge turnable that would allow an airship to take off into the wind.

Regarding ground crew I would suggest looking at the footage of the landing of the Hindenburg at Lakehurst and you would get an idea of the amount of men needs to catch the landing lines and pull the airship both to the ground and then to the mooring mast.
 
also, just watched an episode from the 1940's superman cartoons and it had an airship carrier, would it be actually theoritaclly possible to make an airship carrier. i wouldnt think so with the weight and all, not to mention the size. but if you could put money aside, and a guarnteed place to house such a monster, would it even be possible. and by an airship carrier, i mean it housed the planes in a chamber near the top to house the planes (about 40 planes), and it had a runway on the top.
 
also, just watched an episode from the 1940's superman cartoons and it had an airship carrier, would it be actually theoritaclly possible to make an airship carrier. i wouldnt think so with the weight and all, not to mention the size. but if you could put money aside, and a guarnteed place to house such a monster, would it even be possible. and by an airship carrier, i mean it housed the planes in a chamber near the top to house the planes (about 40 planes), and it had a runway on the top.

The Akron and Macon were designed to serve as flying aircraft carriers scouting ahead for the US battlefleet. It would be a bit unrealistic to expect that a flight deck would be built on top of the zeppelin since such a structure would add considerable to the hull's weight. The aircraft the US experimented with were without landing wheels as an attempt to lighten the airframes as much as possible.
 
An airship traditionally bleds off gas in order to maintain level flight and to descend to land. So an airship is typically 'topped off' with additional lifting gas at the beginning of each flight.

Not so significantly as to be a huge expense or issue - I presume we're looking at hydrogen, as the helium ones had to go out of their way to avoid venting helium.

When mentioning 'vulnerable to winds' I was addressing usually the most vulnerable portion of an airship's voyage and that is when it is walked out of the hanger. Maneuvering those giant craft into and out of the hangers are potentially dangerous moments. Eckener lost an airship before the war that was thrown against its hanger.

That's a situation that was handled well enough most of the time that I'd be leery of listing it as a serious operational issue (although making designs to deal with it would be one of the less fun aspects of reintroducing them).

Regarding ground crew I would suggest looking at the footage of the landing of the Hindenburg at Lakehurst and you would get an idea of the amount of men needs to catch the landing lines and pull the airship both to the ground and then to the mooring mast.

Those men, if I'm not confusing them with something else, were paid some small sum that I can't recall the figure of offhand - its something comparable to minimum wage, I think.
 
Not so significantly as to be a huge expense or issue - I presume we're looking at hydrogen, as the helium ones had to go out of their way to avoid venting helium.
Even so, you need a refinery at or near every landing site, so that's going to restrict the number of destinations.
 
David S Poepoe said:
I'm considering both gases since even hydrogen encumbers an expense in storage.

Everything about operating anything entails an expense. I think at some point we have to start looking at what expenses and other issues (such as the fact speed puts zeppelins well beyond the airplanes of their day, or that range is heavily in favor of the manatees*) are significant limitations.

* As someone who finds fires like that terrifying, the only way not to think about it is to be silly. And "Oh the huge manatee" is silly.

Even so, you need a refinery at or near every landing site, so that's going to restrict the number of destinations.

Why do you need a full out refinery just to top off the limited amount of hydrogen vented in flight?

One would think hydrogen was expensive and easily spoiled.
 
http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors

This only mentions "a" shower (for a maximum of 124 people - 52 crew, 72 passengers), and it does seem ill designed for long strolls along the deck sort of walking about - not sure if I'd say cramped in any other sense, but certainly no great points there.

Is that the site with the maps you're looking at, or something else?

Good site! That fits in with what I saw on page 1 of this thread. The shower sounds like it was more of a dribble than anything else.
 
Good site! That fits in with what I saw on page 1 of this thread. The shower sounds like it was more of a dribble than anything else.

Yeah. Possibly exaggerated in the telling - but certainly minimal.

Still, sounds about as comfortable as first class train travel, all things considered, maybe more.
 
Yeah. Possibly exaggerated in the telling - but certainly minimal.

Still, sounds about as comfortable as first class train travel, all things considered, maybe more.

True, but imagine being stuck there for 3-4 days. I'd go stir-crazy. I walk 2-3 miles a day and being cooped up in that space with no access to fresh air would drive me raving mad.
 
True, but imagine being stuck there for 3-4 days. I'd go stir-crazy. I walk 2-3 miles a day and being cooped up in that space with no access to fresh air would drive me raving mad.

Fair enough. But then, I wouldn't want to be your seatmate on a train trip that long either. Even if you can open the windows there. :p

I wonder how a modern zeppelin would be in that regard. They never reached their absolute limit of efficiency - the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg are attempts to work within the limits of existing sheds, not ideal designs.

And with that and other discoveries, they might be better than their 1930s versions.

Not sure how you'd fit in "space to walk about" - its not as if you were kept in your cabin, but I don't think they'd want someone just walking along the crew deck either.
 
Top