WI Zeppelins carried out-sized cargo inside their gas hulls?

As the topic suggests, what if out-sized cargo (yachts, drilling rigs, etc) was hauled inside the gas hulls?
After loading, re-seal the hull and re-pressurize it with hydrogen or helium.
Yes, we know that lifting gas is traditionally contained in separate fabric vase-cells. This new design would require special-shaped gas cells to wrap around out-sized cargo.

Remember that hydrogen is less expensive because it an he generated anywhere on earth, but helium is only available as a by-product of the petroleum industry and most of the world’s helium currently comes from the USA.
 
Thoughts, in no particular order:

My first question is why?

I guess Your proposal could eliminate the problems of drag created by a slung load, and the instability created by a slung load swinging.

You would have to do the math of what the airship could actually lift.

I suppose you could have a place where the rigid frame of the airship was hinged, like a cargo jet. Airships tend to be fragile, because they want to shave every extra pound from the structure. Or you could have semi rigid or non-rigid single use disposable airships if the cargo was valuable enough.

Hydrogen has more lifting power than helium, because the periodic table, but it has its drawbacks.
 
Nothing to back this up other than gut feeling, but I'd venture that if airships had that kind of lifting power, they'd be much more common in our past, present, and our future plans.
 
Nothing to back this up other than gut feeling, but I'd venture that if airships had that kind of lifting power, they'd be much more common in our past, present, and our future plans.

I don't think lifting power was ever the real problem with airships. ISTR some models had close on 100 tonnes of usable lift capacity, it took a long time for aircraft to match that. Speed, and the requirement for dedicated facilities wherever they went, seem to have been bigger issues.
 
The fixing points would pin the gas bag to the structure. They have be able to move a bit and they would simply tear. A hinges design will weaken an already fragile lightweight structure. No one will want to crew it.

Just string it underneath like a helicopter.
 
many ways to do this . several of them can be found in various cold war plans for Nuclear powered Rigid Dirigibles . Also some proposed modern versions .

Easiest way is to have a twin hull setup with cargo between them . Also Rigid Dirigibles always had the gas held in individual gas bags .

For a modern dirigible the ability to use pumping to remove helium back into storage tanks would allow for easier landing etc ,

Add in some wings and powerful engines and speed etc can go up .
 
Nothing to back this up other than gut feeling, but I'd venture that if airships had that kind of lifting power, they'd be much more common in our past, present, and our future plans.

the one that had a fair amount of lift was Graf Zeppelin and it used blau gas, which if possible was even more dangerous than the hydrogen.
 
Why?
I was watching a video about the 747s that Boeing use to move 787 components between their various factories.
Airbus use purpose-built Belugas.
The biggest Antonovs are busy flying yachts, like rigs, etc. around the world.

Back during the 1970s Conroy modified a few Boeing KC-97s and Canadair Yukons to carry out-sized cargo. Initially rocket tubes for NASA.

As for fragility, use a hundred bolts around the giant hatch. As for gas-bags rubbing and bursting, ... you need to build specialized gas-bags for different shapes of cargo.

If you wanted to install a radio antenna on a remote mountain top, the Zeppelin could both deliver the antenna and crane it into place. Carrying the antenna internally also reduces airframe icing.
 
... If you wanted to install a radio antenna on a remote mountain top, the Zeppelin could both deliver the antenna and crane it into place. Carrying the antenna internally also reduces airframe icing.

what time period are you speculating upon? Zeppelin has a certain connotation for the period of their heyday, but you are mentioning some engineering more suited to today?

the ability to loiter over an area, and serve as delivery vehicle and workshop as you mentioned is probably the optimal use? my speculation the historical Zeppelins could have been link between Germany and Japan on an Arctic route, or actually better in use to the Soviets to their remote locations?
 
the one that had a fair amount of lift was Graf Zeppelin and it used blau gas, which if possible was even more dangerous than the hydrogen.

The Blau Gas was the engine fuel not the lifting gas, I dont think it was lighter than air.

sorry if the post was unclear, it was used for fuel and is described as "virtually weightless" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blau_gas

my meaning was that the crew feared it (blau gas) more than the lifting gas (hydrogen) which is saying quite a lot.
 
the one that had a fair amount of lift was Graf Zeppelin and it used blau gas, which if possible was even more dangerous than the hydrogen.

The Blau Gas was the engine fuel not the lifting gas, I dont think it was lighter than air.

sorry if the post was unclear, it was used for fuel and is described as "virtually weightless" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blau_gas

my meaning was that the crew feared it (blau gas) more than the lifting gas (hydrogen) which is saying quite a lot.
 
Top