Return of the Zeppelins

kfg writes: "While the world has focused its aeronautic attention on the Helios solar powered plane the Zeppelin NT has carried it's first paying passengers on a one hour "tourist" flight in Germany, the first Zeppelin to do so since the infamous Hindenburg disaster. This comes after its return from the Paris Airshow where it was an unqualified hit with attendees. I can't really tell you why but this news tickles me more than any other tech news in ages. Sometimes the oldest tech is the coolest. Oh yeah, tickets are $280 American." This is the baby brother of the Cargolifter model; CNN has a brief story.

It's a *mini* Zeppelin

[Rushuru]

I attended the paris air show in June, and saw a flying demonstration of the zeppelin.

I had read stories and saw pictures of the original zeppelins, and I was almost as excited as the rest of the /. crowd at the idea of seeing a resurrected Zeppelin. I must say that I, and a big part of the rest of the crowd, got really disappointed when we actually saw it. It's a mini zeppelin, barely 80 meters long. The Hindenburg was 250M meters long, that makes the Zeppelin NT a 1/3 replica!

In a nutshell, it was not really exciting. It looked very much like the average airships which are used for advertising purposes at big sport events.

Re:19 passengers only?

[M_T_Toaster]

I thought the SkyCat [globaltechnoscan.com] looked a more promising project, the proposed prices for the cargo looked good.
Predicted transatlantic freight costs were:
$1 a kg Skycat 40 hrs
$3.50 /kg normal air freight
60 cents/kg boat 10 - 25 days

Re:question.....

[mobets]

They pump more air in it. I know blimps are split into a few section inside (went to see one of the goodyear blimps on a field trip). This increases the density of the helium. It then becomes too heavy to float.

Some short info

[jeti]

Zeppelin NT:
The Zeppelin NT is a relatively small Zeppelin with only 12 passenger seats. What sets it apart from simple blimps is that a carbon tube over the whole length makes the hull more rigid. Together with three propellers with a swivel angel of up to 120 degrees, that makes for excellent manoeuvrability (specs [zeppelin-nt.de] ). They're close to production.

CargoLifter 160:
In contrast, the CargoLifter will be gigantic (specs [cargolifter.com]). It'll have a length of 260m and will be able to lift up to 160 tons of cargo. So far they've built a balloon [cargolifter.com] for testing purposes and a hangar [cargolifter.com] that is big enough to host fourteen 747s. Both the hangar and the ballon break a number of records. There are a couple of nice webcams [cargolifter.com].

Re:19 passengers only?

[Delphis]

the hindenburg put a lot of people off even though we now know what the cause was.

I hope people DO realize that it was the aluminium oxide skin of the craft that ACTUALLY caught on fire first. This skin was arranged in panels. Also, the fact that these panels were attached together with 'string'. During the voyage to New York, the airship picked up a lot of static charge caused by moving through the rain and wind. Some panels were electrically connected by the (now wet ) string, some weren't because the string hadn't got wet enough.

So, when it reached its landing point, a mooring rope was dropped. That EARTHED the airship, and most of the charged 'panels' discharged. Some didn't, and of course then there was a potential difference, causing a spark. Now, aluminium oxide is used as fuel for rockets now, but it wasn't then and people didn't know how combustible it was. This spark happened towards the back end of the airship near the tail, where the rain hadn't soaked the string to make it conductive (and thereby lose its charge). This fire from the skin panel spread quickly, and of course the hydrogen didn't help but when you look at the footage of the hindenburg burning up, look at the SKIN of it and how quickly it burned. The hydrogen just dissipated UP when it burnt off.

Btw, I saw a tv program that revealed all of this a while ago, so I'm not pulling it out of my ass :D

Re:19 passengers only?

[marcsiry]

This is a small airship, obviously meant as a demonstrator. Their site says the concept can scale from here without much trouble.

Airships wouldn't replace jet aircraft, but they could certainly supplement them as regional transportation. Despite their large size, they can land in a relatively small amount of space... the Goodyear Blimp's landing field [mapquest.com], here in Southern California, is the size of a large store parking lot. Couple that with their quieter (than a jet) operations, and you have a great short hop commuter aircraft between smaller markets (Akron to Pittsburgh, for example) or as a transfer vehicle between metropolitan airports and bedroom communities that would otherwise be a multihour bus or van trip away.

Re:The Hindenburg accident wasn't due to the hydro

[MtViewGuy]

In the case of the Hindenberg, not that much.

You are forgetting the fatal flaw of the Hindenberg: the canvas outer covering used a doping compound of aluminum powder and nitrocellulose. Given that these are two prime ingredients for modern solid rocket fuel, even if the Hindenberg had been filled with helium the airship was essentially a flying bomb waiting to happen.

No, it didn't

[YanIsa]

And why did it use hydrogen? Cause the USA didn't want to supply Germans with helium [ucla.edu]..

Yan

Gilina: "I can't believe you're not Sebacean."
John: "Human. It's kinda like Sebacean, but we haven't conquered other worlds yet, so we just kick the crap out of each other."

Farscape, PK Tech Girl

Hindenburg not the last one

[gorilla]

Actually the last passenger carrying zeppelin was the Hindenburg's sister ship, the Graf Zeppelin II, number LZ-130, which was under construction at the time of the Hindenburg accident (Hindenburg was LZ-129), and completed in 1938. They were never paying passengers, the German Air Ministry never allowed this, and with the advance of war most countries forbid the Germans permission to fly the ship over their soil. Both the Hindenburg & the Graf Zeppelin II were primarily designed for helium lifting, but as the only supplier of helium at the time was the US, and the US refused to sell helium to the Germans, hydrogen had to be used. The best theory about the fire is that it was the doping solution applied to the canvas to waterpoof, which had a very low flashpoint. The Graf Zeppelin II had a different doping solution, using bronze insteal of aluminum, and also conductive connections between the skin and the body, allowing any static charges to be equalized without sparks. The Graf Zeppelin II was scrapped in 1940, due to the war's requirement for materials, after over a million miles of flight.

I worked in the Empire State Bldg till recently...

[Artifice_Eternity]

...and became something of an ESB history buff. They did in fact dock a dirigible at the top of the building -- once. A couple celebrities (including a famous actress, I think) were nearly killed when the wind pushed it around. A huge amount of water ballast was spilled, drenching people on top of the building as well as on the streets below.

It was never a terribly well-thought-out idea, docking a lighter-than-air ship nearly a quarter mile up in the air. Still, it has a retro-cool appeal...a good friend and I are working on a novella about an alternate universe in which the authoritarian US gov't. continues to moor airships to the top of the ESB.

For more on the history of the Empire State Building (including the dirigible mooring mast) see http://www.esbnyc.com [www.esbnyc...argetblank].

Re:The Hindenburg accident wasn't due to the hydro

[JudTaylor]

Here is a link to a RealVideo entitled CORRECTING HISTORY: Hydrogen and the Hindenburg [ttcorp.com], including explanation by Addison Bain, retired NASA scientist.

Re:Zeppeling design...

[tarawa]

The Hindenerg didn't crash because of the hydrogen ignited, but because he outer covering was extremely flamible which was ignited by an electostatic discharge. PBS had an excellent documentary on it and here is a link [pbs.org] to Q&A with the researcher who determined this.

Re:Wired Article

[GregWebb]

Also add improper electrical insulation. The skin charging up isn't necessarily a problem, so long as it discharges evenly. It discharged when the mooring rope hit the ground, BUT some panels didn't because they weren't properly grounded to the airframe. You then have a potential difference between panels covered in pretty much rocket fuel and lots of fire.

Whoops. Whoops almighty.

Re:The Hindenburg accident wasn't due to the hydro

[MtViewGuy]

To be more specific, the doping material on the canvas covering used on the pre-World War II Zeppelins as a way to reflect heat and keep out moisture was a combination of aluminum powder and nitrocellulose.

It was a NASA engineer (who knew that aluminum powder and nitrocellulose are propellents in solid rocket motors) that discovered this fact from looking at a piece of the Hindenberg's canvas covering that managed to survive the crash. He noticed that the stuff burned exactly like solid rocket fuel, and using modern material analysis deduced the doping compounds I mentioned above. In short, the Hindenberg was a flying bomb waiting to happen.

It should be noted that the Zeppelin company did its own internal report (completely in 1938) that noted the doping compound's penchant to burn quickly, but the Nazi government quickly supressed the findings.

The Hindenburg accident wasn't due to the hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who didn't know, it was apparently caused by the coating they used on the fabric. Turns out the reflective coating was *very* similiar to thermite. Static build up + thermite = nasty accident

Personally I'm glad to see the zepplin fly again. Especially given my affinity for steampunk.

Reply to Zeppelin NT - first paying passengers

[mactom]

Hi altogether,

There were technical questions about this wonderful flying machine Zeppelin NT. I will try to remember what I know from the news and the currently defunct webpage.

1. Anchoring and pick up passengers?
It operates ca. 800kg heavier than air. It can land like an aircraft and does not float away while boarding/unboarding. It has an anchoring mast, but needs only three groundpersonell for anchoring compared to roughly 20 for a standard blimp. It can do groundoperations up to 20kts wind as far as I remember, whithout ground personal at all.

2. Maneuvering?
Three Engines, two at the sides with the ability to turn the props for reverse thrust, direct lift and even downforce, one in the rear, giving forward or upward thrust and driving an additional fan for movement around vertical axis(turning). All is completely fly by wire (hopefully NOT NT controlled ...). It maneuvers nearly like a helicopter and can turn and climb or descent on the spot.

3. Only 19 passengers?
There are plans to build a larger one for 40 passengers. Buy it and convert it to your own flying luxury yacht. Also, I think there are different (easier) certification rules for aircraft up to 19 passengers (commuter category)then for aircraft with more passengers.

4. Solar / electrical powered aircraft and airships
Take a look at the following link:
http://www.isd.uni-stuttgart.de/arbeitsgruppen/air ship/
for a solar powered airship called "Lotte". It looks really cool. I work only some hundred meters away from their place and can see it flying sometimes.
Also look at
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.de/
for the first commercial electrical powered motorglider to be certified (hopefully) next year. The engine-unit is already flying in a modified glider.

So, Zeppelin NT? The sight of any flying airship, might it be a blimp or a Zeppelin, is just cool. Especially with a huge outboard color display on the ballonett for delivering messages and fun stuff in the dark. No noise, only a little humming overhead and a large ship passing gently.
Even cooler is, to hitch a ride. Last year a friend of mine won one in another airship, and I had the pleasure to accompanny her. Two hours over Munich in Summer, with the windows down, like in a car, gently floating in the thermals at 50 kph close over the city. Just incomparable to any other flying experience I had before. A Ship, not a plane!

Justdreaminggoneflyingregards ...

Re:Lorries without roads

[Wyatt Earp]

A helicopter will carry more than a blimp.

Copters like the Skycrane, Chinook or the USAF/USMC H-53 can carry alot more then a blimp in worse weather conditions.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-53.htm

"The helicopter is capable of lifting 16 tons (14.5 metric tons) at sea level, transporting the load 50 nautical miles (57.5 miles) and returning. A typical load would be a 16,000 pound (7264 kilogram) M198 howitzer or a 26,000 pound (11,804 kilogram) Light Armored Vehicle."

"Sea Dragon is capable of carrying up to 55 troops or a 16-ton payload 50 nautical miles or a 10-ton payload 500 nautical miles."

External cargo of up to 36,000 pounds may be transported by using either the single- or two-point suspension system.

In the long run, I just don't see a blimp providing the cost/lift capability of a helicopter. The numbers above are for US helicopters, the price to performance ratio of Russian helicopters is even greater. Another problem with the blimp is weather. You start to get cross-winds you lose alot of control in a blimp compared to a helo.

Re:Hmm ...

[it's a culture thing]

it doesn't look like it seats a great many people. How competitive is it going to be when placed against a 747?

I seriously doubt it would ever be set in competition against the international airlines, however as an alternative to things like paddle steamers, canal boats etc it may gain some market share with the more mature, middle class segment - imagine a candle lit dinner at 10,000 in a 1930's style blimp. *grin*

Comparing a 19 seat blimp to a 747 is like comparing Windows to Unix - they have different markets, different cultures and different ways of looking at things. If they market it right they could be on to a winner, especially as they have first mover advantage and the barriers to entry are quite high (complying with FAA regulations, design, testing, maintanance etc).

Maybe Microsoft'll buy a couple and replace the GoodYear blimp?

Re:The Hindenburg accident wasn't due to the hydro

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have some effect. However, as the skin burned away opening holes in the gasbags, most of the H2 would just rise up into the atmosphere. Imagine a large column of H2 rising upwards. There's no O2 in the center so how would it get the oxygen to burn? Only the H2 around the outside would burn. By then the inner H2 would have risen far away from the fire.

Re:19 passengers only?

[fyonn]

it's funny, but owning a zeppelin is one of my life goals. always has been since I saw the hindenberg. I saw zeppelin's website over a year ago, and at one point I even emailed them and asked how much. the reply was about 4.5 million pounds.

I'll get there eventually...

it is expensive because it's a low demand item. lets face it, the hindenburg put a lot of people off even though we now know what the cause was. actually a fair amount of evidence points to the fact that zeppelin knew what the cause was bare weeks after the crash but kept it a secret.

I mean 19 people at $200 dollars each, they'll need to sell a lot of tickets to recoup the price, let alone the maintenance.

that aside modern planes are a lot bigger and more reliable now than they were back in the 40's. now there is very little market for them except in specialised circumstances. heavy lifting of bulky items, high luxery etc.

I mean while they are faster than you'd think (80mph) they aren't nearly as fast as planes, they aren't as tolerant of bad weather, they are huge, hard to park and only take a relatively small number of people for their size. they are high maintenance, helium is very expensive, and the US has a monopoly on it. hydrogen is just as good but people are too scared of it.

while i still really want one, I doubt it will ever become a common sight.

dave

Wired Article

[it's a culture thing]

There was an article [wired.com] in Wired [wired.com] magazine the other year about this. It seems the US government controls about 80% of the worlds reserves of helium, which is of course nonflammable but due to the tensions of the 1930's refused to export to Germany leading to the use of hydrogen instead.

Of course the interesting point is the supposedly hugh amounts of helium on the Moon, any excuse for a trip I guess!

On another note: I'm currently waiting for a delivery of a new Server system - which is stuck in a traffic jam, if only these blimps were available now we could have real blue sky computing 8)

Re:Lorries without roads

[Confused]

WyattEarp wrote:

A helicopter will carry more than a blimp [...]
"The helicopter is capable of lifting 16 tons (14.5 metric tons) at sea level, transporting the load 50 nautical miles (57.5 miles) and returning. [...]"

Going by what Cargolifter [cargolifter.com] plans, they'll be able to transport 160 (metric) tons filling up a volume up to 8 x 8 x 50 meter over distances up to 10000 km. (cf. Datasheet for CL 160 [cargolifter.com]). This is about 10 times what helicopters can carry for about 100 times the distance.

As they plan to cover those distances at 90 km/h - which is about what lorries can easily reach on highways - I assume that it will be usable in moderate to bad weather too.