It's sad, that there are no more airships today. It would be the perfect way of travelling for James, slow and unnecesary complicated, but also somehow classy. :D
I have been longing for the return of the airships, too. They are faster than ships, They can carry more than airplanes, and are not limited by terrain. The Empire State Building was designed to moor airships to their top floors. After the Hindenburg, however, folks weren't to keen on the idea of hydrogen-filled airships hovering over New York City.
Brian Battles No. You would moor it much as you would a ship on the dock and then there would be a gangway (a bridge from ship to shore) for boarding and loading. Your idea does sound like fun, though.
The reason the didn't use the zepplins dock on the empire state building was because even on a windless day it was still windy at that height and the gangway to the empire state building was very flimsy and first class passengers didn't like that and that's why the empire state building was never used as a zepplin dock
+Saviliana Yes, and apparently, the Chinese have a crazy idea to go the moon and mine it for helium. Of course, I highly doubt the UN would allow it that easily.
+Saviliana Actually its helium3 they want to mine on the moon. it can be used in future fusion reactors if they ever figure out how to do fusion power. normal helium is running out because its so light it floats to the top of the atmosphere and is blow away by solar winds. Also about the UN comment there is a space treaty in place that says no country can own any part of outer space, which includes the moon.
I'm missing a mention of the German CargoLifter company who tried to build airships, even had some prototype running but then went bankrupt because of mis-management. Their construction hall is now the "Tropical Island" in Brandenburg.
I've probably seen a dozen or so articles in popular science magazines over the years, all heralding the rebirth of the airship, it's one of those fall-back to pipe dreams every futurist has in their arsenal, to be buffed up and taken out every few years, like the personal jetpack, the flying car, underwater living etc.
I had a relative that was a blimp flight instructor during WWI and flew anti-sub warfare missions (ASW). There's more to it than just bad PR. In an LTA when the motor stopped, the onboard mechanic fixed it. Barring that they free ballooned to a "safe" landing. Not an option with aircraft, especially over water. He knew that it was really about the poor reliability of the engines and that when engines improved the slowness, high handling costs (ground crew for launch and recovery were 45 people) and inherent slowness / wind / weather issues would make it a thing of the past. Oh, there is 1 very often missed benefit of the blimps, they were the helicopters of their time. They could hover by standing against the wind and were at least tested for recovering people / pilots in the water. Today's helicopter cancel that potential use.
But you can't "walk away from" a water landing. Seriously, though, when a non-amphibian airplane with extended wheeled undercarriage tries to land on water, it is usually referred to as "forced down".
I remember the airships when I was a little kid. Just looking outside my condo and seeing this massive blimp with this large, amazing, terrifying artwork seemingly staring at me. I miss you early 2000's.
@@embracethesuck1041 oh right, i didnt quite mean to use it to make landing safer, moreso that with normal fuel the airship gets lighter the more it uses, making landing more difficult assuming proper bag sealing, where if you use the lifting gas as fuel, the ship should go down the further you go
First video from the channel I've seen. Instant subscribe, in part for answering the question I am astounded to suddenly realize I've never asked. I think this is something I could really go for (airships). People take long cruises to places they aren't especially interested in going, and they fly at amazing speeds to vacation where they want but are in no hurry to get to. A combination of the two and split the difference in travel at a lower fuel cost than either sounds pretty nice.
The Hindenburg crash wasn't televised, the famous radio broadcast wasn't even live, it was synced up to newsreel film afterwards. Television was in it's infancy in 1937.
+Tuco Pacifico Heh that was my thought doubt that mobile on location broadcasts were probably around for some time after that still, can't imagine it being much before the late 1960's once there was actually some terrestrial microwave and/or comsat infrastructure to support them.
Every time someone discusses airships, they completely forget that the US navy used them against submarines in WW2. Come on people, 4400 crewmen and 150 airships should not be forgotten that easily! Don't act like the only airships active between the Hindenburg crash and the rebirth of the Zeppelin company were the Goodyear blimps.
One issue with the Hinderburg was that the paint used on the exterior of the blimp was very close to thermite, so close that it most likelly formed thermite. Hydrogen burn without apparent flame, and there was plently of flame back then. Also, pure hydrogen don't burn: it require oxygen to burn. So, what most likelly happened is: a spark ignited the thermite, which burned and the rest is history.
+thephantom1492 nope. As mythbusters, and others have proofed, there couldn't have been a thermite reaction. And the flame had a color because it ALSO burned the skin of the airship
+thephantom1492 Much of the Hindenburg's skin survived (the lower bits) That were NOT exposed to hydrogen. If it were thermite, to any degree, it would be none existent In any way. See the Graf? Proof of concept, no issues for many many years.
It's not some wild conspiracy theory. It was widely known even then that the aluminized nitrate dope used to treat aircraft fabrics was extremely flammable. It was all they had, so that's what they used. In fact, many pilots of fixed wing airplanes in World War I would sooner jump to their deaths than burn in the raging inferno when the outer fabric caught fire. Technology has improved, however. First it was the less flammable butyrate dope, then synthetic fabrics with non flammable synthetic coatings. It would be cool to revisit the airship concept with modern technology and see what we could come up with, but I'm afraid there just isn't much interest.
The only problems are: What if it gets shot down? Boom fireball! What if it crashes? Boom fireball! What if it gets hit by a flock of birds? Boom fireball! (
Yeah... But if a plane were to commonly fall down it would be a small plane, not a GIANT BLOODY AIRSHIP THE SIZE OF A CRUISE SHIP. Now, if you were forced to have one of those fall on your house; which would you choose?
+leerman22 yes, a gigantic explosive unmanned balloon full of heavy freight... (read following with the maximum amount of sarcasm)> I don't see ANY way how that could go wrong! that is like the worst idea I have ever heard, what if someone hacked it and took over the controls, the possible damage it could do would be unmatched by anything else ever made (aside from a nuke).
The Eh Team i think so. A lot of advantages of hydrogen. Easily available. Lighter than helium. Can be used as fuel. Can be used to power a compressor so no ballast needed. Advances in technology mean that safety would be better. After all, we don't worry so much about great big chunks of metal and flammable fluid flying over us every day ie planes. And big petrol tanker lorries on the road. Ships have the same problems with winds and manoeuvrability, plus they have currents, tides, waves, icebergs and rocks to deal with. Hydrogen won't explode unless mixed with air, inside a good skin it should be ok. It will burn though given half a chance - the hindenburg didn't explode so much as erupt in a hellish fireball. But then petrol and kerosene burn quite easily as well and we are quite happy to use them in our cars and planes.....
For a fascinating account of the building of the British R100 and it's maiden trip from London to Montreal, along with a sad accounting of the flaws of the R101, read the biography of the ship's chief designer, Nevil Shute, _Slide Rule_.
oh the nostalgia of playing this game. i hope they remaster this. i have found one peculiar project of reproducing a web based html 5 version of red alert 2. very interesting, i tried to contact the author, but our conversation was stopped. there is a video in you tube. :D
In U.S. as kid in 80s we used to see blimps weekly. It was the Goodyear blimp here. I remember when the news said it would run no more I was sad. Haven't seen a blimp since
i think i could listen to james may talk about these subjects all day.... please keep making these videos, they are entertaining as hell (as well as informative)
The Hindenburg disaster wasn't televised. The often shown film of the crash was shot mute and had the famous "Oh the humanity" commentary added from a live radio broadcast which was recorded.
If people enjoyed this, I'd recommend the book series Airborn by Kennith Opel. It's basically what would happen if the world has adopted airships with a fantastical new chemical that was (somehow) lighter and safer than hydrogen.
Hydrogen is one proton. Hydrogen gas is two hydrogen atoms combined together to form one molecule. The only things lighter than hydrogen gas are hydrogen atoms and they are EXTREMELY reactive. Helium exists in its elemental form and not combined like hydrogen gas. Helium consists of two protons and two neutrons. This makes Helium atoms twice as heavy as a hydrogen molecule. The elements that follow helium are solids (They are much denser than gases and so heavier for the same volume) so they can't be used. To put it lightly, it is not easy to acquire a substance which is lighter than hydrogen.
Airships will rise again when material technology improves. When there is a material strong enough to contain a vacuum without scrunching, but light enough that if you filled it with hydrogen it would float, then you will have *vacuum airships,* the ultimate Lighter Than Air vehicle!
May doesn't actually answer the question. There should be far more airships in the air, especially as vehicles for mass transport of goods. Cheap, low energy, non polluting, safe - helium - etc. These are all good reasons in our green conscious era why there should be many thousands floating sedately in our skies, and I suspect the reasons why not, are probably economic. I'm not sure, which is why I'm a little disappointed that May only dwelt on the historical problems.
We're running out of helium, and yet helium is the second most common element in the universe Maybe when we will develop nuclear fusion we will be able to use the byproduct of the process to use in huge nuclear powered zeppelins
You can make helium from hydrogen via nuclear fusion, so I don't see the problem (unless of course that results in an atom bomb in the correct circumstances)
We tried to resurrect the big airships in Germany. There was a company to try and build freight airships. However, they couldn't get past some issues like high speed adjustment of ballast tanks to compensate the sudden weight difference at collecting or depositing cargo and the He needed to fill the ship would have consumed several times the annual production of He gas. They ran out of money and everything was sold. The giant airship hangar is now an indoor tropical resort.
I think one of the biggest reasons there are no airships anymore is because helium is RIDICULOUSLY expensive right now. To fill an airship it would cost probably a million so if you ever had a leak you would go bankrupt quite fast. Also they block air traffic quite heavily.
+Marc Connell Helium is as safe as can be. Very cheap too if you compare it to jet fuel. The main problems with airships are that they are very slow, big and not very maneuverable.
+Udens Zirnis a BB gun wouldn't pop it. Even at point blank range. A bigger gun would though. You don't see people shooting down civilian helicopters with a .50cal in america. I'm sure you won't get idiots shooting an airship floating by.
Marc Connell Ok, BB guns are truly peashooters. And .50cals are probably as expensive as students lifestyle, which is the reason they are not common. Thou i still think if a zeppelin passed by bored texan with shotgun with slugs, it would end up with at least one more hole in it. And slug rounds are not expensive. PS. is shooting FMJ shells legal in USA? In EU shure as hell they aren't. Random thought.
Udens Zirnis What is an FMJ shell? I've never heard of that. If you mean FMJ bullets, those are very common and completely legal in EU. Most of the time not for hunting big game because of over-penetration, but for practicing and shooting sports, etc.
They were an incredible achievement, considering the technology of the time. The weakness is the size and how it impacts the structural strength than can be obtained. The vulnerability to gales, specifically. With the weather prediction abilities we have now they would have been safer.
+Fyodor Chernych well weight is the issue but instead of the gondola hugging the ballon maybe it should be suspended and have it look like mad magazines blimp but then you have to consider drag i wonder if there is any material that is hydrogen leak proof they could have a bag of hydrogen in the center of a bag of helium
Justin M I like the idea of suspending a bag of hydrogen within the helium. However, I'm not sure it'd be a good tradeoff because whatever it's in would add to the weight and counter the benefits.
Terrorists would have a ball. Honestly, all you have to do is poke a couple holes in it. Unless there was some kind of self-sealing covering, which would require a pretty large hole.
Actually airships don't just pop like a balloon. They just deflate slowly like a punctured tire, which is also the reason why, as stated in the video, despite a number of accidents no one really got hurt, because they simply landed.
Stoyan Todorov But I mean overseas trade, should something cause it to deflate, that's potentially millions of dollars worth of product down the drain. Unless you could devise a way to get enough altitude to prevent anything from being able to touch it (such as a weather balloon does), it would be pretty safe. And a good handle on meteorological conditions could use high altitude winds to move a large, buoyant balloon fairly quickly with nearly no energy expended. Holy crap this is actually a good idea
Alternatives for the safe use of hydrogen in an airship. Fire proof cabin - (Maybe use some of those space shuttle tiles? ) Passenger cabin hung well below the airship attached by cables that could extend toward the ground in the event of a fire? Upper hydrogen air bag separated by a Kevlar heat shield from a lower helium bag that could detach in the event of fire? Make sure the cabin can float in case of water crash?
whats lighter than hydrogen is a vacuum and a evacuated vessel that is light enough to achieve buoyancy may just be possible with todays material science
It does work, a vacuum is buoyant... the only problem is that the atmosphere currently crushes any vessel that is light enough to float. I think with current material Science we may just be able to make a evacuated ball strong enough and lighter than the volume of air it displaces to float.
+George Holt Yes, thank you. I finally found somebody else with this same idea. I've been imagining vacuum airships for a while now, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a material could be strong enough to protect a vacuum container from imploding but light enough to still provide more lift than a hydrogen or helium airship. I suspect a metamaterial like graphene aerogel could do the job.
Matthew Bartlett the other advantage would be that N2 and O2 would be trying to get in, not H2 trying to get out... so the rate of depletion would be a fraction.... I think with technology today as a concept it may be possible
The assertion that the USA declined to sell Helium to Germany for civilian use is not the reason for the destruction of the Hindenburg. Helium does not have the same lifting capacity as Hydrogen and modifications to the L-129 would have had to be made. Dr. Eckener then determined he would take other measures to safely operate the L-129, which allegedly were not followed by the crew operating the vessel. Love you James May, my favorite presenter. The atomic weight of a helium atom (4.002) is approximately four times that of an individual hydrogen atom (1.007), but since gaseous hydrogen is a diatomic molecule containing two hydrogen atoms (H2), helium gas is only twice as heavy as hydrogen gas. Although helium weighs twice as much hydrogen because each gas is so much lighter than air helium provides about 93% of hydrogen’s lift at full purity. In practical operation it is impossible to achieve or maintain 100% purity of either gas, reducing helium’s lifting ability to about 88% of the lift of hydrogen. (Yes I know I am a nerd)
Of all people, Mr. May should know that the Hindenburg burned so horrifically because of the flammable coating used to cover it. Not the gas used inside of it.
Anyone watched "Fringe" on Fox? I thought of the alternate world from that show and how rigid airships still existed. I like your videos. They are very educational.
Small airships could be a viable option for making a luxury caravan that you may actually want to live in. Imagine a floating flat that you can just fly to a mooring and visit places around. Heck, why fly? Have the computer chauffeur you around!
"Deutsche Luftschiffahrts Aktiengesellschaft" and "Northrop-Grumman Long Endurance Multi Intelligence Vehicle". That probably kept some marketing folks up at night.
There was also, of course, a couple of other issues that caused the zeppelins to die out...like for instance the fact that, compared to modern airplanes even of the age, they were painfully slow. While they certainly outdid any ships, they still took several days to cross to the US from Europe. Then there was the issue of weight, which meant people slept on canvas bunks. The much-vaunted "piano bar" was cramped, the piano had to be specially made out of aluminium to reduce weight, and "cabin" toilets were a no-no. There were 4 communal bathrooms for crew AND passengers, and forget showers, water was far too heavy to bring along for such things. As for the supposed super-lifting ability of it...that isn't really the case. Sure, you can lift things with lighter-than-air gases, or "lifting gases", but the amount needed to create even a reasonable amount of lift is enormous. The Hindenburg, being a prime example, had a lift-capacity, in total, of about 230 thousand kilos, or 510 thousand pounds, if you're metrically challenged. Now, that is a pretty damn good amount of weight, I hear you say. And yeah, it isn't bad. However, the frame of the ship, fuel, mail cargo, and a maximum of 133 people on board, with food and drink and luggage brought ended up at an average of 215 thousand kilos, or about 473 thousand pounds. And sure, you could cut out the passengers and their luggage, a commensurate amount of food and drink and all the passenger amenities. But on the whole, that isn't a really massive amount. So, say you could get it to 175, or even 150 thousand. That would equate to 385 or 330 k-pounds. So, you'd get a lift of 80 thousand kilo, or 176 thousand pound, at a balance. But, you'd want a bit of margin, so say 65 thousand kilos or about 140 thousand pounds. Now, sure, 65 thousand kilos is an impressive amount, absolutely. But here's the thing: a C-17 Globemaster cargoplane has a payload of 77 thousand kilos, 171 thousand pounds. A 747 Freight version carries 140 thousand kilos, or 308 thousand pounds. And a C-5 Galaxy, depending, schleps 176 thousand kilos, 389 thousand pounds. And they all do it further and faster than any airship ever could...without having to be 245 meters long, 41 meters across and holding 200 thousand cubic meters of gas. That's 803 feet by 135 feet for a volume of 7.1 million cubic feet. And remember, that lift is with hydrogen...which is highly flammable and you REALLY don't want to have to use. Helium is what you want, while it isn't safe as such since if something were to happen and it would all come pouring out of the airship, you'd suddenly have real issues with breathing, at least it won't go boom. But see, not only is helium safer...it also lifts less. It isn't quite as "lighter than air" as hydrogen is. So, you'd need more of it for the same amount of lift, making the airship even bigger. It's also VERY expensive. See, helium isn't made, it's found in a few different places in the US coming out of the ground. That means that the people that can get it can sell it at exorbitant prices. All of these things, and more, conspire to make the airships a lovely relic of a past time that will not, in any relevant numbers, ever return.
I think the problem is that airships are often compered to Aeroplanes when a much more sensible compereison would be "water" ships as they play a similar role.
I know it's the difference in density, but it just so happens that the gasses used are lighter than air, so when you put enough in it's able to lift the airship. If someone built a structure that was lighter than air, that'd float away too.
actually most used letters on a key board are design to be far apart. This is something that was left over from typewriters where good typist would have the keys jamb/stuck together when they placed the common letter in the middle. so they set the most common letters farther apart to slow down the typist and just increase the distance between the common letters to reduce jamming.
I watched this while at the memorial marker for the Hindenburg . The town of Lakehurst is blimp crazy with blimp themed ice cream shops and so on. There is a non blimp themed Thai restaurant that I highly recommend.
It might even be possible to fill them with hydrogen again. The main problem with hydrogen are the reactiveness of it with oxygen combined with the tendency of large structures to build up electric charges that eventually result in small discharges that can start the rection between hydrogen and oxygen. This means the two options that arise are to either prevent electric charge buildup or to use a hull that is safer (more heat-resistant/less easily traversed by hydrogen/oxygen)
In 2008 I read in the papers some guy was doing Zeppelin tours over London. The Ship has a balloon the same size as that of the original ones. However because it's filled with Helium instead of Hydrogen, it has only a quarter of the people space.
Maybe I'm jaded in this era of frequent tragedy but 36 people dying in a preventable crash hardly seems like a reason to discontinue zeplins. A majority of the people onboard survived even.
Been trying to think of a question since the beginning of this. Still haven't been able to think of a good one. There is tons and tons of RnD going into air ships right now and has been for several years now but the next airship revolution is still years off. When it happens on the other hand it will be big and will have many uses such as transporting vast amounts of military stuff around the world.
i was wrong to predict that airships would return as a more solid form of transportation with the advent of new films are much more efficient at trapping gasses. seems like a missed oppourtunity.
Someone talks about bringing back airships every ten years or so. Trouble is they are 'lighter than air' - every change in wind direction, air temperature, air pressure, updrafts, downdrafts, affect their stability and performance. With the massive airships of the past, atmospheric conditions at the bow and stern (anything up to 800 feet away) could be completely different - you had the stern falling and bow rising and the elevatorman struggling to get the craft straight and level. They looked good but they were lethal.
"Lethal" is an unfair statement - their safety record far outstripped HTA aircraft of the time, and rigid airship development was still in it's relative infancy at the time of it's cessation.
I realize I'm a bit late to add a comment, but here goes. You did not mention the 2 largest zeppelins built after ww1 by Goodyear in Akron Ohio. The USS Akron and the USS Macon (over 700' long or more than 2 football fields) for the navy. They altered the tail of the original design to allow for better visibility, but by doing so compromised the structure. Both airships were lost at sea in storms. Also the earlier zeppelins had a coating on the outer skin for water proofing that was not flame resistant. Since early ships were filled with hydrogen they leaked as materials could not completely contain the gas. Interestingly the bags were made from cow intestines and it took about 250,000 cows to make one airship. I would think with modern materials rigid airships will make a comeback, think if its body was a lifting shape and top covered in solar cells. It could use electric motors and even create hydrogen from water it collects on skin or from clouds.
Did you know that Fusion has already been achieved at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, and it has been for a while. But the true goal is not Fusion itself, but Cold Fusion. The same process of Fusion but without the by-product of heat.
I don't think it was the Hindenburg disaster that ended airships. All other methods of transportation had catastrophic accidents too, but they did not go out of fashion because of that. But at the time of the disaster, passenger airplanes where already becoming a thing.
I read a wonderful Sci-fi novel once by L. Neil Smith, which took place in an alternate world which could only be described as a libertarian paradise. In this world, airships were alive and well, stretching a mile long and never landing, with shuttles transporting passengers to and from the ground. They were fusion-powered, so any extra helium needed was provided as a byproduct. And their engines were electromagnetic air accelerators, like a big ionic air filter.
I quite like that the Airships are making a comeback. Just one problem. We are running out of helium. All the helium has been mined and the estimates say that it will be with us for about 35 years.
Hydrogen is very reactive because it wants to react. If you learn chemistry later down the road you know that Hydrogen wants one more electron to complete its shell, so it would react easily, in this case burn. But water, or H2O, is very stable, all of its bonds (sharing of electrons) are complete so it doesn't want anymore, so it doesn't react. Water as well is a liquid, and is very hard to combust either way :) Hope you learned something :p
Same reason why you see camo aircraft as it is for when they are grounded and to help protect them from an airstrike or blend into the terrain so ground troops couldn't spot it easily.
I wish these were still common. That would be brilliant. I wonder how much the price difference would be between airships and jets as far as fuel consumption goes...
I think the only way they're coming back is either as freight carriers (where they have to compete with cargo ships and a huge quantity of very well developed infrastructure) or as a very luxury private transport method. If I was Roman Abramovich instead of buying yet another super-yacht I'd make myself one that floats in the air.
Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had the same reaction to all the commercial aircraft crashes as they had to the hydrogen airships. They were both filled with highly flammable substances...
It's sad, that there are no more airships today. It would be the perfect way of travelling for James, slow and unnecesary complicated, but also somehow classy. :D
Exactly haha
Actually, in a top gear episode he does exactly that :)
fantastic
+KyleKartan87 Settle down Hammond ;P
KyleKartan87 Lockheed Martin are developing a new class of airship for delivering cargo and passengers
its weird to hear james mumbling about something and not been interrupted by hammond or clarkson making fun of him
XD
Psychopathis someone should be making fun of his shirt. Allow me.
Shallow people like to mock those who's understanding exceeds their own. Bye Clarkson 🖕
I actually love James May, his passion for subjects is so genuine he’s like the David Attenborough of machinery.
Someone should definitely start a Kickstarter campaign to bring back the airship.
thats not really how it works...
+xavier k. haberle let people dream
+Darc Gibson There are companies working on that :p www.hybridairvehicles.com/
+Darc Gibson
They'll ask for a million dollars and never deliver. Just like so many failed crowdfunding projects.
Worldwide Aeros Corp. is working on it as we speak.
I have been longing for the return of the airships, too. They are faster than ships, They can carry more than airplanes, and are not limited by terrain. The Empire State Building was designed to moor airships to their top floors. After the Hindenburg, however, folks weren't to keen on the idea of hydrogen-filled airships hovering over New York City.
I always wondered how that would work; tie the nose to the Empire State Building's spire, then what? Were the passengers supposed to jump?
Brian Battles No. You would moor it much as you would a ship on the dock and then there would be a gangway (a bridge from ship to shore) for boarding and loading.
Your idea does sound like fun, though.
The reason the didn't use the zepplins dock on the empire state building was because even on a windless day it was still windy at that height and the gangway to the empire state building was very flimsy and first class passengers didn't like that and that's why the empire state building was never used as a zepplin dock
formerevolutionist i just picture the fear of Walking over a Wooden board betewn a airship and a building.
Yeah, at 380m above New York.
the airship may rise again... if all the helium wasn't running out!
+TheIncredibleD1701 Don't worry, helium is always there, just look up to the moon.
+Saviliana Yes, and apparently, the Chinese have a crazy idea to go the moon and mine it for helium. Of course, I highly doubt the UN would allow it that easily.
+Saviliana Actually its helium3 they want to mine on the moon. it can be used in future fusion reactors if they ever figure out how to do fusion power. normal helium is running out because its so light it floats to the top of the atmosphere and is blow away by solar winds.
Also about the UN comment there is a space treaty in place that says no country can own any part of outer space, which includes the moon.
+TheIncredibleD1701 don't need Helium, you can use a vacuum, it's even lighter than Hydrogen and with today's material science may just be possible
+Paul Girardin Does not matter, no country can lay claim, mine or gather resources on another planet through policies passed by the UN.
The problem with airships is that they carry Bowser and koopas
I seem to remember James in a caravan blimp...
Mr Faceplant yes good sir, u are correct.
It was brilliant, but rubbish.
James May has bad luck with airships.
+Kevin CinnamonToast hahaha
Mayday! Mayday!
+appelpower1 oh lol
yep. he drifted one.
James MayDay
I'm missing a mention of the German CargoLifter company who tried to build airships, even had some prototype running but then went bankrupt because of mis-management. Their construction hall is now the "Tropical Island" in Brandenburg.
My father worked there haha
i would like to see an airship shaped like a star destroyer in 1 to 1 scale
This is genius
YES...... PERFECT.....AND STICK EM IN SPACE TO SCARE AWAY THE ET, S
Awesome idea but is star destroyer streamlined
I've probably seen a dozen or so articles in popular science magazines over the years, all heralding the rebirth of the airship, it's one of those fall-back to pipe dreams every futurist has in their arsenal, to be buffed up and taken out every few years, like the personal jetpack, the flying car, underwater living etc.
I had a relative that was a blimp flight instructor during WWI and flew anti-sub warfare missions (ASW). There's more to it than just bad PR. In an LTA when the motor stopped, the onboard mechanic fixed it. Barring that they free ballooned to a "safe" landing. Not an option with aircraft, especially over water. He knew that it was really about the poor reliability of the engines and that when engines improved the slowness, high handling costs (ground crew for launch and recovery were 45 people) and inherent slowness / wind / weather issues would make it a thing of the past. Oh, there is 1 very often missed benefit of the blimps, they were the helicopters of their time. They could hover by standing against the wind and were at least tested for recovering people / pilots in the water. Today's helicopter cancel that potential use.
The K Class was much used for convoy protection and ASW patrol.
Really you cant land a plane in water?
I mean you survie but the plane is damage beond repair
But you can't "walk away from" a water landing. Seriously, though, when a non-amphibian airplane with extended wheeled undercarriage tries to land on water, it is usually referred to as "forced down".
William Cox did you not see the miracle on the Hudson River in New York City? A guy landed a huge passenger plane on the water, everyone survived
Helicopters are smaller and faster, but also far more expensive per minute and per kilogram.
I wish I had an airship...I would be the dashing, swashbuckling, charismatic, love-able vagabond type of Captain. Maybe in another lifetime :)
I would love to live in a luxury airship cabin.
I remember the airships when I was a little kid. Just looking outside my condo and seeing this massive blimp with this large, amazing, terrifying artwork seemingly staring at me. I miss you early 2000's.
I still see hydrogen as a valid option.
Run the engine on it so by the time to land its low enough?
@@Colt45hatchback I think that was actually proposed for a design.
Running on the lifting gas that is, not depleting it to make landings safer
@@embracethesuck1041 oh right, i didnt quite mean to use it to make landing safer, moreso that with normal fuel the airship gets lighter the more it uses, making landing more difficult assuming proper bag sealing, where if you use the lifting gas as fuel, the ship should go down the further you go
@@Colt45hatchback Ah, I see
First video from the channel I've seen. Instant subscribe, in part for answering the question I am astounded to suddenly realize I've never asked. I think this is something I could really go for (airships). People take long cruises to places they aren't especially interested in going, and they fly at amazing speeds to vacation where they want but are in no hurry to get to. A combination of the two and split the difference in travel at a lower fuel cost than either sounds pretty nice.
The Hindenburg crash wasn't televised, the famous radio broadcast wasn't even live, it was
synced up to newsreel film afterwards. Television was in it's infancy in 1937.
+Tuco Pacifico Heh that was my thought doubt that mobile on location broadcasts were probably around for some time after that still, can't imagine it being much before the late 1960's once there was actually some terrestrial microwave and/or comsat infrastructure to support them.
That is correct, but the reporters voice was actually sped up slightly to make it sound more dramatic.
So that's what the voice of all those documentary I watch looks like. Crazy how certain people just have that unique and rare voice. 👍
Every time someone discusses airships, they completely forget that the US navy used them against submarines in WW2. Come on people, 4400 crewmen and 150 airships should not be forgotten that easily! Don't act like the only airships active between the Hindenburg crash and the rebirth of the Zeppelin company were the Goodyear blimps.
No, but it's the most well known.
This guy has got a brilliant high school diploma if he knows almost everything in life as we see around us. Thumbs up to James May.
One issue with the Hinderburg was that the paint used on the exterior of the blimp was very close to thermite, so close that it most likelly formed thermite. Hydrogen burn without apparent flame, and there was plently of flame back then. Also, pure hydrogen don't burn: it require oxygen to burn. So, what most likelly happened is: a spark ignited the thermite, which burned and the rest is history.
+thephantom1492 Yes, see Mythbusters :)
+thephantom1492 nope. As mythbusters, and others have proofed, there couldn't have been a thermite reaction. And the flame had a color because it ALSO burned the skin of the airship
+thephantom1492 Much of the Hindenburg's skin survived (the lower bits) That were NOT exposed to hydrogen. If it were thermite, to any degree, it would be none existent In any way. See the Graf? Proof of concept, no issues for many many years.
It's not some wild conspiracy theory. It was widely known even then that the aluminized nitrate dope used to treat aircraft fabrics was extremely flammable. It was all they had, so that's what they used. In fact, many pilots of fixed wing airplanes in World War I would sooner jump to their deaths than burn in the raging inferno when the outer fabric caught fire. Technology has improved, however. First it was the less flammable butyrate dope, then synthetic fabrics with non flammable synthetic coatings. It would be cool to revisit the airship concept with modern technology and see what we could come up with, but I'm afraid there just isn't much interest.
This is one of the best shows RUclips has ever been blessed with!
i would love to ride in an air ship
Hope the airship does come back, it's such a beautiful, classy aircraft. I don't think modern airliners could hope to match the glamour.
What they got is speed unless we find way of making airships but
Still light
How does scissors and knives work, on a _molecular_ level?
The best decision in my entire youtube life was choosing to subscribe this channel!
i miss topgear
+walker h
yeah me to but at least we can stil get our fix of Captian Patiance, James is a legend
1:57 i love how its painted camo in the sky
Hydrogen would probably still be practical for unmanned freighters.
The only problems are:
What if it gets shot down? Boom fireball!
What if it crashes? Boom fireball!
What if it gets hit by a flock of birds? Boom fireball! (
Yeah... But if a plane were to commonly fall down it would be a small plane, not a GIANT BLOODY AIRSHIP THE SIZE OF A CRUISE SHIP. Now, if you were forced to have one of those fall on your house; which would you choose?
Airships dont explode suddenly after getting hit they burn down because the hydrogen has to mix whith oxygen first
+leerman22 yes, a gigantic explosive unmanned balloon full of heavy freight... (read following with the maximum amount of sarcasm)> I don't see ANY way how that could go wrong!
that is like the worst idea I have ever heard, what if someone hacked it and took over the controls, the possible damage it could do would be unmatched by anything else ever made (aside from a nuke).
The Eh Team i think so. A lot of advantages of hydrogen. Easily available. Lighter than helium. Can be used as fuel. Can be used to power a compressor so no ballast needed. Advances in technology mean that safety would be better. After all, we don't worry so much about great big chunks of metal and flammable fluid flying over us every day ie planes. And big petrol tanker lorries on the road. Ships have the same problems with winds and manoeuvrability, plus they have currents, tides, waves, icebergs and rocks to deal with. Hydrogen won't explode unless mixed with air, inside a good skin it should be ok. It will burn though given half a chance - the hindenburg didn't explode so much as erupt in a hellish fireball. But then petrol and kerosene burn quite easily as well and we are quite happy to use them in our cars and planes.....
For a fascinating account of the building of the British R100 and it's maiden trip from London to Montreal, along with a sad accounting of the flaws of the R101, read the biography of the ship's chief designer, Nevil Shute, _Slide Rule_.
We'll probably see more airships once Russia becomes more militarized. Kirov Reporting!
***** They were unfriendly since they cammed about. Why should they not be know?
***** I have not seen Red Alert 3, so forgive me for not getting that reference.
Miku MichDem it's a game ;)
+dimvoly Aamazing, best comment on RUclips :D SHAKE IT BABY!
oh the nostalgia of playing this game. i hope they remaster this. i have found one peculiar project of reproducing a web based html 5 version of red alert 2. very interesting, i tried to contact the author, but our conversation was stopped. there is a video in you tube. :D
In U.S. as kid in 80s we used to see blimps weekly. It was the Goodyear blimp here. I remember when the news said it would run no more I was sad. Haven't seen a blimp since
Yes, yes, to James May zeppelin haters listen! Rise again they will!
i think i could listen to james may talk about these subjects all day.... please keep making these videos, they are entertaining as hell (as well as informative)
As long as YOU listen and not interrupt or show any intelligence.
@@Rockercaruthonyoutube are you really trying to insult me over a ten year old comment? 😂😂
Isn't this the guy from top gear?
+Chraman was until co-host Jeremy was fired. when Jeremy was fired James and Richard both left to form their own tv series with him
Yeah ik.
The Hindenburg disaster wasn't televised. The often shown film of the crash was shot mute and had the famous "Oh the humanity" commentary added from a live radio broadcast which was recorded.
Why is that the show called Head squeeze but the RUclips channel called Brit Lab?
Cause brand mixing
I would take an airship ride, imagine the scenery you could see approaching the coast of any continent.
No bagged restrictions
If people enjoyed this, I'd recommend the book series Airborn by Kennith Opel. It's basically what would happen if the world has adopted airships with a fantastical new chemical that was (somehow) lighter and safer than hydrogen.
Hydrogen is one proton. Hydrogen gas is two hydrogen atoms combined together to form one molecule. The only things lighter than hydrogen gas are hydrogen atoms and they are EXTREMELY reactive. Helium exists in its elemental form and not combined like hydrogen gas. Helium consists of two protons and two neutrons. This makes Helium atoms twice as heavy as a hydrogen molecule. The elements that follow helium are solids (They are much denser than gases and so heavier for the same volume) so they can't be used. To put it lightly, it is not easy to acquire a substance which is lighter than hydrogen.
+ODETHIOUS
It's fiction.....it's not meant to be scientifically sound.
The Generalissimo
Sorry, I must've misread your comment as I thought you were suggesting a solution. Sorry there.
+ODETHIOUS It happens. Cheers!
+The Generalissimo
Cheers!
Airships will rise again when material technology improves. When there is a material strong enough to contain a vacuum without scrunching, but light enough that if you filled it with hydrogen it would float, then you will have *vacuum airships,* the ultimate Lighter Than Air vehicle!
May doesn't actually answer the question. There should be far more airships in the air, especially as vehicles for mass transport of goods. Cheap, low energy, non polluting, safe - helium - etc.
These are all good reasons in our green conscious era why there should be many thousands floating sedately in our skies, and I suspect the reasons why not, are probably economic.
I'm not sure, which is why I'm a little disappointed that May only dwelt on the historical problems.
We're running out of helium, and yet helium is the second most common element in the universe
Maybe when we will develop nuclear fusion we will be able to use the byproduct of the process to use in huge nuclear powered zeppelins
You can make helium from hydrogen via nuclear fusion, so I don't see the problem (unless of course that results in an atom bomb in the correct circumstances)
I understand maybe 70% of that (Because of the study on nuclear weapons testing I did last month). you studying chem?
haha yeah, good work
+Vaughn Sigal..I don't think fusion technology has been perfected sufficiently for industrial/commercial applications.
We tried to resurrect the big airships in Germany. There was a company to try and build freight airships. However, they couldn't get past some issues like high speed adjustment of ballast tanks to compensate the sudden weight difference at collecting or depositing cargo and the He needed to fill the ship would have consumed several times the annual production of He gas. They ran out of money and everything was sold. The giant airship hangar is now an indoor tropical resort.
So what if hydrogen is flammable so is is jet fuel just make the design safe.
I think one of the biggest reasons there are no airships anymore is because helium is RIDICULOUSLY expensive right now. To fill an airship it would cost probably a million so if you ever had a leak you would go bankrupt quite fast. Also they block air traffic quite heavily.
If they found a cheaper and safer gas, I don't see why airships shouldn't be used as another form of public transport.
+Marc Connell Helium is as safe as can be. Very cheap too if you compare it to jet fuel. The main problems with airships are that they are very slow, big and not very maneuverable.
+Bainanaz Hm, valid point. Good luck crossing USA in unarmored zeppelin.
+Udens Zirnis a BB gun wouldn't pop it. Even at point blank range. A bigger gun would though. You don't see people shooting down civilian helicopters with a .50cal in america. I'm sure you won't get idiots shooting an airship floating by.
Marc Connell Ok, BB guns are truly peashooters. And .50cals are probably as expensive as students lifestyle, which is the reason they are not common.
Thou i still think if a zeppelin passed by bored texan with shotgun with slugs, it would end up with at least one more hole in it. And slug rounds are not expensive.
PS. is shooting FMJ shells legal in USA? In EU shure as hell they aren't. Random thought.
Udens Zirnis What is an FMJ shell? I've never heard of that. If you mean FMJ bullets, those are very common and completely legal in EU. Most of the time not for hunting big game because of over-penetration, but for practicing and shooting sports, etc.
They were an incredible achievement, considering the technology of the time. The weakness is the size and how it impacts the structural strength than can be obtained. The vulnerability to gales, specifically. With the weather prediction abilities we have now they would have been safer.
i wonder if they could use a blend of helium/hydrogen for economic
+Justin M Nah, it'd still be flammible.
***** That wouldn't protect whatever is below you from flaming debris.
+Fyodor Chernych well weight is the issue but instead of the gondola hugging the ballon maybe it should be suspended and have it look like mad magazines blimp but then you have to consider drag i wonder if there is any material that is hydrogen leak proof they could have a bag of hydrogen in the center of a bag of helium
Justin M I like the idea of suspending a bag of hydrogen within the helium. However, I'm not sure it'd be a good tradeoff because whatever it's in would add to the weight and counter the benefits.
+NerdyPi helium is really expensive hydrogen is almost free
Well that episode demonstrated how difficult they are to control in wind and the potential to get in the way of other aircraft.
Terrorists would have a ball. Honestly, all you have to do is poke a couple holes in it.
Unless there was some kind of self-sealing covering, which would require a pretty large hole.
Actually airships don't just pop like a balloon. They just deflate slowly like a punctured tire, which is also the reason why, as stated in the video, despite a number of accidents no one really got hurt, because they simply landed.
Stoyan Todorov But I mean overseas trade, should something cause it to deflate, that's potentially millions of dollars worth of product down the drain. Unless you could devise a way to get enough altitude to prevent anything from being able to touch it (such as a weather balloon does), it would be pretty safe. And a good handle on meteorological conditions could use high altitude winds to move a large, buoyant balloon fairly quickly with nearly no energy expended.
Holy crap this is actually a good idea
Ships can sink, too. Btw, why don't have airships with sails?
max mustermann That's kinda what I was suggesting. The higher up you go the faster the winds get.
Skraith Yes, but also more turbulent, it'll be quite the "bumpy ride"
Alternatives for the safe use of hydrogen in an airship.
Fire proof cabin - (Maybe use some of those space shuttle tiles? )
Passenger cabin hung well below the airship attached by cables that could extend toward the ground in the event of a fire?
Upper hydrogen air bag separated by a Kevlar heat shield from a lower helium bag that could detach in the event of fire?
Make sure the cabin can float in case of water crash?
whats lighter than hydrogen is a vacuum and a evacuated vessel that is light enough to achieve buoyancy may just be possible with todays material science
+George Holt i don't think it works like that....
It does work, a vacuum is buoyant... the only problem is that the atmosphere currently crushes any vessel that is light enough to float.
I think with current material Science we may just be able to make a evacuated ball strong enough and lighter than the volume of air it displaces to float.
+George Holt Yes, thank you. I finally found somebody else with this same idea. I've been imagining vacuum airships for a while now, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a material could be strong enough to protect a vacuum container from imploding but light enough to still provide more lift than a hydrogen or helium airship. I suspect a metamaterial like graphene aerogel could do the job.
Matthew Bartlett the other advantage would be that N2 and O2 would be trying to get in, not H2 trying to get out... so the rate of depletion would be a fraction....
I think with technology today as a concept it may be possible
+George Holt You'd need a big ol' pump, which could use too much energy
The assertion that the USA declined to sell Helium to Germany for civilian use is not the reason for the destruction of the Hindenburg. Helium does not have the same lifting capacity as Hydrogen and modifications to the L-129 would have had to be made. Dr. Eckener then determined he would take other measures to safely operate the L-129, which allegedly were not followed by the crew operating the vessel. Love you James May, my favorite presenter. The atomic weight of a helium atom (4.002) is approximately four times that of an individual hydrogen atom (1.007), but since gaseous hydrogen is a diatomic molecule containing two hydrogen atoms (H2), helium gas is only twice as heavy as hydrogen gas. Although helium weighs twice as much hydrogen because each gas is so much lighter than air helium provides about 93% of hydrogen’s lift at full purity. In practical operation it is impossible to achieve or maintain 100% purity of either gas, reducing helium’s lifting ability to about 88% of the lift of hydrogen. (Yes I know I am a nerd)
Of all people, Mr. May should know that the Hindenburg burned so horrifically because of the flammable coating used to cover it. Not the gas used inside of it.
Anyone watched "Fringe" on Fox? I thought of the alternate world from that show and how rigid airships still existed. I like your videos. They are very educational.
THIS CHANNEL IS BRILLIANT AND I'VE SUBED FOR ABOUT 2 MONTHS NOW I'VE SEEN SOOOO MANY MORE SUBS ON YOUR CHANNEL NOW IT'S SOOO COOOL!
Hey, I've been in the Goodyear Blimp!
Clarkson and Hammond can shove it. I like listening to James explain how things work. He would be an excellent history teacher.
Small airships could be a viable option for making a luxury caravan that you may actually want to live in. Imagine a floating flat that you can just fly to a mooring and visit places around. Heck, why fly? Have the computer chauffeur you around!
James May is the best. If you need to learn something watch Head Squeeze. If you want to have a laugh, watch Top Gear and The Grant Tour.
i can't stop thinking about the episode of top gear where you make a caravan blimp
that was a amazingly funny episode
"Deutsche Luftschiffahrts Aktiengesellschaft" and "Northrop-Grumman Long Endurance Multi Intelligence Vehicle". That probably kept some marketing folks up at night.
One blew up in 1937, and that put rather a damper on people's enthusiasm for them.
I always found it fascinating how in the early 1930's the US built two flying aircraft carriers.
There was also, of course, a couple of other issues that caused the zeppelins to die out...like for instance the fact that, compared to modern airplanes even of the age, they were painfully slow. While they certainly outdid any ships, they still took several days to cross to the US from Europe. Then there was the issue of weight, which meant people slept on canvas bunks. The much-vaunted "piano bar" was cramped, the piano had to be specially made out of aluminium to reduce weight, and "cabin" toilets were a no-no. There were 4 communal bathrooms for crew AND passengers, and forget showers, water was far too heavy to bring along for such things.
As for the supposed super-lifting ability of it...that isn't really the case. Sure, you can lift things with lighter-than-air gases, or "lifting gases", but the amount needed to create even a reasonable amount of lift is enormous. The Hindenburg, being a prime example, had a lift-capacity, in total, of about 230 thousand kilos, or 510 thousand pounds, if you're metrically challenged.
Now, that is a pretty damn good amount of weight, I hear you say. And yeah, it isn't bad. However, the frame of the ship, fuel, mail cargo, and a maximum of 133 people on board, with food and drink and luggage brought ended up at an average of 215 thousand kilos, or about 473 thousand pounds. And sure, you could cut out the passengers and their luggage, a commensurate amount of food and drink and all the passenger amenities. But on the whole, that isn't a really massive amount. So, say you could get it to 175, or even 150 thousand. That would equate to 385 or 330 k-pounds.
So, you'd get a lift of 80 thousand kilo, or 176 thousand pound, at a balance. But, you'd want a bit of margin, so say 65 thousand kilos or about 140 thousand pounds.
Now, sure, 65 thousand kilos is an impressive amount, absolutely. But here's the thing: a C-17 Globemaster cargoplane has a payload of 77 thousand kilos, 171 thousand pounds. A 747 Freight version carries 140 thousand kilos, or 308 thousand pounds. And a C-5 Galaxy, depending, schleps 176 thousand kilos, 389 thousand pounds. And they all do it further and faster than any airship ever could...without having to be 245 meters long, 41 meters across and holding 200 thousand cubic meters of gas. That's 803 feet by 135 feet for a volume of 7.1 million cubic feet.
And remember, that lift is with hydrogen...which is highly flammable and you REALLY don't want to have to use. Helium is what you want, while it isn't safe as such since if something were to happen and it would all come pouring out of the airship, you'd suddenly have real issues with breathing, at least it won't go boom. But see, not only is helium safer...it also lifts less. It isn't quite as "lighter than air" as hydrogen is. So, you'd need more of it for the same amount of lift, making the airship even bigger. It's also VERY expensive. See, helium isn't made, it's found in a few different places in the US coming out of the ground. That means that the people that can get it can sell it at exorbitant prices.
All of these things, and more, conspire to make the airships a lovely relic of a past time that will not, in any relevant numbers, ever return.
I think the problem is that airships are often compered to Aeroplanes when a much more sensible compereison would be "water" ships as they play a similar role.
What a wonderful series.
I know it's the difference in density, but it just so happens that the gasses used are lighter than air, so when you put enough in it's able to lift the airship. If someone built a structure that was lighter than air, that'd float away too.
A James May you tube channel where have you been all my life.
actually most used letters on a key board are design to be far apart.
This is something that was left over from typewriters where good typist would have the keys jamb/stuck together when they placed the common letter in the middle. so they set the most common letters farther apart to slow down the typist and just increase the distance between the common letters to reduce jamming.
I watched this while at the memorial marker for the Hindenburg . The town of Lakehurst is blimp crazy with blimp themed ice cream shops and so on. There is a non blimp themed Thai restaurant that I highly recommend.
It might even be possible to fill them with hydrogen again. The main problem with hydrogen are the reactiveness of it with oxygen combined with the tendency of large structures to build up electric charges that eventually result in small discharges that can start the rection between hydrogen and oxygen. This means the two options that arise are to either prevent electric charge buildup or to use a hull that is safer (more heat-resistant/less easily traversed by hydrogen/oxygen)
These vids from James deserve so many more views!
In 2008 I read in the papers some guy was doing Zeppelin tours over London. The Ship has a balloon the same size as that of the original ones. However because it's filled with Helium instead of Hydrogen, it has only a quarter of the people space.
FINALLY, WHAT I CAME TO KNOW IS THAT IN WHATEVER THE SOCIETY MAY BE, It is ALWYS the WISEST PEOPLE RULING THE FOOLS.
Maybe I'm jaded in this era of frequent tragedy but 36 people dying in a preventable crash hardly seems like a reason to discontinue zeplins. A majority of the people onboard survived even.
I have broken my leg, there better be more of these!! get cracking!
Been trying to think of a question since the beginning of this. Still haven't been able to think of a good one.
There is tons and tons of RnD going into air ships right now and has been for several years now but the next airship revolution is still years off. When it happens on the other hand it will be big and will have many uses such as transporting vast amounts of military stuff around the world.
i was wrong to predict that airships would return as a more solid form of transportation with the advent of new films are much more efficient at trapping gasses. seems like a missed oppourtunity.
Someone talks about bringing back airships every ten years or so. Trouble is they are 'lighter than air' - every change in wind direction, air temperature, air pressure, updrafts, downdrafts, affect their stability and performance. With the massive airships of the past, atmospheric conditions at the bow and stern (anything up to 800 feet away) could be completely different - you had the stern falling and bow rising and the elevatorman struggling to get the craft straight and level. They looked good but they were lethal.
"Lethal" is an unfair statement - their safety record far outstripped HTA aircraft of the time, and rigid airship development was still in it's relative infancy at the time of it's cessation.
I realize I'm a bit late to add a comment, but here goes. You did not mention the 2 largest zeppelins built after ww1 by Goodyear in Akron Ohio. The USS Akron and the USS Macon (over 700' long or more than 2 football fields) for the navy. They altered the tail of the original design to allow for better visibility, but by doing so compromised the structure. Both airships were lost at sea in storms. Also the earlier zeppelins had a coating on the outer skin for water proofing that was not flame resistant. Since early ships were filled with hydrogen they leaked as materials could not completely contain the gas. Interestingly the bags were made from cow intestines and it took about 250,000 cows to make one airship. I would think with modern materials rigid airships will make a comeback, think if its body was a lifting shape and top covered in solar cells. It could use electric motors and even create hydrogen from water it collects on skin or from clouds.
Did you know that Fusion has already been achieved at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, and it has been for a while.
But the true goal is not Fusion itself, but Cold Fusion. The same process of Fusion but without the by-product of heat.
I don't think it was the Hindenburg disaster that ended airships. All other methods of transportation had catastrophic accidents too, but they did not go out of fashion because of that.
But at the time of the disaster, passenger airplanes where already becoming a thing.
+Schwarzer Ritter It is a shame that we value speed and price as more important than comfort and style.
Is there a place or museum where I can see an old airship restored? I've always dreamt with seeing one in all its huge glory.
I read a wonderful Sci-fi novel once by L. Neil Smith, which took place in an alternate world which could only be described as a libertarian paradise. In this world, airships were alive and well, stretching a mile long and never landing, with shuttles transporting passengers to and from the ground. They were fusion-powered, so any extra helium needed was provided as a byproduct. And their engines were electromagnetic air accelerators, like a big ionic air filter.
I know, I really miss them... James May is still my favourite.
I love James May!!!
Who does your animation? Terry Gilliam? I love it! (as well as your rich, mellow BBC accent)
I quite like that the Airships are making a comeback. Just one problem. We are running out of helium. All the helium has been mined and the estimates say that it will be with us for about 35 years.
1:20 Dude, you killed me with that one :D
It's so odd to read comments from people outside of the Akron area. I always forget that blimps are a very rare thing for most folks. LoL!
Excellent question. I partially know the answer and it's fascinating.
Hydrogen is very reactive because it wants to react. If you learn chemistry later down the road you know that Hydrogen wants one more electron to complete its shell, so it would react easily, in this case burn. But water, or H2O, is very stable, all of its bonds (sharing of electrons) are complete so it doesn't want anymore, so it doesn't react. Water as well is a liquid, and is very hard to combust either way :) Hope you learned something :p
Same reason why you see camo aircraft as it is for when they are grounded and to help protect them from an airstrike or blend into the terrain so ground troops couldn't spot it easily.
I wish these were still common. That would be brilliant.
I wonder how much the price difference would be between airships and jets as far as fuel consumption goes...
James May has the most brains out of the 3 I reckon. No wait, Hammond has some pretty interesting engineering documentaries too.
Unlikely, helium is becoming harder to come by these days. Many scientists are currently worried that we may one day soon run out.
I think the only way they're coming back is either as freight carriers (where they have to compete with cargo ships and a huge quantity of very well developed infrastructure) or as a very luxury private transport method. If I was Roman Abramovich instead of buying yet another super-yacht I'd make myself one that floats in the air.
Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had the same reaction to all the commercial aircraft crashes as they had to the hydrogen airships.
They were both filled with highly flammable substances...