wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (04/15/85)
I don't think we'll see a large upsurge of dirigibles: 1. Public opinion. EVERYBODY knows about the Hindenburg. This results in an "Airships are dangerous" attitude, irrespective of the presence of helium or hydrogen. You and I know Germany operated Zeppelin passenger service for thirty years with only that one mishap, or that the Graf Zeppelin flew around the world soon after Lindbergh flew the Atlantic, but it will make little impression on the public. You mean you didn't know?? :-) This factor only affects passenger service, of course. 2. Sensitivity to weather. I don't care if you power the thing with four swivelable F100s (engines), get the thing broadside to the wind and you are going to have problems. A 200 mile weather detour is trivial to a jet, inconvenient to a medium recip twin, but of considerable impact to a 80 knot Zep. A "cruise group" crowd may not object to a delay, but you would probably want a helipad and helicopter hangar (a la Acron & Macon) to pamper those who have to get back. 3. Training. Note the accident rate of the early zeppelins. There are no trained airship officers around, and Blimp experience isn't like horsing one of the monsters around. It would take you years to gradually increase the size and ability of your fleet while training crews at the same time. 4. Expense of manufacture. Can one mass-produce dirigibles? I think not- they're more like ships, requiring man-intensive contruction techniques. Note that the US only built about 3 or 4 dirigibles... hardly a good experience base, especially since they were built over 50 years ago. 5. Non-autonomous operation. This, I believe, is the major factor. You can take your DC-3, fly to any airport, land, taxi to a corner of the field, shut down, and walk away- without anyone to help, and with reasonable probability that the Gooney won't go anyware if you just leave it (except in NM and FL, of course :-) ). That's a big Uh-Uh for an airship. You need men to catch the ropes, guide the ship into the mooring tower, a bridge watch while moored, engines running and a special watch when the wind is flakey (ever see pictures of Los Angeles' nosestand?)... in short, a lot of people to care for one of the monsters. Me, I like airships. There are uses for small Blimps, using the one thing an airship can beat a heaver-than-air machine at: Endurance. But I don't think we'll ever see a return of the levathians. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) Gee, did you notice? I went through the whole article without mentioning my 150! :-)
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (04/19/85)
> I don't think we'll see a large upsurge of dirigibles: > > 1. Public opinion. EVERYBODY knows about the Hindenburg. > A very good point, and probably the major one against passenger liners...I keep forgetting about the "public opinion factor" > 2. Sensitivity to weather. > Another good point, if we base everything on the "pre-1940" type of technology. It seems like some of these problems may be overcome in the longrun. Afterall, that IS what we pay aerospace engineers for, isn't it? :-) > 3. Training > I'm not convinced that this is really a problem, gotta train people sometime...and there will always be something new to come along that NO ONE has experience with. You can't simple NOT invent (or in this case: re-invent) something because there is no one around who can use it.... > 4. Cost of construction. Hmmmm...well, go no argument from me there, but perhaps a cost analysis study is in order...I'll get back to ya.... > 5. Non-autonomous operation. Oh, I don't particularly agree with this one either: everything has ground support crews...and if we are talking about something to carry cargo, especially so: look at supertankers...think those can just "pull into a peer" somewhere? Scores of people involved in that operation. Actually, the "supertanker" analogy could be applied to #4 above, as well....I would find it hard to beleive that mass producing derigibles would be any more expensive than mass producing supertankers. (excluding the prototypes, of course!) But again, a cost analysis is in order... > Me, I like airships. There are uses for small Blimps, using the one thing > an airship can beat a heaver-than-air machine at: Endurance. But I don't > think we'll ever see a return of the levathians. > > Ron Wanttaja > *Grin* Me too! I like them a lot better than I like supertankers or semi trucks! And they do have a certain grace about them...but, alas, I agree...I don't think we'll ever see them back either... -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo / =|-- = \ = [][][] "...I don't know what this thing does, but it's pointing in your direction."
faunt@hplabs.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (04/23/85)
Well, if a problem ever appears for which LTA is the right answer, there are plenty of blimp lovers who'll try to make it work. -- ....!hplabs!faunt faunt%hplabs@csnet-relay.ARPA HP is not responsible for anything I say here. In fact, what I say here may have been generated by a noisy telephone line.