by Tondoteottotote on April 29th, 2005

Tondoteottotote

Question

Help answer this question below.

How come airships (or blimps) made today aren't as large as the airships of yore?

  • Like
  • Report

Answers. 4 helpful answers below.

  • by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on May 10th, 2005

    8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009

    While I can't answer completely, I will point out a couple of facts.

    1) Blimps have no internal skeleton; they are just gasbags with a gondola. The airships of yore had metal frames inside the gasbag that allowed for the higher degree of structural rigidity required for truly large airships.

    2) If you compare the Trans-Atlantic crossing times of a Zeppelin to that of a modern airliner and factor in the high cost of Helium (no modern-day airship would dare use Hydrogen), it's not really economically feasible to keep an old-fashioned airship afloat. In fact, given the difference in lifting power between Helium and Hydrogen, it may not even be possible.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by notmrjohn on May 11th, 2005

    notmrjohn

    I can't improve on jervinator's answer, "it's not really economically feasible," which is why I rated it 100%, but I can (and will, I don't care what you say) enlarge on it with a few details. The Yoreans didn't put the rigid frame inside the gas bag, it was inside the outer aerodynamic,or streamlined skin, blimps also have an outer skin. ( Rigid frame> Dirigible ,no frame>blimp [Zeppelin> airships built by the company Luftschiffbau Zeppelin ( Builder of Airships Zeppelin of Germany]) Inside the skin are several gas bags, gas can be pumped from bag to bag to trim the ship, nose down? pump some gas from a rear bag to a front one. The real purpose of the frame was to allow the passenger and crew compartments to be inside the streamlined skin rather than hanging non-aerodynamic gondolas outside.
    Jerv hit it by comparing flight times and not just for passenger service, for any practical use an airship may have, when compared to its competition , the airship is slower and more cumbersome. Back then in yore the competition was closer. Crossing to Europe by plane, very spartan cramped planes too, required flying south along the US coast with frequent fuel stops; hopping across the Caribbean to Brazil; then a very nerve wracking flight in an even more cramped, spartan , stripped down plane, fueled to the max ,to Africa; then hopping north thru Europe; the entire trip took as long as a week and was very expensive especially so considering the conditions. First class rates for steerage passage. (As late as WW2 that was the route for getting bombers across, later a New Foundland, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland route was used. Both routes required the largest bombers, stripped down, with extra fuel tanks in the bomb bays.) The fastest passenger ship crossing by the Yoreans was 3 days and that was from an attempt to set a record in a lightly loaded ship, the average was closer to 5 days to a week. Conditions on board ranged from expensive blatant ostentatious luxury in First class, thru second class ( similar to 'tourist' on modern airline), to steerage with a bunch of people restricted to a few large rooms, but steerage was cheap and was a definite source of profit. The ships were large and carried hundreds of people, most of them in steerage where there was a ridiculously high passenger to crew ratio.
    The last crossing by the Hindenburg took 3 days and all accommodations were 1st class, very luxurious 1st class, there were 72 passengers and a crew of 63, about evenly divided between operations and passenger service. Each Yorean had two 'servants'. The only competition with the airship's 3 days was first class sea travel's week. Nowadays few people 'travel' by sea, the cruise ship is itself the destination, the competition would be a weeks worth of activities on the roomy comfortable ship vs the comparatively cramped airship. Modern passenger blimp service is also just for the thrill of it but the rides are short because the thrill is all there is. Once you've said " I can see my house from here," there's not much else to do.
    RE the lift and danger "between Helium and Hydrogen, " actually the Yorean, Dr. Hugo Eckner, designed the Hindenburg to use Helium, but the only commercial source of Helium was, and is, the Texas Panhandle and the US was growing wary of the Nazis and refused to sell them any. There was a smoking lounge on the ship, Hydrogen is flammable but so was the fuel for the engines, proper safeguards, including vents and fans, were in place. Eckner warned that the Aluminum in the dope or "paint' used to coat the skin had a lower flash point than the Hydrogen. The other Nazi Yoreans didn't listen. Modern mylars and safeguards would make Hydrogen safer than it was in days of yore.
    Leaving yore behind, in 2002 the German company Cargo Lift announced it would complete a blimp 853X213 feet. The Hindenburg ,the largest airship ever, was 803X135. But that's the last I heard, it reminds me of Popular Science announcing the "Return of the Airship!" every couple of years since the fifties. Supposedly airships were just the thing needed for lifting an carrying cargo where a 'hovering' effect was needed but the weights were too much for helicopters. But airships are slow, cumbersome, and susceptible to wind and other weather and helicopters keep getting bigger and stronger. Helicopters!? Popular Science promised in the 50's that we'd all have personal helicopters in our garages by the 80's. Where's my helicopter? I want my helicopter!! Stupid PS. Hmmmm.. I'd rather have a blimp. A Hydrogen blimp, compress the gas into the fuel tank, fold up the bag, put it in the trunk, drive off in my clean fuel gondola car. Drive right past all them Yoreans waiting at the Zeppelin stop.
    PS I know, jervinator's answer was concise and got it in a nutshell, mine was overly verbose and didn't really add anything. I'm just a big gas bag.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by PerpetualAFK on January 11th, 2007

    PerpetualAFK

    Blimps are only used now to make a platform that will float in the air. A helicopter uses a lot of fuel to hover. For these purposes, blimps are the cheapest. There is no need to use blimps as a form of transit, such as the huge Hindenburg (it burned down) because jets are much better.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by RedJohn on October 5th, 2005

    RedJohn

    As the others have noted, blimps have no internal skeleton. A large airship requires a rigid airframe for stability (e.g., a Zeppelin). There is little interest in reviving airships for passenger travel, except for the novelty aspect - something along the lines of a cruise ship.

    On the other hand, there is interest in building modern technology, rigid-frame airships for use as cargo transports. Many items simply do not need to be shipped quickly and a slower-speed form of transport is quite acceptable (e.g., ships, railroads). An airship has some distinct advantages over a conventional aircraft. They don't require as large an (airport) infrastructure to support their operations. They can operate in and out of remote sites, which can be deployed to meet situational needs more cheaply than for conventional aircraft. Since an airship is quieter than other commercial aircraft, they would have fewer restrictions on the location and hours of operation of their landing sites.

    Such options are being explored with airships such as the Zeppelin-NT (http://www.zeppelin-nt.com/index_e.htm).

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

You're reading How come airships (or blimps) made today aren't as large as the airships of yore?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Large airships
Passenger blimp
Passenger blimps
Blimps today
What are blimps used for today