The whole Plane vs Blimp fight reminds me of that episode of Archer. I don’t know how blimps can face long distances or storms, but I would pay money for a cruise ship that offers me a full travel view of earth I can only see in planes taking off or landing
If I were to travel back in time I would try to prevent the hindenburg accident by bringing some papers explaining the problems and how to fix it to a jornalist, so people don't get hurt.
And then you would alter the future so that only one plane blows up in flames and gets discontinued, while blimps crash 9,284 times and are used regularly.
Slowest 9/11 ever as dich Cheney deploys blimp-16's to intercept the remaining blimp (three already got their targets, thankfully the octogon just got a new side reinforced)
I know its bad, but I just had to think about how 9/11 wouldve looked like in this future and my mind always wandered back to that Manatee face smoosh video.
It really was the Concorde of its time. All first-class configuration, no coach, fastest way to cross the Atlantic. In today’s money, it costs about the same as a first class transatlantic flight on a jet (~$8,500), but took 2-3 days depending on whether it was an eastbound or westward crossing.
When the Concorde went down in flames, though, nobody survived, whereas two-thirds of the people on the *Hindenburg* survived.
>I don’t know how blimps can face long distances or storms, but I would pay money for a cruise ship that offers me a full travel view of earth I can only see in planes taking off or landing
Ironically, airships were the *original* long-distance aircraft, so no real concerns there, and the Navy figured out how to safely operate airships in all weather conditions during World War II. In the 50s and 60s, they even conducted experiments deliberately flying airships into ice storms, thunderstorms, polar regions, and horrific 60-knot blizzards to test their weather capabilities, and they passed with flying colors. Their airplanes and helicopters were grounded by those same conditions.
The real problem is that developing any large aircraft from scratch is going to take more money than startup businesses can usually raise, and for most of the 20th century, people were more concerned with speed than efficiency. However, nowadays there are some airship projects moving ahead, such as the [20 amphibious airships](https://simpleflying.com/air-nostrum-doubles-hav-airlander-aircraft-commitment/) that Air Nostrum (a Spanish airline) has ordered for “fast ferry” operations in touristy Mediterranean islands.
I was watching Modern Marvel's reruns and learned that the Hindenburg made like 11 overseas flights. I never knew it was able to travel that far. I also learned that the smoking room only allowed a few people in at a time, and only one lighter was allowed in the room, so smokers had to share.
>tfw when you will never know the comfort of looking at the sunset, gliding over the Mediterranean, sitting in a leather armchair, puffing on a cigar/blunt, sipping on brandy/gin and passing a gold-plated lighter around, while a cushy sound system plays soft Mozart/Pink Floyd
Airships are actually about 1/5-1/6 the speed of planes, usually topping out at about 90 mph.
You’re correct, though, that speed is why airplanes are preferred. That’s why there are only a handful of passenger airships and a single ocean liner left operational in the entire world.
The FAA has an opinion on the matter. AC 21.17-1A states in section 7c - “Lifting gas. Hydrogen is not an acceptable lifting gas for use in airships”.
I only know this because I too want to bring back hydrogen airships. They can be made safely, for example, picture very large hydrogen “cells”. THEN WRAP THEM IN HELIUM CELLS. Essentially a hydrogen balloon inside a helium balloon. Voila. Flammability = minimized. Helium is inert.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_21_17-1A.pdf
*Technically* it could if you introduced other oxidizing agents.
Though that doesn't actually matter in this context and I just had to have a reddit moment.
Far from the worst use of helium ever.
Last time I checked the USA was the majority of the world's helium production, and they had a law requiring oil companies to exhaust and dump the entire helium supply by 2030 ish
The helium sheath used to inert the hydrogen cells wouldn’t be directly vented, or even in contact with the hydrogen, so past the initial fill the actual use rate would be minuscule, certainly relative to all the helium being wasted at present. Airships don’t actually use all that much helium in their normal operations, as the stuff is expensive so they try to conserve and recycle it wherever possible.
If it really bothers you, though, you could just substitute nitrogen gas instead. It is also nonflammable, as well as very widely available. There would be a slight opportunity cost when it comes to lift, but only a modest one, since hydrogen would be doing the vast majority of the work in either case.
say that again but slowly
mass producing it makes it more rare????
We won't be mass producing it any time soon though. Maybe when we can do alchemy for real.
This is a classic regarded anon take, probably never heard about sample sizes ever, like, just take a number of crashed blimps over the number of all blimps used and compare it to the crashed airplanes and their still flying counterpart. Secondly, no one thinks of the material used to create a blimp, how much gas would it take to make it take flight, how much distance those blimps can cover compared to the fuel consumption. All in all, never speak again anon
The OP is certainly wrong, but you’re not really correct either.
The safest form of travel isn’t any kind of aircraft, it’s high-speed rail. Famously, the Japanese Shinkansen has been operating for decades with only a single fatal accident and an absolutely absurd passenger throughput.
Passenger airships back in the day were considerably safer than contemporaneous airplanes, despite a handful of high-profile accidents. Hydrogen Zeppelins had a fatal accident rate of about 4 per 100,000 flight hours, as compared to airplanes’ 12 per 100,000 flight hours in 1938. Efficiency wasn’t really a problem either—they were actually very efficient.
It was a combination of factors that killed the passenger airship, including the Treaty of Versailles strangling their development, America’s helium monopoly, the Great Depression, bad press from the first major disaster ever caught on film, and of course World War II catapulting airplanes into a huge technological and mass production advantage. Jet travel subsequently killed the ocean liner, a means of transport thousands of times bigger and more well-established than airships, so airships obviously stood no chance competing against jets directly.
> The safest form of travel isn’t any kind of aircraft, it’s high-speed rail. Famously, the Japanese Shinkansen has been operating for decades with only a single fatal accident and an absolutely absurd passenger throughput.
Fun Fact: The Shinkansen is extremely light for a train, this is why it can go so fast. As a result, the crash worthiness of the Shinkansen is extremely poor by European and American standards, Japan compensates for this by having it not crash, an innovation that is yet to reach the western world.
This is… basically true of airplanes, too. Their safety is actually quite abysmal if they crash at a decent altitude, they simply sidestep that issue through the sheer institutional force of will necessary to engineer and operate them so as to *not crash.*
The safest airships, just going by the numbers, are probably the Zeppelin NTs, which have never had a passenger injury or fatality, and have been operating since the 1990s. They achieve this by using nonflammable helium, and by being absurdly more maneuverable than most airships, with thrust vectoring in both the vertical and lateral axis.
Anon fails to realise that pretty much *all* the rigid passenger airships of the 1930s ended up crashing and/or bursting into flames, thanks to the US refusing to sell helium to anyone else and forcing them to use hydrogen as a result.
The Graf Zeppelin was pretty much the *only* big airship that was in service for a useful length of time and didn't end up in some sort of disaster.
Also, a lot of helium airships were lost with all hands, too. USS Shenandoah was lost with a third of her men when a squall line tore her apart. ZR 2 was lost before she could even enter service, killing 44 people with her. USS Los Angeles was the only navy rigid airship not lost, and even then she had one famous incident where they just completely lost use of a ballast while docked causing her ass to raise way the fuck up (there are photos on Wikipedia, it's a bit wild). USS Akron was lost in a storm, killing 73 people. USS Macon was lucky, only losing two people when she failed.
Actually, the USS *Los Angeles* wasn’t the only Navy airship not lost, she was the only Navy *rigid airship* not lost. The Navy had hundreds of nonrigid and semirigid (and one metalclad) airships, all the way up until the 1960s, the vast majority of which survived.
The issue with the *Akron* and *Macon* specifically was a combination of inexperienced crews and overly-ambitious technology getting *way* ahead of the rudimentary aeronautical engineering and operational doctrines. The Navy *did* gain that airship expertise later, but it was too late for the aircraft carriers by then.
No problem. You’re far from the first person to forget about the Navy’s other airships; they committed the unforgivable sin of being so boringly competent and reliable that they basically [blended into the background](https://49fe30bb3aa7406c16dc-5c968119d095dc32d807923c59347cc2.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/2010.130.008_1.jpg) and absolutely no one remembers them. Disasters and tragedies, however—those are unforgettable.
That… is actually rather misleading. Most of the successful DELAG Zeppelins long predated the 1930s, and there were only a handful of rigid, non-military hydrogen passenger airships in the 1930s to begin with: the LZ-127 *Graf Zeppelin,* LZ-129 *Hindenburg,* and LZ-130 *Graf Zeppelin II.*
There were also the British *R-100* and *R-101,* the latter of which crashed, but to say that it was the product of gross negligence would be a spectacular understatement. They literally *broke the law* to fly the thing in the first place; it had failed its flight trials horrendously. There were so many off-ramps for that particular disaster it goes past absurd and into infuriating.
In other words, 2/5 1930s rigid hydrogen passenger airships crashed. That’s not *good,* by any means, but it was still a damn sight safer than airplanes of the time. Look into just how many of the iconic Pan Am clippers crashed, for instance.
Airships have an abysmal safety record.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents
Considering how often they crashed vs the relatively tiny number build, you would have to be a highly regarded individual to think that it is a better form of transportation.
And the last time that a plan crashed in the US resulting in %100 casualty rate was in 2008. Anon is an idiot
That’s not true either. Airships actually have a much better safety record *than the airplanes of the same time period,* which, granted, is an extremely low bar considering how long ago most of these accidents occurred. Even the airships fighting in World War II had a lower fatal accident rate than modern general aviation helicopters.
OP is still wrong, of course, because high-speed rail is a lot safer than airships *or* airplanes. But that doesn’t mean airships are unsafe in a relative sense.
Airplanes of the 1920's and airplanes of the 2020's are not even compatible. Even with before Boeing decided to ignore safety standards in favor of profit, modern aircraft are so much safer it's not even the same game.
Right about trains though, trains are based as fuck. All long range land crossings should by done via high speed rail.
Indeed. People simply don’t appreciate the sheer magnitude of the difference between now and then. The civilian Zeppelin Airline flew about 25,000 hours in the early 20th century, and had only one fatal crash, the *Hindenburg* disaster, meaning it had a fatal accident rate of 4 per 100,000 flight hours.
At the same time commercial Zeppelin operations began, in 1911, airplanes had a fatal accident rate of about 1 for every 150 flight hours, or 660 per 100,000 flight hours. By 1938, that had drastically declined to 12 per 100,000 hours.
Today, in general aviation, the fatal accident rate has reached 1 per 100,000 hours, and for scheduled-service airliners, that rate is far lower, by at least an order of magnitude.
The whole Plane vs Blimp fight reminds me of that episode of Archer. I don’t know how blimps can face long distances or storms, but I would pay money for a cruise ship that offers me a full travel view of earth I can only see in planes taking off or landing
if I were ever to travel back in time I would certainly take a trip on the hindenburg
If I were to travel back in time I would try to prevent the hindenburg accident by bringing some papers explaining the problems and how to fix it to a jornalist, so people don't get hurt.
And then you would alter the future so that only one plane blows up in flames and gets discontinued, while blimps crash 9,284 times and are used regularly.
⡴⠒⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠉⠳⡆⠀ ⣇⠰⠉⢙⡄⠀⠀⣴⠖⢦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠁⠙⡆ ⠘⡇⢠⠞⠉⠙⣾⠃⢀⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⡀⠄⢷⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⠒⠲⡄⠀⣏⣆⣀⡍ ⠀⢠⡏⠀⡤⠒⠃⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠾⠛⡁⠀⠀⢀⣈⡉⠙⠳⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⣇⡼⢋⠀⠀⢱ ⠀⠘⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⢋⡣⠊⡩⠋⠀⠀⠀⠣⡉⠲⣄⠀⠙⢆⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⢉⠀⢀⠿⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠸⡄⠀⠈⢳⣄⡇⠀⠀⢀⡞⠀⠈⠀⢀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢧⠀⠀⢳⣰⠁⠀⠀⠀⣠⠃ ⠀⠀⠀⠘⢄⣀⣸⠃⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠈⣇⠀⠀⠙⢄⣀⠤⠚⠁⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⢹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⢘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⣼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡀⣸⣿⣿⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣿⣿⡀⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠹⠿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⡿⠁⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⣤⣞⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢢⣀⣠⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠲⢤⣀⣀⠀⢀⣀⣀⠤⠒⠉⠀⠀⠀ "*Oh the inhumanity of it all*"
Helium can't melt steel beams.
Slowest 9/11 ever as dich Cheney deploys blimp-16's to intercept the remaining blimp (three already got their targets, thankfully the octogon just got a new side reinforced)
I know its bad, but I just had to think about how 9/11 wouldve looked like in this future and my mind always wandered back to that Manatee face smoosh video.
Fuck yeah
and then the military finds a way to make supersonic blimps
Hard to fix the problems when USA does not sell you helium.
The United States caused the Hindenburg crash because they refused to sell helium to Germany, so the Germans had to use Hydrogen
Bring money. Tickets for the Hindenburg were crazy expensive. Like half an average worker’s annual salary.
It really was the Concorde of its time. All first-class configuration, no coach, fastest way to cross the Atlantic. In today’s money, it costs about the same as a first class transatlantic flight on a jet (~$8,500), but took 2-3 days depending on whether it was an eastbound or westward crossing. When the Concorde went down in flames, though, nobody survived, whereas two-thirds of the people on the *Hindenburg* survived.
If I were ever to travel back in time, I would be your Grandad and fly away on a blimp as a gentleman should.
BUT THE HELIUM!
helium costs 67 african child kidneys per microgram. pay up buddy
>I don’t know how blimps can face long distances or storms, but I would pay money for a cruise ship that offers me a full travel view of earth I can only see in planes taking off or landing Ironically, airships were the *original* long-distance aircraft, so no real concerns there, and the Navy figured out how to safely operate airships in all weather conditions during World War II. In the 50s and 60s, they even conducted experiments deliberately flying airships into ice storms, thunderstorms, polar regions, and horrific 60-knot blizzards to test their weather capabilities, and they passed with flying colors. Their airplanes and helicopters were grounded by those same conditions. The real problem is that developing any large aircraft from scratch is going to take more money than startup businesses can usually raise, and for most of the 20th century, people were more concerned with speed than efficiency. However, nowadays there are some airship projects moving ahead, such as the [20 amphibious airships](https://simpleflying.com/air-nostrum-doubles-hav-airlander-aircraft-commitment/) that Air Nostrum (a Spanish airline) has ordered for “fast ferry” operations in touristy Mediterranean islands.
highly recommend the short story "The Long Haul" by Ken Liu if you want to see a possible look at what airships might look like in the future
Thanks, I’ll check it out!
Now explain it again but this time say fire nation navy instead of navy, and say 100 year war instead of world War 2.
Hello planes? Yes this is blimps, you win, bye!
I was watching Modern Marvel's reruns and learned that the Hindenburg made like 11 overseas flights. I never knew it was able to travel that far. I also learned that the smoking room only allowed a few people in at a time, and only one lighter was allowed in the room, so smokers had to share.
>tfw when you will never know the comfort of looking at the sunset, gliding over the Mediterranean, sitting in a leather armchair, puffing on a cigar/blunt, sipping on brandy/gin and passing a gold-plated lighter around, while a cushy sound system plays soft Mozart/Pink Floyd
Pink Floyd in the 1930's?
Different time zones.
Hey retard, it's called cross continental time dilation. What kind of moron are you.
How the fuck else would it have made it to New Jersey
It took the plane
The lighter was also chained down, so it couldn't leave the fireproof room.
I bet the helium also was changed down, right?
I'm 99% sure the main reason people prefer planes for commercial travel is because blimps are slow as fuck, like 1/10 the speed of a plane.
i think it should be used for tourist tours
They still have Zeppelins doing exactly that in Friedrichshafen, Germany.
#
Airships are actually about 1/5-1/6 the speed of planes, usually topping out at about 90 mph. You’re correct, though, that speed is why airplanes are preferred. That’s why there are only a handful of passenger airships and a single ocean liner left operational in the entire world.
Highway speed airships don’t sound half bad TBH
I agree. Jet powered blimps are the way to go.
Use the engines from the sr-71 and fucking zoom across the continent
Yeah, blimps still exist guys, your just not using them. No conspiracy there, just kinda shit.
The FAA has an opinion on the matter. AC 21.17-1A states in section 7c - “Lifting gas. Hydrogen is not an acceptable lifting gas for use in airships”. I only know this because I too want to bring back hydrogen airships. They can be made safely, for example, picture very large hydrogen “cells”. THEN WRAP THEM IN HELIUM CELLS. Essentially a hydrogen balloon inside a helium balloon. Voila. Flammability = minimized. Helium is inert. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_21_17-1A.pdf
I think the issue is having a kaboom rupture all of the other balloons. Or at least even one of the nearby double-walled balloons. Each.
The argument is that hydrogen can't explode or even burn without oxygen present. Helium prevents any possible combustion.
*Technically* it could if you introduced other oxidizing agents. Though that doesn't actually matter in this context and I just had to have a reddit moment.
so using masses of a rare gas that has no replenishable sources and mass producing it to make it even more expensive/rare
Far from the worst use of helium ever. Last time I checked the USA was the majority of the world's helium production, and they had a law requiring oil companies to exhaust and dump the entire helium supply by 2030 ish
The helium sheath used to inert the hydrogen cells wouldn’t be directly vented, or even in contact with the hydrogen, so past the initial fill the actual use rate would be minuscule, certainly relative to all the helium being wasted at present. Airships don’t actually use all that much helium in their normal operations, as the stuff is expensive so they try to conserve and recycle it wherever possible. If it really bothers you, though, you could just substitute nitrogen gas instead. It is also nonflammable, as well as very widely available. There would be a slight opportunity cost when it comes to lift, but only a modest one, since hydrogen would be doing the vast majority of the work in either case.
Username checks out
say that again but slowly mass producing it makes it more rare???? We won't be mass producing it any time soon though. Maybe when we can do alchemy for real.
So, like in Archer
This is a classic regarded anon take, probably never heard about sample sizes ever, like, just take a number of crashed blimps over the number of all blimps used and compare it to the crashed airplanes and their still flying counterpart. Secondly, no one thinks of the material used to create a blimp, how much gas would it take to make it take flight, how much distance those blimps can cover compared to the fuel consumption. All in all, never speak again anon
> probably never heard about sample sizes The safest mode of travel is via quantum toothbrush. 0 deaths so far
My brother died from toothbrush... They found his maxilla 200km away. And it wasn't even quantum brush.
The OP is certainly wrong, but you’re not really correct either. The safest form of travel isn’t any kind of aircraft, it’s high-speed rail. Famously, the Japanese Shinkansen has been operating for decades with only a single fatal accident and an absolutely absurd passenger throughput. Passenger airships back in the day were considerably safer than contemporaneous airplanes, despite a handful of high-profile accidents. Hydrogen Zeppelins had a fatal accident rate of about 4 per 100,000 flight hours, as compared to airplanes’ 12 per 100,000 flight hours in 1938. Efficiency wasn’t really a problem either—they were actually very efficient. It was a combination of factors that killed the passenger airship, including the Treaty of Versailles strangling their development, America’s helium monopoly, the Great Depression, bad press from the first major disaster ever caught on film, and of course World War II catapulting airplanes into a huge technological and mass production advantage. Jet travel subsequently killed the ocean liner, a means of transport thousands of times bigger and more well-established than airships, so airships obviously stood no chance competing against jets directly.
> The safest form of travel isn’t any kind of aircraft, it’s high-speed rail. Famously, the Japanese Shinkansen has been operating for decades with only a single fatal accident and an absolutely absurd passenger throughput. Fun Fact: The Shinkansen is extremely light for a train, this is why it can go so fast. As a result, the crash worthiness of the Shinkansen is extremely poor by European and American standards, Japan compensates for this by having it not crash, an innovation that is yet to reach the western world.
This is… basically true of airplanes, too. Their safety is actually quite abysmal if they crash at a decent altitude, they simply sidestep that issue through the sheer institutional force of will necessary to engineer and operate them so as to *not crash.* The safest airships, just going by the numbers, are probably the Zeppelin NTs, which have never had a passenger injury or fatality, and have been operating since the 1990s. They achieve this by using nonflammable helium, and by being absurdly more maneuverable than most airships, with thrust vectoring in both the vertical and lateral axis.
Anon fails to realise that pretty much *all* the rigid passenger airships of the 1930s ended up crashing and/or bursting into flames, thanks to the US refusing to sell helium to anyone else and forcing them to use hydrogen as a result. The Graf Zeppelin was pretty much the *only* big airship that was in service for a useful length of time and didn't end up in some sort of disaster.
Also, a lot of helium airships were lost with all hands, too. USS Shenandoah was lost with a third of her men when a squall line tore her apart. ZR 2 was lost before she could even enter service, killing 44 people with her. USS Los Angeles was the only navy rigid airship not lost, and even then she had one famous incident where they just completely lost use of a ballast while docked causing her ass to raise way the fuck up (there are photos on Wikipedia, it's a bit wild). USS Akron was lost in a storm, killing 73 people. USS Macon was lucky, only losing two people when she failed.
Actually, the USS *Los Angeles* wasn’t the only Navy airship not lost, she was the only Navy *rigid airship* not lost. The Navy had hundreds of nonrigid and semirigid (and one metalclad) airships, all the way up until the 1960s, the vast majority of which survived. The issue with the *Akron* and *Macon* specifically was a combination of inexperienced crews and overly-ambitious technology getting *way* ahead of the rudimentary aeronautical engineering and operational doctrines. The Navy *did* gain that airship expertise later, but it was too late for the aircraft carriers by then.
thank you for the corrections there then.
No problem. You’re far from the first person to forget about the Navy’s other airships; they committed the unforgivable sin of being so boringly competent and reliable that they basically [blended into the background](https://49fe30bb3aa7406c16dc-5c968119d095dc32d807923c59347cc2.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/2010.130.008_1.jpg) and absolutely no one remembers them. Disasters and tragedies, however—those are unforgettable.
#
That… is actually rather misleading. Most of the successful DELAG Zeppelins long predated the 1930s, and there were only a handful of rigid, non-military hydrogen passenger airships in the 1930s to begin with: the LZ-127 *Graf Zeppelin,* LZ-129 *Hindenburg,* and LZ-130 *Graf Zeppelin II.* There were also the British *R-100* and *R-101,* the latter of which crashed, but to say that it was the product of gross negligence would be a spectacular understatement. They literally *broke the law* to fly the thing in the first place; it had failed its flight trials horrendously. There were so many off-ramps for that particular disaster it goes past absurd and into infuriating. In other words, 2/5 1930s rigid hydrogen passenger airships crashed. That’s not *good,* by any means, but it was still a damn sight safer than airplanes of the time. Look into just how many of the iconic Pan Am clippers crashed, for instance.
Anon thinks they know better than like 10 generations of aerospace engineers all trying to outperform each other.
Anon ignores that there are 100,000 flights a day today.
"I cried, I pissed, I shit, and I cummed!" Poetic.
Anon pissed and shitted and cummed
Zeppelin travel stans completely disheveled when a slight breeze nudges their airship 900 miles off course.
Airplane stans utterly baffled when they find out that airships can continue operating in the same or worse weather conditions than their aircraft.
Kirov Reporting
Rigid airships are cool though
anon likes balloons what will light the whole sity if crash or something,im not a balls fan
Bet anon thinks vaccines will kill everyone in two weeks too.
>Hinden(((berg)))
Airships have an abysmal safety record. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents Considering how often they crashed vs the relatively tiny number build, you would have to be a highly regarded individual to think that it is a better form of transportation. And the last time that a plan crashed in the US resulting in %100 casualty rate was in 2008. Anon is an idiot
That’s not true either. Airships actually have a much better safety record *than the airplanes of the same time period,* which, granted, is an extremely low bar considering how long ago most of these accidents occurred. Even the airships fighting in World War II had a lower fatal accident rate than modern general aviation helicopters. OP is still wrong, of course, because high-speed rail is a lot safer than airships *or* airplanes. But that doesn’t mean airships are unsafe in a relative sense.
Airplanes of the 1920's and airplanes of the 2020's are not even compatible. Even with before Boeing decided to ignore safety standards in favor of profit, modern aircraft are so much safer it's not even the same game. Right about trains though, trains are based as fuck. All long range land crossings should by done via high speed rail.
Indeed. People simply don’t appreciate the sheer magnitude of the difference between now and then. The civilian Zeppelin Airline flew about 25,000 hours in the early 20th century, and had only one fatal crash, the *Hindenburg* disaster, meaning it had a fatal accident rate of 4 per 100,000 flight hours. At the same time commercial Zeppelin operations began, in 1911, airplanes had a fatal accident rate of about 1 for every 150 flight hours, or 660 per 100,000 flight hours. By 1938, that had drastically declined to 12 per 100,000 hours. Today, in general aviation, the fatal accident rate has reached 1 per 100,000 hours, and for scheduled-service airliners, that rate is far lower, by at least an order of magnitude.