So basically the passengers killed the pilot? It says they jumped when the blimp was only 2 meters off the ground and the sudden loss of weight caused the blimp to shoot into the air...

How can you say the passengers killed the pilot? The passengers saved their own lives it isn't a case of if they would all have stayed on board they could all have been saved there wasn't time, the pilot would still have died along with the three passengers!

Helium, rather than hydrogen, is a mandatory gas employed to lift airships iin Europe and North America.

The Hindenberg disaster would not have taken place if the U.S. had agreed to supply helium for use in Zeppelins. At the time, the U.S. was about the only place in the world that was capable of producing helium gas, and the gas was considered a strategic material. Germany had made several approaches to the government to obtain helium, and had been rebuffed. Since the Hindenberg disaster, helium has been the only gas used in airships.

The Goodyear blimps - there are quite a number of them - have been quite successful in keeping the use of airships alive, and in recent years, expanding. I very much enjoyed being a passenger aboard one more than 30 years ago in Southern California. It's an amazing experience.

This accident, according to the article, occurred when something caused the airship's gasoline fuel supply to leak out and then ignite - it may have been the sudden lift after the passengers leapt out that spread the leaking fuel enough to cause a large fire. The passengers could not have jumped from the ship without the pilot's consent and probably on his urging. It was reported that there was a strong smell of gasoline.

The Germans were denied helium because they were using it in nuclear weapons research. Plus, Germany was at war (or soon would be) with most of Europe, and the Zeppelin's were instruments of war; their commercial uses were secondary. Germany was in violation of most of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, so rewarding them with the sale of helium would not have been appropriate.

More revisionist history intended to make the US look like the bad guy.

John it was right for the US to deny Germany helium. We waited too long to get into the war as it was. The Hindenburg was nothing more that huge a huge Nazi propaganda show anyway.

@jr: Wow, talk about revisionist history. Helium was not banned to be sold to the Germans because of anything to do with the Nazis. The Helium Control act of 1927* banned its exportation to all nations and Germany never requested an exception for the exportation of Helium. Furthermore, the fact is that Germany didn't have a nuclear program at the time of the Hindenberg accident. The Germans took on their first "Uranverein" in 1939, nearly two full years after the Hindenberg went up in flames.

*Long before the Nazis took power in Germany, for those unaware of history.

East Coast, thanks for your post. My comment that Germany did in fact seek a helium supply in the mid-1930's was based on a documentary I happened to catch this weekend. It included an interview with the man who had made the request - not through official government channels, but on behalf of the Zeppelin company.

Moreover, in my post I was not making any judgemental statements about the propriety or impropriety of any U.S. refusal. To call it "revisionist history" is entirely inappropriate and incorrect. I still stand by my post, based upon information I found to be reliable as well as my own work in history. I am a professional historian and that period of time (between WWI and II) is one of my particular areas of specialty.

@John A. Yeah, I know about the efforts made by Eckener but it should be pointed out how the system really was at the time and place. I think far too many people are ignorant of the facts about the American Helium situation at this point in history.

Wow those passengers were really brave saving their own hides like that. Yeah they killed the pilot if they would have waited they could have all jumped together. and then it would have shot up and burned off in the air as they ran for cover.

I hope that I am never in a similar situation with the above poster Andy Miller.

There's been some pretty good evidence that the problem with the Hindenberg was the explosive dope used to seal its fabric - not hydrogen gas.

Note to self: Shoot passengers before approaching ground in an emergency.

Do I have to be the first to say this? "Oh, the humanity!"

jimreaper...can I be the first to say this? You're the grimreaper! LOL!

Oh no he didn't say that......

Im not sure about everyone on here bashing the passengers for jumping. First off they were most likely told by the pilot to jump or they would have waited for the thing to land. So they all obviously knew something was wrong. I think we should be calling this man a hero for saving the passengers knowing that his life was in jeopardy, not blaming the passengers for his death. This accident was the result of a malfuction with his equipment, not from the jumping.

First off the Pilot did what a Captain, skipper or pilot should do. He heroically saw to the safety of the passengers. Having piloted vessels myself this is what a person taking responsibility is supposed to do but rarely seems to happen. I am sorry for his loss but commend his actions.

As for the history, everyone is all over the place. The theory for the atomic bomb dates back to the prior war. The helium ban was also more likely from action in WW1, since Germany used blimps to bomb London. Any Nation at war before or after is careful with its resources. America had a similar problem getting rubber for WW2. The problem with history is sometimes it is based on speculation not actual facts. Much like those blaming passengers for the Pilots death. Even I can only speculate from my experience that the Pilot most likely held out as long as he could and ordered the passengers to jump.

No need to argue whether is was the helium/hydrogen debacle to blame.

I've always held the belief it was the 'silver paint' made with aluminum (and flying with a highly charged electrical atmosphere.) The Hindenburg crashed and burned quickly, not because of what was on the inside, but rather what was on the outside.

"Regardless of much speculation, translation of a letter handwritten in German on June 28, 1937, by Hindenburg investigator and electrical engineer Otto Beyersdorff states "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature ..." Recently, NASA investigator Dr. Addison Bain has verified this finding by scientific experiments that duplicated the vigorous ignition by static discharge to the aluminum powder filled covering material. Spectacular colors of this type of combustion were produced from the burning skin of the giant airship. Dr. Bain concluded that the Hindenburg would have burned and crashed even if helium would have been used as the lifting gas. Dr. Bain noted that the particular type of aluminum powder particles, which are flake like in shape, are particularly sensitive to electrical discharge."

clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the passengers. I doubt they could have all jumped at once due to maintaining control of the craft. He is a hero who saved the 3 passengers and they are not responsible for his death. No doubt in my mind he put their lives before his and he paid the ultimate price.

As for the history, everyone is all over the place. The theory for the atomic bomb dates back to the prior war. The helium ban was also more likely from action in WW1, since Germany used blimps to bomb London. Any Nation at war before or after is careful with its resources. America had a similar problem getting rubber for WW2. The problem with history is sometimes it is based on speculation not actual facts.

I gave the facts, you speculated instead of acknowledging the facts. What you're downplaying others for is exactly what you're doing. The legality of exporting Helium is covered in the Helium Control Act of 1927. I didn't make this up. Google it for God's sake and you'll see. Germany was not singled out and Germany never tried to get an exception that would have allowed the US to export Helium to Germany. That's the hard facts.

As for the atomic bomb? So what? Germany never had an organized plan until after the Hindenburg accident. I have covered both aspects of the revisionist history post and I'm covering them again since the facts don't seem to be good enough for you. The act that barred the export of Helium was in place long before the German government broke the treaty of Versailles or the Nazis took power. This is a fact.

If you want to offset my facts, fine, do it and cite your sources. Otherwise stop this "based on speculation, not actual facts" nonsense and making up crap.

Most captains go down with the ship---did this one go up witj the ship???

The simple, sad truth here is that NONE of us really know how we would handle this situation; whether we are the passengers or the Captain.

It's always easier to do the "woulda, shoulda, coulda" thing.

If the Captain had lived and the passengers had not, how would that have affected our comments?

east coast - the 1927 Helium Control Act would have been up to six years before the Nazis took power in Germany in 1933. They were well-entrenched by 1939, when the Hindenburg crashed, and WWII was just months away.

AncientGeek, we must have watched the same production of NOVA 20 or 30 years hense. Flammable dope, volitile as rocket fuel, as I remember the narrative, coupled with inadequate electrical grounding of the zeppelin's frame, led to the Hindenberg disaster

As for the rapid disembarkation of passengers killing the pilot, i can guarantee that nobody preformed an analysis of the physics conserning weight and boyancy in the heat of that moment. All that can be expected in such situations, in the absence of intense training, is the most immediate escape. Since the pilot was the one expected to have the most flight time on board that Goodyear Blimp, he is the only person who could be expected to predict contingent outcomes.

JERRY THE SYNIC-Most captains go down with the ship---

I knew of a captain that went down on my sister once, but something else went up.

Great History

The german nuclear effort didn't start until well after Hahn first demonstrated nuclear fission, since it was considered "jewish physics" and was stifled. It wasn't until ~1941 that some kind of effort was started, and He was not used (not that it would have been, anyway). Also the Hindenburg didn't go down in 1939, but in 1937. Yes, if it was the hydrogen burning you wouldn't have seen it, it's invisible when burning. The bright flames were the Al burning, by the way Al is the fuel for solid rocket boosters. There was n't enough oxygen to burn the hydrogen in the envelope as it requires at least 30% air for H to burn, but when the envelope was breached, the hydrogen began to burn.

Poor pilot, lousy way to go!

Why are you all wasting time worrying about the history of blimps? You are painting a perfect picture of what is wrong with our world today. A man died saving the lives of others. Another Man did this long ago nailed to a cross. I hate to see people being so self-centered by trying to prove their theory is correct because they know some useless facts. A man died! Stop being idiots and take a deep breath, and thank God three are still alive.

OK

How did the nailing of a guy to a cross save lives?

Seems kind of odd that the Hindenberg flew into a desilate location and blewup; "Camp Dix, Fort Dix, now Mcguire A/F base" coincidents? Hydrogen? I thought the Atom Bomb was a "Hydrogen Bomb" not a Helium Bomb?

Hydrogen and Oxygen are the two gases needed to propel rockets. Why did the Germans send over Hydrogen? Why do you still see man made craters around the pine barrens of Lakehurst.

Somethins awfull scewwy awound here.

read your bible, if you dont have one i'll send it to you.

Hey mike in ga, just send me the cash, ill buy one locally. Taking donations.......

right on

Which explains the almost complete lack of debris in the photo of the crash site. . .

Well, Zeppelin is the original owner/designers name and is taken out of context like "kleenex" for tissue. An airship has a superstructure. This blimp made by "Zeppelin" does not, so we have a Zeppelin Blimp.

Regardless it is a sad story, to bad the pilot did not jump with the rest. It would have saved his life.

Blimps predate Zeppelin(tm), the rigid airframed lighter than air ship, or the current Zeppelin company.

So it's being majorly taken out of context?

Or has Goodyear stopped making their blimp and is now purchasing replacements in their fleet from Zeppelin?

Goodyear is replacing their fleet of blimps with Zeppelin Airships.

It clearly wasn't a good year for the pilot.

Interesting add-on:

Explains the partnership between Goodyear & Zeppelin and that it will be the "Goodyear Zeppelin" (not the Goodyear Blimp in 2014)

I don't think this blimp was filled with helium The way it burned, it looks more like it was hydrogen filled.

Yeah, I've just got to ask if it was filled with hydrogen. If so then my next question is, did we not learn our lesson from the Hindenberg?

What was the blimp filled with? Does anyone know for a fact?

For a long time there was a false assumption by many that the orange flames of the Hindenburg disaster were from the hydrogen, but hydrogen produces an invisible flame. Research proved that the orange color was from the burning paint.

This accident was a horrific way for the pilot to die. My prayers and thoughts are with his family.

Bad day Beev?

Just curious as I've often heard this phrase uttered and never quite understood it: Shouldn't it be "The INhumanity?" Someone please shed some light on this one.

It was a desperate statement uttered by a reporter witnessing the tragedy as it was occurring. Are you going to argue syntax and grammer on a historical quote?

I don't think he was arguing anything...just asking for reference and context. Switch to decaf.

Miker: I'll assume you are earnest since I refuse to believe anyone could be so callus as to make lite of this tragedy. Here is the answer. It is a lament, abreviated as many are in the emotion of the moment, regarding the humanity lost. Another way of saying "Oh, the loss to humanity."

Kogiesmom is correct. The reporter was on mic as the Hindenburg ignited and burned. He exclaimed "Oh, the humanity" in shock as the air ship crashed to the ground.

Maybe this excerpt of his broadcast will help to put it in perspective. Wikipedia has the full broadcast text if you search his name.

“It’s fire and it crashing! . . . This is the worst of the worst catastrophes in the world! Oh, it’s crashing . . . oh, four or five hundred feet into the sky, and it’s a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. There’s smoke, and there’s flames, now, and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers screaming around here!

. . . I can’t talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest, it’s just laying there, a mass of smoking wreckage, and everybody can hardly breathe and talk . . . Honest, I can hardly breathe. I’m going to step inside where I cannot see it. . . .”

Thanks, all! Especially Gneisenau for providing the acutal quote and JTM for actually reading what I typed without reading anything into it. (No, I was not arguing grammar. Yes, I was being earnest.)

My pleasure Miker. If you are not familiar with it, I would highly recommend you listen to the original broadcast. It's rather gut wrenching though.

Gneisenau: Will do. Shouldn't be too hard to find the guy's name. But, I'll have to wait until this evening - don't want to draw a crowd at work listening to audio!

My pardon, I thought I put it in my first reply. The announcer in question is named Herbert Morrison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Morrison

@Gneisenau: Aha!

Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers screaming around here!

The quote commonly used is just part of the whole sentence where Morrison appears to be saying that the crowd ("the humanity," as he had apparently used the term earlier in the broadcast) and the passengers were all screaming. Funny how just those three words out of an entire broadcast were picked up to become such a common phrase, which I'd say - Rob - has come to mean pretty much what you suggested.

(@kogiesmom: Just because it's a historical quote "don't" mean it's right. . . )

Thanks for that info, everyone. One of few actually productive discussions in the history of these boards, I'd say!

"Blimp" is a type of aircraft; "Zeppelin" is the name of a company. "Dirigible" means "steerable," and "airship" is vaguer still. This craft may not be a pure blimp, but calling it a Zeppelin is automatically correct, because that's who made it.

I hope they find the problem soon, and fix it permanently. This tragedy was horrific, but it could have been so much worse than it was.

The Zeppelin company makes airships; zeppelin (lower case "z") is a synonym for dirigible. So a Zeppelin can build a blimp, but a zeppelin isn't a blimp.

A Zeppelin has a ridget frame (such as aluminum) to support the gas bag or bags, while a blimp does not.

All small airplanes are NOT Piper Cubs......

This wasn't the first LTA accident that was apparently exacerbated by the early exit of the passengers. There was a horrible balloon crash in Albuquerque in 1982 that was worsened by passengers saving themselves at the expense of the others' lives. I don't know what provision this Zeppelin had for the rapid release of lifting gas, but I agree that if there was one, and the pilot had had time to use it, his life could have been spared.

Actually, I think it was the rapid release of flammable gas which led to this disaster. The pilot probably over reacted when the passengers jumped out, and released too much flammable gas to bring this airship back down. I tend to doubt that automatic venting due to pressure change would have caused this to occur in that short of space. I would never dream of using pure hydrogen to fill these airships, I would always use a safe mixture of helium and hydrogen. Even though the hydrogen leaks out through the skin of these airships when you do this, it is very cheap and easy to replace. - RC

Rick: where are you getting your information that "flammable gas" was even used? To my knowledge, no one's filled an airship with hydrogen since the Hindenburg. The article mentions that there was a gasoline smell before the flames erupted. This appears to have been a problem with the propulsion system, not the lifting agent.

Ricky, no one uses Hydrogen as a lifting gas any more. The flames were most likely caused by gasoline in the engines being in an unnatural position. "there was a strong odor of gasoline before the engines caught fire."

Even in the past, the Germans only used Hydrogen because the US restricted the sale of Helium which is non-flammable.

Confusion between zeppelin & blimp in the story is just sloppy.

The Herald Sun in Australia reported there was a strong odor of gasoline before the engines caught fire

It way it sounds to me is that if the passengers had stayed there probably would have been more dead. If they were close enough to hear the pilot scream as he burned then they were pretty damn close and there was a pretty short amount of time to get out or die. The article is strangely written. I can not believe they heard the pilot scream while he was inside the airship 150 feet in the air. Even if he was standing in the open doorway. (I guess maybe if all the engines were shutdown and he was trying to jump along with them so he was standing in the open doorway.) I think they heard him scream as they were leaving the ship or immediately after jumping. If it happens that they were all trying to escape together then it's still no one's fault. I doubt all the passengers and the pilot could have stepped through the door at the same instant.

To understand this accident requires a little background. Only three lifting agents are practical in lighter-than-air craft: hydrogen, helium, and hot air. Hydrogen is no longer used in manned vehicles because it burns very readily.

Balloons typically use hot air- but some, especially those used at very high altitude where oxygen is scarce, use helium as well. Passengers ride in a glorified basket beneath the air bag, which also carries ballast, fuel, and a burner to keep the air in the bag at the desired temperature.The only control is altitude: they move up and down, seeking a wind moving in the desired direction of travel.

Blimps add a shaped structure filled with helium- a streamlined bag narrowest along the intended direction of travel, generally incorporating fins and structured seams to increase stability. They carry a gondola secured with a net, spars, or a combination of both. The gondola incorporates fuel, ballast, a passenger and pilot compartment, and engines- generally gasoline engines turning props which are very similar in nature to those used by airplanes. These engines are usually housed in nacelles which can move through a very wide range of motion- and they allow the blimp to move not just with the wind, but against it or across it. They are very popular platforms for photography and video coverage of sports and nature, and enjoy a safety record comparable to those of other aircraft.

Dirigibles add a rigid internal structure to which multiple bags are internally attached. Due to this additional weight, dirigibles need to be larger- and really large dirigibles enjoy substantial advantages due to the fact that surface area goes up far more slowly than internal volume in a large object. In fact, large dirigibles are capable of lifting and transporting far heavier loads than the largest jet. The main disadvantage is speed- while far faster than ocean liners, they are far slower than jets. The only reason they remain unpopular is a widespread lack of understanding that helium cannot burn, and that modern dirigibles built with modern materials would be far safer than other aircraft. After all- if the engines fail in a heavier-than-air machine (such as a jet), it falls like a brick because the engines provide the lift. If the engines in a lighter-than-air dirigible fail, you don't fall- you just stop moving in the desired direction. This gives your flight crew time to attempt a repair.

The blimp in this disaster had a gasoline leak. The gasoline was ignited by an electrical spark or by one of the engines- the fact that the occupants could smell gasoline is an indication that the leak might have been inside the gondola. When the passengers jumped to safety, the sudden loss of hundreds of pounds of weight would have made the blimp rise abruptly to seek equilibrium, tragically lifting the pilot too high to survive the fall. Chances are good he instructed his passengers to leap together, knowing full well what was about to happen to him and staying behind to keep the gondola as steady as possible. Of course, it's also possible they bailed on him before he could safely join them; hopefully not the case, as I'd hate to have to live with the resulting guilt. It was an incredible act of bravery on the pilot's part either way.

no one uses Hydrogen as a lifting gas any more

Hydrogen is no longer used in manned vehicles

Max and FeO2, that's true as to airships, as far as I'm aware, but hydrogen does continue to be used in gas ballooning, both in Europe and the US. Interestingly, I'm not aware of a fatal accident or serious incident involving hydrogen in ballooning during the past several decades.

Only three lifting agents are practical in lighter-than-air craft: hydrogen, helium, and hot air.

Other gases are used as well, notably including ammonia. The increasing cost of helium is leading to innovation in the selection of lifting gases, but again, as far as I know, airships around the world use helium exclusively.

Balloons typically use hot air- but some, especially those used at very high altitude where oxygen is scarce, use helium as well. Passengers ride in a glorified basket beneath the air bag, which also carries ballast, fuel, and a burner

Burners aren't used at all in gas balloons. The distinction between hot-air and gas balloons is related more to flight duration than to altitude. Gas balloons can stay aloft for days, and travel well over 1000 miles. Hot-air balloons typically have a maximum flight duration of less than 24 hours, and a maximum range of a few hundred miles, even with the preparation required of a FAI-sanctioned record attempt.

Well put FEO2

Thanks for the expansion and corrections. I was aware that burners won't work in helium. Re balloon accidents, there are statistics ( http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl9_balloon.htm )- and while hydrogen now sees some use ( http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AComebackForHydrogenFlight_204202-1.html ), it's not exactly common, and certainly not commercial.

There's such a thing as TMI, and I was already writing a short book on the topic- with the primary goal of providing just enough background to differentiate between types of lighter-than-air craft and illuminate why the blimp jumped when the passengers left. Regardless- all balloons seeking to set distance, endurance or altitude records have been gas balloons.

Thanks for the expansion and corrections.

You're welcome, and back at'cha. Seems every time there's an LTA story, folks like you and I have to correct misreported details.

I was aware that burners won't work in helium.

Actually, there's a type of balloon with a gas cell inside a hot-air balloon. They're called Rozieres. The Breitling Orbiter III, first to fly nonstop around the world, was a Roziere, as were some of the unsuccessful attempts to be first across the Atlantic in the '60s and '70s.

while hydrogen now sees some use ..., it's not exactly common, and certainly not commercial.

Unless you count gas balloons emblazoned with corporate logos (e.g. Warsteiner). I'm not sure which logoed balloons do and don't fly hydrogen, but when you look at photos of, say, a Gordon Bennett race, a number of entrants are, to some extent, commercial. As for commonness, gas ballooning is horrendously expensive regardless of lifting agent, and is not what one would call "common" in any case.

There's such a thing as TMI

which I'm sure I've long since passed

all balloons seeking to set distance, endurance or altitude records have been gas balloons.

Actually, the FAI has separate categories of records for gas and hot-air, so it's probably more accurate to say that the greatest numbers in any given endeavor are held by the largest gas balloons, while the smallest numbers are (as a rule) held by the smallest hot-air balloons.

I know: TMI.

Oh, I have no tendency towards TMI at all (snort). Roziere? Never heard of it- another thing to read up on, and who can keep up with all of it when digital information was, at least in theory, already doubling every 11 hours last year. I was also amazed that ammonia is in use as a lifting gas- although I've read that if a material of sufficient strength is ever available, you could actually build and evacuate a sphere and use that to generate lift- as a vacuum is obviously even lighter than hydrogen. It was proposed that such a bubble could most easily be blown, evacuated, and resealed in low earth orbit- but retrieving it might be a bit of a chore...

If we really want to nit pick FeO2's post. Its not the engines that provide lift in a heavier than aircraft (IE airplane) The engines provide thrust, which moves the airplane forward, causes air to move across the wings, which is what provides lift.

Good point, bill- only the Harrier and a few other vectored thrust vtol aircraft have engines that directly provide lift- helicopters in general and the Osprey in particular might qualify due to the fact that the prop is the lifting body- but the same aerodynamic principles- diversion of air on the lift side creating a partial vacuum generating lift- apply. That makes them a bit of a gray area. Nitpickers are welcome- I learn something almost every time. Sorry for the delay- had to go do that awful 4-letter work thing: work.

Zeppelin is, and has always been, the name of a company, and Goodyear's airships have always been called "blimps." For once in the history of lighter-than-air flight, the article is correct. Now if they could only figure out that not all balloons are "hot-air balloons."

Read this article. Goodyear is replacing its current blimp fleet with new Zeppelin (a company) airships: 

Edit: it won't let me post a link, search google for "gooyear to retire blimps"

In the interest of accuracy, there were also the Macon and the Akron- both dirigibles only 20' shorter than the Graff Zeppelin- which were built by Goodyear (along with a plethora of blimps and observation balloons) for the U.S. Navy. The Navy referred to them as "rigid airships"- and they were quite unusual, as they could launch and retrieve parasitic biplanes.

Re Goodyear's new airships; http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/05/21/goodyear-going-in-new-direction-with-airships

As opposed to airplanes, helicopters, motorcycles and cars? Accidents happen every day.

Actually their accident rate is extremely low.... MUCH lower than cars, and I don't think anyone will advocate that we make cars illegal.

When's the last time you can recall a fatal blimp accident? I'm with erockaustin - airships have a great safety record, at least since we lifted our helium embargo on Germany.

Agreed with Dave and Erockaustin. Sometimes people get the idea that something is dangerous because its accident likelyhood is SO small that in the rare circumstance something bad does occur it becomes major news. Something like a car crash, that occurs thousands of times a day, is lucky to even make local news, and that is only if it causes an inconvience in traffic times.

The engines run on gasoline (petrol). Leaky fuel line or fuel injector, perhaps.

Exactly, STH - the article says there was a strong odor of gasoline just before the flames erupted. The lifting gas was almost certainly non-flammable helium.

I wonder about the feasibility of using electric motors for propulsion. If they could use non-hydrogen producing batteries and cover the top of the gas bag with that newer solar film to charge the batteries, they might have a really good thing - assuming they could get a good enough lift/weight ratio compared to gasoline burning engines. I suppose someone is already looking into it though.

@ Kozmonot: Boy, are they ever: http://www.wsgi.com/

Search the term "stratellite" for some interesting images; the one that's brown on top was going to be built with a photelectric layered polymer to produce power for the engine and for the payload.

No, it doesn't.

The Zeppelin corporation is building airships again. The article had it right. Once you do some basic research and corroborate that the article was correct, do you plan to post a retraction and apology?

Dave, I wonder how many times you'll have to repeat yourself before people actually read explanation and get a clue!

Goodyear is retiring its current blimp program this year and replacing them with a new fleet of airships from Zeppelin. I would imagine this was one of their first replacements. Occassionally the reporters are actually correct, and the readers are just out of the loop.

DevAvo: lighter-than-air flight is an avocation of mine; I don't know what it will take for people to get it, but I'm willing to try until I find out. :)

Gigem67, please see Dave in NM's numerous posts as to why it is correctly called a blimp AND a "Zeppelin" airship! Is it a Kleenex or a tissue. Can you have both? Yes. Zeppelin is the company name that built the blimp. But I must admit, MSNBC could have gone the extra step to clear this up, instead of having poor Dave repeat his explanation over and over again.

Zeppelin is a COMPANY (only sued caps since you did), and they are building airships to replace Goodyear's current fleet of blimps which they are retiring this year. So yes, the reporters were correct.

Kind of like saying you can't call the Ford Trimotor a "Ford," because Ford makes cars.

Yes, they were told to jump...

Wrong. Helium. It appears that the engines caught fire - it's the gasoline or diesel fuel that's the culprit, here.

In fact, the people burned in the Hindenburg crash weren't burned by hydrogen, which, since it's much lighter than air, was all above the passenger cabin and rose instantly when the bags ruptured. They were burned by the fuel from the engines, whose vapors are heavier than air.

If it was engine fuel which caused this fiery crash, then it was clearly a design flaw. What exactly was the nature of the problem which the pilot encountered while trying to land this airship? This may factor into the crash itself, as well as the reason why ALL of the passengers chose to jump from the airship, instead of waiting for it to land. - RC