3 ms·
In the 1930s, to be clear. Technology has advanced considerably.
by zrail 7y ago
In the 1930s, to be clear. Technology has advanced considerably.
- TylerE 7y agoUnfortunately physics has not.
- CapitalistCartr 7y agoNorthrop completed the first flying wing bomber in 1947, the YB-49. But flying wings are inherently unstable and there were two fatal crashes. Ultimately, criminal politics crashed it harder, but the B-2 is a direct version of it. But now we have computer control stabilizing it in flight, making it vastly easier and safer to fly. Of course Physics hasn't changed, but advances in technology matter.
- TylerE 7y agoYes, but the problem with airships isn't control - it's just that the useful mass fraction is tiny. You need something the size of a container ship to lift a few tons of net payload. The only way that might ever change is if we develop a form of nanotubes strong enough to allow use of a vacuum rather than gas.
- dTal 7y agoNanotubes wouldn't really help much either I'm afraid. Hydrogen is 7% the mass of air, so even with a vacuum the best you can do is 7% more lifting power. Our only real hope is to terraform the Earth to have greater air density at sea level...
- TylerE 7y agoThat's true, but vacuum has one big advantage: You can generate it in flight, whereas with lifting gas if you have to vent it you're NEVER getting it back. Besides, even at just 7%, if the Hindenburg had been "filled" with vacuum instead of hydrogen, that would have been an additional 37,000lbs of payload capacity, which would have almost tripled it's lift capability (21,000lbs as flown). Additionally, helium, which is probably the only gas the public will accept, is almost double the density of hydrogen, and we have a limited supply of it.
- chiph 7y agoThe engines on the new Zeppelin have much less volume to push around than on the USS Akron. The Zeppelin company also had the benefit of computer modeling during design to optimize the airflow.