3 ms·

And smoother than a Ford Triplane, I don't doubt: but still dangerous and harsh in heavy weather. Heavily subsidized by the NAZI state as well, as a prestige ac

And smoother than a Ford Triplane, I don't doubt: but still dangerous and harsh in heavy weather. Heavily subsidized by the NAZI state as well, as a prestige achievement.

kragen 4y ago
Until the Hindenburg crash, the safety record of passenger airships was superb; the Hindenburg crash wasn't due to heavy weather, and passenger airship service ended the next day. On what basis do you claim that it was dangerous and harsh in heavy weather? State subsidies for the German airship industry began long before the NAZI takeover, but it's true that the NAZIS did continue them.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  I think the NAZIs instantiated regular passenger service, so there was no earlier safety record for that. It took a lot of direct subsidy to pay a good chunk of the fare (not just the regular zep RandD)! Of course, the Hindenburg crash wasn't due to heavy weather. Many dirigible crashes happened in heavy weather, particularly US and British versions. See R101 (rainstorm) and USS Akron (storm). Downdrafts are particularly nasty as well. Air resistance goes up by the square of velocity and these are large, relatively light objects, so this is hardly surprising.
  - kragen 4y ago
    I think you're right about those things, so I wonder why passenger airship service was so much safer. The article claims that those two accidents were also caused by inadequate structural strength and flight instrument failure, so maybe the Zeppelins were just better made?
    - Nomentatus 4y ago
      Certainly the Germans, as the inventors, had far more experience building dirigibles; they weren't suffering outright structural failures causing crashes, as happened to the Brits in the same era. Or course, dirigibles weren't the safest way of booking air passage across the Atlantic then, except in so far as they were the only way to book an air passage. Still the Hindenburg may have suffered a fire due to aluminum paint on the skin catching fire.

And smoother than a Ford Triplane, I don't doubt: but still dangerous and harsh in heavy weather. Heavily subsidized by the NAZI state as well, as a prestige achievement.

kragen 4y ago

Until the Hindenburg crash, the safety record of passenger airships was superb; the Hindenburg crash wasn't due to heavy weather, and passenger airship service ended the next day. On what basis do you claim that it was dangerous and harsh in heavy weather? State subsidies for the German airship industry began long before the NAZI takeover, but it's true that the NAZIS did continue them.

Nomentatus 4y ago
I think the NAZIs instantiated regular passenger service, so there was no earlier safety record for that. It took a lot of direct subsidy to pay a good chunk of the fare (not just the regular zep RandD)! Of course, the Hindenburg crash wasn't due to heavy weather. Many dirigible crashes happened in heavy weather, particularly US and British versions. See R101 (rainstorm) and USS Akron (storm). Downdrafts are particularly nasty as well. Air resistance goes up by the square of velocity and these are large, relatively light objects, so this is hardly surprising.
- kragen 4y ago
  I think you're right about those things, so I wonder why passenger airship service was so much safer. The article claims that those two accidents were also caused by inadequate structural strength and flight instrument failure, so maybe the Zeppelins were just better made?
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    Certainly the Germans, as the inventors, had far more experience building dirigibles; they weren't suffering outright structural failures causing crashes, as happened to the Brits in the same era. Or course, dirigibles weren't the safest way of booking air passage across the Atlantic then, except in so far as they were the only way to book an air passage. Still the Hindenburg may have suffered a fire due to aluminum paint on the skin catching fire.