3 ms·

Hindenberg got a bad rap. It just happened to look scary and was caught on film. 1/3 of the Hindenberg passengers survived the crash. Way better survival rate

Hindenberg got a bad rap. It just happened to look scary and was caught on film. 1/3 of the Hindenberg passengers survived the crash. Way better survival rate than plane crashes.

Someone 4y ago
It was better. About ⅔ survived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster: “The accident caused 35 fatalities (13 passengers and 22 crewmen) from the 97 people on board (36 passengers and 61 crewmen), and an additional fatality on the ground.” That’s still worse than modern airplanes, though. https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/06/15/how-to-survive-a-plane-crash https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/06/15/how-to-survive-a-...: “According to a study by the European Transport Safety Council, plane crashes technically have a 90% survivability rate”
- riceart 4y ago
  How frequent are plane crashes compared to hydrogen filled dirigibles?
  - Someone 4y ago
    Data on hydrogen filled dirigibles is hard to come by, but I think modern commercial airliners crash less often than them. Certainly, the 1930s ones do not look good. The first Graf Zeppelin made 590 flights before being scrapped, the second 30, and Hindenburg crashed on its 63th flight. That’s a crash in less than 1000 flights. For comparison, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 says “The 747SR had an economic design life objective of 52,000 flights during 20 years of operation, compared to 24,600 flights in 20 years for the standard 747.”, so I assume Boeing thinks there’s a good chance those airplanes will live that long.
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    Thats a good questions for a statistician. # of airships vs # of Airplanes, over various time periods, various safety improvements (hydrogen to helium for airships, plastics instead of steel vs self-flying & landing planes and propellers to jet engines, things like that) The one thing planes have over airships is speed. The faster airships topped out at 80-90mph at the same time planes were pulling 200mph. Now planes can be supersonic while I can't really imagine dirigibles going more than 150-200 mph max.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
oblio 4y ago
Worse than that, they couldn't use Helium due to a US ban. I mean, I know why the US did it, but it wasn't the Hindenburg's designer's fault.

Hindenberg got a bad rap. It just happened to look scary and was caught on film. 1/3 of the Hindenberg passengers survived the crash. Way better survival rate than plane crashes.

Someone 4y ago

It was better. About ⅔ survived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster: “The accident caused 35 fatalities (13 passengers and 22 crewmen) from the 97 people on board (36 passengers and 61 crewmen), and an additional fatality on the ground.” That’s still worse than modern airplanes, though. https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/06/15/how-to-survive-a-plane-crash https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/06/15/how-to-survive-a-...: “According to a study by the European Transport Safety Council, plane crashes technically have a 90% survivability rate”

riceart 4y ago
How frequent are plane crashes compared to hydrogen filled dirigibles?
- Someone 4y ago
  Data on hydrogen filled dirigibles is hard to come by, but I think modern commercial airliners crash less often than them. Certainly, the 1930s ones do not look good. The first Graf Zeppelin made 590 flights before being scrapped, the second 30, and Hindenburg crashed on its 63th flight. That’s a crash in less than 1000 flights. For comparison, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 says “The 747SR had an economic design life objective of 52,000 flights during 20 years of operation, compared to 24,600 flights in 20 years for the standard 747.”, so I assume Boeing thinks there’s a good chance those airplanes will live that long.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  Thats a good questions for a statistician. # of airships vs # of Airplanes, over various time periods, various safety improvements (hydrogen to helium for airships, plastics instead of steel vs self-flying & landing planes and propellers to jet engines, things like that) The one thing planes have over airships is speed. The faster airships topped out at 80-90mph at the same time planes were pulling 200mph. Now planes can be supersonic while I can't really imagine dirigibles going more than 150-200 mph max.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

oblio 4y ago

Worse than that, they couldn't use Helium due to a US ban. I mean, I know why the US did it, but it wasn't the Hindenburg's designer's fault.