Why not fly zepplins?

Question

Why don't we fly zepplins instead of planes? The hindenburg didn't blow up from a hydrogen, it blew up because the germans were trying new combinations of nickel, copper and some other substance for waterproofing. They accidentally made rocket fuel. If you don't believe it then why did 98% of eye witnesses say it burned bright red? Hydrogen burns blue, thats an accepted fact.

They worked for the germans didn't they?

Answer 1

Speed. 60-65 mph is nothing when compared to planes.

And then there's other factors, such as the public opinion about zeppelins after the Hindenburg caught fire, the upcoming war that helped bring an end to the zeppelins as funds were directed elsewhere, and somewhere in there that zeppelins were most oft associated with Nazi Germany probably didn't help their cause in the rest of the world. Nobody likes flying in what amounts to a flying swastika for some reason...

Answer 2

Well, you are gravely mistaken. There was not only hydrogen burning, but also the structure and the fabric that covered the airship. A little stuff in a fire will change the color of the flame tremendously, something that anyone who ever studies chemistry in high school should be aware of.
Second, the Mythbusters have tested the dangerous waterproofing mix theory and totally busted it. Read: it was not true, and could never have been true.
Third: the LZ-129 Hindenburg was originally designed to be filled with hydrogen, but there was a US embargo on that gas, that is why the Germans switched to hydrogen.

So, why don't we fly zeppelins instead of plane? Speed. You go across the Atlantic in 6 hours in a jet plane, a journey that takes 2 full days with an airship, more in the case of strong headwind.
The Hindenburg had a crew of 61 and a capacity of 71 passengers, a 747 has a crew of about 15 (two pilots and a dozen or so flight attendants) and carries 400 passengers.
In the end, it just does not make economical sense to ferry passengers on such a slow moving vehicle. If someone wants to take his time, and have luxurious accomodations, there are cruise ships available.

Answer 3

Oh sure, that hydrogen is really safe stuff, THAT wasn't the cause of the explosion. Current studies show that the weiner schnitzel they served the night before was a bit "off" and the explosion started due to someone lighting a cigar in the restroom and the methane level was rather high in there just then and Ka-BOOM up she went.

Answer 4

The US had Airships(Zepplin is a trademark)that were flying aircraft carriers;the U.S.S. Macon and U.S.S. Akron.Both crashed due to wind shear from thunderstorms,they were unusable in high winds and required large crews to man them.The US preferred Helium which doesn't burn,but more gas is needed.Aircraft are more versatile.The US abandoned them after World war II,except for the Goodyear blimp.

Answer 5

Hell..why not WALK or Drive!

Airships are too slow and too adversely effected by weather to ever be a viable transporter of people. Time insensitive cargo maybe..but people..no thanks! I'll take a 9 hour flight to Tokyo in a 747-400 over a 50+ hour zepplin ride anyday.

Answer 6

Thee disadvantages of zepplins are more than it's advantages. For instance they can not carry very heavy a load comparing to aircraft of about the same size or they don't fly fast enough to be good enough for 21st century.

Answer 7

Most countries do fly some form of zeppelin, but commercially.

We are in the jet age, most people want to get places fast, so no one wants to risk their money on something that just might not be popular.

Answer 8

I would say speed is the answer. Now days everybody wants to be there as quick as they can. Time is money, some say. They would be too slow for commercial travel, IMHO

Answer 9

Nope..
You are wrong about the fire..
Zepplins are too slow, too large, carry too little cargo
and are too weather sensitive..

Answer 10

planes are faster, and safer