Why did we abandon the dirigible?

Question

The explosion of the Hindenberg was a quirk... it happened because at that point in the pre-war, the US cut off the supply of helium to the rest of the world. The germans switched hydrogen... this led to inevitable disaster.

However, the dirigible technology was very promising; the ability to move large loads of freight and passengers over land and sea, without need for roads, bridges and other terrain infrastructure, was a great idea; brilliant actually.

Trucks and trains require extensive infrastructural upkeep... and a look around at that infrastructure shows it has been impossible to sustain. Also the roads and rails chew up the landscape.

Modern engineering could make dirigibles of great load bearing effectiveness, that would use far less fuel than trucks
and not require the massive upkeep of railroads...
It's a real answer to a lot of our problems.

Why not look that way again? It would be a greener solution than the contining expansion of highways and rail.

tlbs -- I have no interest in the military utility.

Trains are very vulnerable too in this regard, since all you have to do is blow up a couple of sections of track.

As far as too slow, or not able to bear large loads... Actually, a dirigible can make up for its speed by simply flying direct routes where needed... and by by-passing the load out and load in when freight hits a seaport.

So far, I'm thinking the answers I see are not quite there. I think that part of the reason is the interstate highway system was big pork... but it is falling apart.

I would again suggest that modern engineering could easily increase the load capacity... and the amount of fuel used is significantly less than either rail or truck.

thanks vincent G -- your arguments are a bit more compelling.

Answer 1

The dirigible was an expensive answer to an non-existing problem. When they were first conceived, planes could not fly across the Atlantic. By the time the great dirigibles disappeared, they long could.

The Hindenburg explodes on May 6 1937. It flew for only 15 months.

Lindbergh had crossed the Atlantic on May 21 1927. That was ten years earlier.

So what kept the German's (and American's) going in their quest for the dirigible? Momentum and political brinkmanship. Hitler just needed a giant Djingumbob to project Nazi power (think about Kennedy and the moon landing!).

On the American side it was probably the same thing that kept everyone at building battleships until the carrier group bombed it to the bottom of the sea: poor imagination by the leadership that keeps wasting money on a
technology that appears to be greater than it is or that has outlived its time.

You said it yourself: the technology WAS very promising. But it kept none of its promises. Having a dirigible or two does not replace any roads or bridges in any country. Neither does having passenger jets, by the way. If that were the case, we wouldn't have transcontinental highways and stop and go traffic wouldn't exist.

The cost for dirigible cargo would be astronomical, by the way. Did you ever look up the price for Helium? Did you know that Helium is a finite resource that will run out sooner than later (just like oil)? Which would force you to use Hydrogen for economic AND availability reasons, anyway....

Why not look at the technology again? Because it would not work for the same reasons today for which it didn't work back then.

High speed electrified trains are extremely energy efficient and the tracks have very limited ecological impact. People in the US would love them if they had ever seen one. But GM and Ford are not happy with the idea... so it won't happen. ;-)

Answer 2

The reason why dirigle was abandoned is esentially a matter of speed. If you want to cross the Atlantic, a jet liner would do it in 6 or 7 hours. A dirigible in about two days. As a matter of comparison, ships can do it in about a week.
So, it is a metter of market. If yuo are not in a rush, you can be in a very comfortable setting, in a transatlantic boat for a week. Or you can be in a relatively cramped jetliner for 6 hours.
Is there a market for the middle ground? If there was, people would invest in it, but I do not see this happening.
Further, dirigible fly at moderate altitude and are thus most affected by wind and weather. When you fly at 100 kts and encounter wind in the opposite direction at 30 kts, your speed drops dramatically. A jetliner at 600 kts is never as heavily impacted.

Now, about moving heavy loads? The question is: is there lots of marchandise that presently aches to be carried in a method other than it is now, and would benefit from a dirigible? Or is such load carrying capability something that occrs once in a blue moon, and could not justfy the expense of developing, building and certifying a new class of airship?

Again, if there was a market, there would be an offer. It is sad, but I do not see airship making a comeback anytime soon.

One last detail: trains consume far less fuel than airship. The huge bulk of airship has a large aerodynamic drag that must be balanced by the engines. Airships would require several large open area so they could come low to offload, and to pick up fuel; so in the end, the upkeep of a network of airship "landing pad" would be similar to that of railroad.

Answer 3

There are many reasons why this is not explored any longer... first and formost, Hindenberg -- sticks in people mind... hard to get past that image, right or wrong! The second issue is speed, dirigibles are very slow... much too slow for international trade or travel. Third is that they do not have enough payload power. Also, I suspect there is no structure set up to load, unload and service them. Would take a lot of physical space to use them... something in very short supply in many places.

Answer 4

They are used as heavy lift in areas which are generally difficult to access, such as logging.
However they are badly restricted to when they can fly because of winds, over about 30kmh they can be blown way off course due to huge/massive sail effect.
Other problem is they are fairly fragile and storage is a concern.
They also need a large ground crew to land them and hold them until they can attach to the mooring mast.
Have fun,
Neil

Answer 5

From a military standpoint, they are too large (easy to spot on radar and visually); they are too slow (a single soldier with an RPG and a few rounds can easily take one down).

From a commercial standpoint, they don't carry as much cargo as a train, nor as quickly. Even a larger blimp that could carry as much tonnage would be limited to travel in fairly good weather, only, and it would still be slow.

.

Answer 6

Because Americans are thick and dull like farm work animals, and that aberration was enough to frighten them away from dirigibles forever.

But you're right about their utility.

Answer 7

automobiles using trains!! i'm an company believer in boxes and trailer on a flatcar for long distance and automobiles for a hundred miles or much less.One prepare can furnish a hundred automobiles to an intermodal terminal.a hundred automobiles can't furnish a prepare.

Answer 8

TOO SLOW AND UNWIELDY. TOO MUCH TROUBLE GETTING HELIUM AND HYDROGEN TOO EXPLOSIVE AND FLAMMABLE. COULD NOT CARRY ENOUGH PASSENGERS BECAUSE THERE JUST WASN'T THAT MUCH LIFT AND IT WAS WAY TOO EXPENSIVE.