Re: OT Hindenberg pix.

[Tim+]

most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many survived!

Tim

[Andrew Gabriel]

because the hydrogen went straight up in the air, leaving the ground clear (except for the burning cover and frame which fell down).

[Chris Hogg]

,

>

and the burning diesel fuel from the engines. This last caused most of the casualties, AIUI.

Shame the captions are out of order.

[Brian Gaff]

Was this the one where the only reason they were using hydrogen was a US ban on supplying helium?

Brian

[Dave Liquorice]

Yep, wasn't the latest use as a aerial camera platform over some event in the Deep South?

[Nightjar]

,

>>>>> The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many >>> survived!

I'm surprised there was much left after a long crossing against strong headwinds.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

something like that.

[Chris Hogg]

,

>>>>>>> The most amazing thing about it is not how many people died but how many

Hmm.. You may be right. The Wikipedia entry for the Hindenberg disaster makes no mention of the fuel being a significant cause of casualties, many of which were caused by people jumping from the cabins while they were still quite high off the ground.

See

[Davey]

There are various tourist trips that can be taken using these small modern airships, I have seen a series of photos of San Francisco taken from one. I'm sure there must be others, and the Goodyear 'Blimp' is still around, even if it is on its umpteenth iteration. Google 'airship trips' and see what comes up.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

More or less a variation of paint-on Thermite, iirc.

[Tim Streater]

Letter in the Times today, geezer proposing 1950s style flying boats, meaning we wouldn't need a new runway - they could use the Thames itself as the new runway.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I am afraid that the world is full of people who know a little, but not nearly enough.

Hence all these hare-brained schemes - like trying to generate reliable electricity with 14th century technology dressed up to look 'modern' - gain traction.

[Andrew Gabriel]

After all, it's nice and straight, no bridges to worry about, no other craft in the way. For some reason, I can picture Boris taking off, and bashing his head on the bottom of each bridge as he tries to gain height...

There are only three options:

Expand heathrow. Build a new airport to take over from heathrow (significantly bigger). Remain closed for business to the world's developing markets.

This is a time when we really need another Terminal 5 type project too - something that is substantial and with a rapid return on investment, and necessary to keep the country open for business. We can't afford a new airport to take over from heathrow, or the time it would take to come into service, nice though that might be in other financial circumstances.

[charles]

Son of Spruce Goose I assume. I can remember a Saunders-Roe flying boat jet fighter being proposed, but has anyone managed to build a jet engined flying boat? There are a few small prop ones.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ive seen the prototype somewhere. Duxford?

but has anyone managed to build a jet engined

Jet engines take even less kindly to salt spray..

And imagine maintenance. lowering a jet engine into a boat to service it. Yeuch!

I THINK there are turboprop flying boats, but the thing about water take off's is you need a LOT of thrust at low speeds which jets are pretty poor at.

say today one would build ether a hydrofoil or a hovercraft to get it that critical first few inches..

BUT is all bollocks anyway..you have to bring the thing to a dock and get the passengers ashore. Makes no sense.

Jet airline massively threw piston engines out because they were fast and needed less maintenance = more trips per maintenance hour and more annualised rerun on capital.

EVERYTHING about flying boats says 'expensive'

[The Natural Philosopher]

I found one

[charles]

and in the last 50+ years, no-one has tried again.

says it all really.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I actually spent a few minutes looking. In every case similar problems are apparent. water and jet engines dont mix and high takeoff speeds (and jet airliners have take off speeds well over 150mph) imposed heavy structures and short service lives on them.

[Nightjar]

On 06/09/2012 18:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote: ...

Ekranoplans seemed to mix water and jet engines quite well and, by design, they never got very far above sea level.

Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well the whole point is they fly ABOVE the water. And look where the engines are.

So spray is low.