Prev: Re: Repair costs and false economies (was Re: Battle blimps) Next: [OT] Sea Leopard

Re: Blimp Bombing

From: Tony Christney <tchristney@t...>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:53:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Blimp Bombing

No, Karl is correct.

The safety of the Hindenburg would only marginally been improved by
using
helium. The main reason that the fire spread so quickly was that the
skin was painted with a combination of nitrate and aluminium powder.

"... the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with
rocket fuel." - Addison Bain, NASA engineer.

On Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 08:13 AM, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
[snip]

>> The Hindenburg fire was quite spectacular. However, it is now
generally
>> acknowledged that the main reason for its quick spread was not the 
>> hydrogen
>> filling, but the inflammable aluminum doping which had been used to 
>> paint
>> the ship's skin.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Karl Heinz
>
> As designed, the Hindenburg would have been even safer.  The gas bags 
> consisted
> of two nested cells, the inner hydrogen cell was surrounded by a
helium 
> cell.
> Although, not as safe as pure helium, it could lift more and the 
> hydrogen would
> be somewhat isolated from oxygen, and the hydrogen bag itself would be

> proof
> against incendiary rounds.  Clad the Hindenburg in kevlar, instead of 
> thermite
> (an exaggeration, but not that big of one), and you have a very safe 
> craft.  The
> whole thing was scuttled by the refusal of the US to sell the required

> helium.
>

Cheers,


Prev: Re: Repair costs and false economies (was Re: Battle blimps) Next: [OT] Sea Leopard