Zepellin Hindenburg

[Roderick]

I was reading a report about Zepellin Hindenburg passage in Brazil. The Hindenburg was in São Paulo City in 1936 (below we can a picture). What I would like to know is concernig the accident in 1937. Was it an act of sabotage?

[Grand Admiral]

You mean the Hindenburg Lakehurst disaster?

Quoting from Michael Mooney's book on the subject...

He [that is, Chief Steward Heinrich Kubis] can tell you that no German, no member of the Zeppelin family, would have ever sabotaged the Hindenburg

After some casual research, the leading theory has always been static electricity.

[Karl Allmenroder]

There was an entire Hollywood movie devoted to Hindenburg Sabatoge. I forget it's name. It may have just been "The Hindenburg"

[varjag]

There was an entire Hollywood movie devoted to Hindenburg Sabatoge. I forget it's name. It may have just been "The Hindenburg"

Yeah, I saw that film, Hollywood of course would never have made a film about something as mundane as a disaster caused by static electricity and hydrogen, when anything 'Nazi' was involved. Hence the movie built a sabotage plot around the the disaster. As Grand Admiral points out - almost all expert opinion blamed static electricity, but such incontroversial explanations don't satisfy friends of conspiracies - nor do they sell Hollywood movies.

[Max]

Abstract
The outbreak of the fire which destroyed the dirigible LZ 129 "Hindenburg" in Lakehurst 1937 had nothing to do with the hydrogen gas of which great amounts were on board to provide buoyancy. The reasons were the chemical and electrical properties of the paint of the outer shell in connection with the particular meteorological conditions prevailing in Lakehurst on the day of the accident.

Full text of paper

http://www.dwv-info.de/pm/hindbg/hbe.htm

[Grand Admiral]

Even though all of the facts would indeed (as I previously said) point to static electricity, the possibility and oppurtunity for sabotage was entirely too great.

The thing was an 808 foot long fire hazard, for God's sake.

[Max]

Even though all of the facts would indeed (as I previously said) point to static electricity, the possibility and oppurtunity for sabotage was entirely too great.

The thing was an 808 foot long fire hazard, for God's sake.

Occam's Razor

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

or if you prefer

If it's a choice between a conspiracy and a SNAFU, go fo the SNAFU every time.

[gabriel pagliarani]

Even though all of the facts would indeed (as I previously said) point to static electricity, the possibility and oppurtunity for sabotage was entirely too great.

The thing was an 808 foot long fire hazard, for God's sake.

Occam's Razor

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

or if you prefer

If it's a choice between a conspiracy and a SNAFU, go fo the SNAFU every time.

Funny to think that gaseous hydrogen had no charge in Lakehurst disaster!
After 100 years of manned flight we have learnt that any disaster or crash or failure in the short history of manned flight was not the result of a single cause but always a mix of errors, lacks, misunderstandings and ignorances. The same phoenomenon that hamburged the Hindemburg some years ago destroyed a B747 after taking off from New York in 2001: a small damaged electrical wire moving the wet pumps in the intercooler inside the main tank in the fuselage sparkled and kerosene stechiometrically air-spraied by action of external downing air pressure let it burn like a bomb.... the same error (..failure, lack ect. ect.) occurred after 60-70 years Another time sparks+fuel=disaster. 8) But B-747 was not rejected as dirigibles were. The reason of the abandon of dirigibles was hence not technical but political, strategical, economical. Those reasons are changing today and Zeppelins come back, demonstrating that no technology could be forgotten for ever.

[Colbro]

Roll on the day! It would be wonderful to enjoy that leisurely luxury cruise from an almost forgotten age, using helium in place of hydrogen. However, unfortunately, I don't think that I would be able to afford it. If they re-created that, the ticket price would probably be on a par with the price for a return on Concorde, also sadly now a part of history. That's what you get for being fifty years too soon!

[bill dampier]

Michael Mooney in his 1972 book "
The Hindenburg" writes (page 235) that New York Police Department Detective George McCartney (bomb squad) collected remains of a bomb from the crash site. The argument is that an act of sabotage was the cause of the fire and crash. Occams Razor would, provided that bomb remains were indeed found, guide us to hold that the fire was caused by a bomb. He makes a persuasive case. I should like to see it refuted...if possible, or supported with original documentation. Regards to all, Bill Dampier

[Max]

OK - so a conspiracy is usually more interesting than a stuff up.

Why not this?

A Cover Up?
The true cause of the Hindenburg could have been covered up for several reasons.

* The "Hindenburg" was insured for 6 Million Reich marks, which was paid in full. Knowledge of the role the doping played in the Hindenburg disaster could have changed this.
* To prevent further Third Reich/German embarrassment.
* So that the Zeppelin Company would get its needed Helium -- Since there was a public stigma towards Hydrogen now due to media coverage, Dr. Eckener refused to fly airships with hydrogen. Sympathy from the United States would hopefully compel it to release the helium.
* Faulting nature of hydrogen would be less damaging than faulting the design of the airship. The possibility that a wire snapped inside the Hindenburg, damaging an air cell seemed more like a chance happening. Also, the risks of hydrogen were well known.

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~anguyen/univ/howolddiscover.html

[vox stellarum]

better photo

[Matt Gibbs]

I wonder if there's anything in an argument that it would never have happened if the major source of the inert lifting gas called Helium had generously supplied this to the Zeppelin company thus making thier airship much much safer..?? Maybe they 'conspired' to ensure that they would never let the germans have this gas and they would have to just take the risk with hydrogen..? Of course, it wouldn't be a popular argument since it was the US who were the major source of heliuma nd wouldn;t allow it to be sold to the Zeppelin constructors.....
I guess supplying the helium and coming off their high horses would ultimately have saved lives....
regards
Matt Gibbs

[phylo_roadking]

Coming late to this, but a few points are worth mentioning....

1/ It wasn't "sour grapes" or anything like that that stopped the USA supplying Helium to Germany; it was actually government policy! Helium was considered a strategic military resource. Because the US was at that time building the "Akron" and "Ohio" airships as aerial observation platforms/aerial aircraft carriers and didn't want to hand the same technology to anyone.

2/ The Hindenburg disaster was NOT the "end" of dirigibles; in fact there were HUNDREDS used during WWII for maritime recce and coastal patrol. The RN operated a few, particularly in home waters like the Irish Sea, and the USN and Coast Guard operated DOZENS of two- and three-man dirigibles.

3/ Modern research has shown that the Hindenburg disaster was indeed caused by static electricity...igniting the aluminiumised paint used on the skin of the airship. Aluminium powder in any form is highly inflammable. And surviving samples of the Hindenburg's fabric doped then coated with this paint ignite freely. While this was tested over the last two decades time after time and the same conclusions reached - actually modern computers have confirmed this - because COLOUR film of the fire exists! And computer enhancement and analysis of the images shows that the initial fire was NOT a hydrogen fire, it was burning FAR too coldly. The high combustion temperatures that hydrogen would have created were missing for the first minutes of the crash and fire.

4/ the reason dirigibles never went away, and are coming back into favour in many forms is...originally they had ONE major problem - the SIZE of groundcrew needed to anchor a zepplin! Ever seen the huge ground parties of fifty or a hundred people trying to pull the vessels down to a ground anchor??? To put it simply, both hydrogen and helium increase their buoyancy when heated...even by sunlight! So its VERY hard to maintain neutral buoyancy. So when a zepplin came in to "land" the numbers were needed to drag the dirigible down to earth when it wanted to drift away LOL.....

BUT this has NOW been totally dispensed with. How? Very simply. Ducted fan technology! an auxiliary ducted fan - identical to the driving prop-fans - on nose and tail FORCE modern dirigibles down to earth even against positive buoyancy a ground party of just one or two people is all thats needed now, same as a modern commercial airliner.

[MontysCaravan]

Coming late to this, but a few points are worth mentioning....

1/ It wasn't "sour grapes" or anything like that that stopped the USA supplying Helium to Germany; it was actually government policy! Helium was considered a strategic military resource. Because the US was at that time building the "Akron" and "Ohio" airships as aerial observation platforms/aerial aircraft carriers and didn't want to hand the same technology to anyone.

Quite agree, it should also be noted that the US had a shortage of helium for their airships and to have sold any would have effectively scuppered their own development.