Hindenburg - Newer Investigation

[Drake_TigerClaw]

I was watching this program on one of the major learning channels and they did a program on the Hindenburg. Well according to the investigator what might have happened is pilot errors.

The idea is that the zeppelin design used tension cables as part of the internal structure, not uncommon but in high wind using full control input it puts stress on the rear sections. So the captain trying to land in high wind to keep on scedule made heavy control inputs and one of the internal cables snapped and opened a gas bag. Now there was a light rain and they dropped a rope tied off to the struture and the rope being wet with rain hits the ground. Well this zepp has been flying around collecting all kinds of static for days and now all of the static in the skeliton snaps to the ground through the rope. The static does not discharge from the skin though and the charged skin being close to the now neutral skeleton and then finally the skin discharges and creates a spark. This inturn ignites the free hydrogen and it burns off to the bag, the first bag goes up and then the whole thing goes up. Well they knew about the weakness in the back under full control inputs and wrote in the POH not to do it. Therefore Pilot Error.

Lessons that should have been learned:
1. Dont use full control inputs where the POH says not to.
2. Hydrogen is not a proper gas for AirShips!


Anyway being a fan of large rigid airships its nice to have a  pretty good explination of what happened to something that could have been a pretty cool thing.

[Hagar]

This is nothng new. It's just one of several theories. Nobody will ever know what really happened so you must consider the facts & come to your own conclusions.
http://www.unmuseum.org/hindenburg.htm

[beaky]

This theory makes the most sense to me:

A more recent theory suggested by Addison Bain, former manager of NASA's hydrogen program, was that the initial fire was not burning hydrogen. Hydrogen burns without much of a visible flame, but witnesses described the fire as extremely colorful. Bain thinks the doping solution used to stretch and waterproof the hull was responsible. The compound, a layer of iron oxide covered with coats of cellulose butyrate acetate mixed with powdered aluminum, is very similar to a mixture used to power solid fuel rockets. "The Hindenburg was literally painted with rocket fuel," says Bain.

Bain suspects that the Germans figured out the real cause, though they didn't want to admit they'd made such a dangerous mistake. The doping solution used on the Graf Zeppelin II, completed after the Hindenburg disaster, was changed to include a fireproofing agent and the aluminum was replaced with bronze which is less combustible.

Bain thinks the fire was started by a build-up of static charge from the storm on the craft's surface and frame. When the mooring ropes (wet from the storm) were dropped to the ground, the frame discharged, creating an electrical differencial between the frame and covering which started the fire.

This would explain why a bright flash was seen in that area just before the fire started, and why over half the envelope had burned off before any of the cells ruptured... and why eyewitnesses described the flames (and smoke) as being more consistent with that substance burning than with hydrogen burning (burning hydrogen produces a nearly-colorless flame and no smoke).

Never heard the control-cable theory...  but no matter; despite the many, many safe voyages in the past, the presence of all that hydrogen didn't exactly enhance safety.

[Drake_TigerClaw]

Thats why the program I saw was fairly convincing because they tried to burn a bit of fabric made of the same stuff and it burned but there were two problems. One it would not ignite with a stitic spark, and 2 it didnt burn fast enough to engulf the airship that fast. The orange glow was most likely the skin being caught on fire by the hydrogen.

[Hagar]

Unfortunately most TV documentaries are not totally unbiased. I've seen a lot over the years & they all present a reasonable case for whatever agenda the authors/producers/directors happen to be interested in.* In cases like this I've found that you have to read all the information you can get hold of, consider it & come to your own conclusions.

I've worked on fabric-covered aircraft & even today they will burn very quickly if the fabric happens to catch fire, for whatever reason. If not for the prompt action of the Duxford fire crew after a recent display this Dragon Rapide would have been a heap of scrap in a matter of seconds. Fortunately it happened on the ground.
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/scene/legends/1.htm
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/scene/legends/2.htm

*I suspect it's no coincidence that interest in the Hindenburg disaster seems to crop up whenever hydrogen is mentioned as an alternative to oil-based fuels.

[cspyro21]

Just out of question, what channel did you see the program on? If it was "National Geographic Channel", my brother and I are currently watching a program about the Hinderburg

[beaky]

*I suspect it's no coincidence that interest in the Hindenburg disaster seems to crop up whenever hydrogen is mentioned as an alternative to oil-based fuels.

It's amazing the power that event still has over people's minds; I guess you can "blame the media" because it was the first disaster actually covered live on the radio (with cameras rolling as well). Not to trivialize the suffering of those who died or were injured, but it wasn't as bad as it might have appeared: only 35 of the 97 aboard perished, most of them crew (you can be sure many of the crew who died had lingered at their stations in order to ensure passenger safety, although some were just trapped where they were). Only two of the 35 people died from burns; the rest died from falling or jumping, except one ground crewman who I believe was killed by falling debris. The wreck descended slowly enough that those who rode it down made it out alive, despite the fire and collapsing framework, etc.
 I believe it was the only fatal accident in the history of hydrogen airships (at least the German ones)- not a bad record. Statistically, all other aircraft of the time, including the large helium-filled airships of the US, were far more dangerous (although to be fair, the wrecks of the Akron and Shenandoah were due to the limitations of weather analysis and forecasting of the time, like many air accidents of that period).
And a fire aboard a  helium-filled airship would be no joke either, if the skin, gas cells,or fuel caught fire.
But the drama of the Hindenburg's fiery end-  complete with live footage and audio, as well as on-the-scene radio interviews with traumatized witnesses and survivors-created a powerful stigma.

[Drake_TigerClaw]

You know the thing that always go me was that airliners crash in huge firey explosions where everyone dies and even if it catches fire on the ground everyone usually dies and it's caught by the media. But it doesnt kill the industry. The Hindenburg goes up and it kills the airship industry. Considering the survival chances I think I would fly airship. Although riding an airship was more like a luxury cruise and therefore expensive.

[Woodlouse2002]

To be fair the Hindenburg made it's grand exit in 1937 when the Nazis were in control of Germany and everyone was getting a wee bit pissed of with them. So yes, the Hindenburg killed airships as a method of transport. But only three years before WWII would have done.