Comments on: Myths about the Hindenburg Crash

By: K. Bush

K. Bush — Thu, 02 Mar 2023 21:57:28 +0000

This site is VERY interesting. I’m learning a lot. For instance, I had no clue there were other airships that crashed and/or burned. I had only ever heard of the Hindenburg. I wonder what the actual percentage of airship crashes to successful flights is. Is it really a feasible means of air travel? How safe is it truly? I think these are some questions that would need to be answered before deciding if airship travel would be anything more than a novelty, like riding cross-country on a train or going up in a Hot Air Balloon(no, thank you!😁). I’m not trying to compare airships to planes, as planes are far superior with the number of passengers they can carry and the speed. But, riding in a dirigible of blimp today does sound kind of cool!

By: Dan Grossman

Dan Grossman — Sun, 08 May 2022 02:33:46 +0000

In reply to Tj Schneider. Yes, there is a huge difference between a hydrogen fuel cell and an airship inflated with gaseous hydrogen.

By: Billy Manners

Billy Manners — Sat, 23 Apr 2022 18:37:45 +0000

In reply to Dan. You're right that they never actually built a helium airship, but LZ-129 Hindenburg was designed as a helium airship (the reason LZ-128 doesn't exist is that it was a hydrogen filled successor to LZ-127 Graf Zeppelin and the idea was scrapped because Hydrogen was deemed too dangerous), and converted to Hydrogen when the American government wouldn't grant an exception to the helium export restriction (which the Germans had reason to believe would be granted, since Hindenburg was a purely civilian vessel).

By: Tj Schneider

Tj Schneider — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:31:28 +0000

Using the Hindenburgh disaster as a compelling reason to not forge ahead with H2 powered cars is ridiculous. The main reason being that H2 powered vehicles would not contain such enormous volumes of the flanmable gas. There is nothing wrong with Hydrogen and furthermore the combustion between Hydrogen and Oxygen produces H2O as the combustion product. Its not even a debatable issue. Only fear mongering amongst peoole who fear chemicals. And possibly progress for that matter.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sat, 20 Nov 2021 04:17:04 +0000

In reply to Harry. It's my understanding that Hugo Eckener had established a number of safety protocols for the takeoff, and landing of airships, one of which was to scrub either if the weather was bad. However after the creation of DZR, as successors to DELAG by the Nazi regime, he had little control over days to day airship operations. Lakehurst, New Jersey was somewhat prone to bad weather as it was only about 15 miles inland from the Atlantic coast. Apparently there was pressure for a quick landing, and turn around, and the flight was already several hours late, so the commander of the Hindenburg rolled the dice, and the rest is history.

By: FrostyAnimations126

FrostyAnimations126 — Wed, 05 May 2021 20:14:30 +0000

In reply to Zechariah Barrs. FYI the airship was venting hydrogen at the time

By: Dan Grossman

Dan Grossman — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 12:50:24 +0000

In reply to Harry. The issue wasn't the rain, it was the combination of the atmospheric electrical activity at the time, the use of a high landing, and the particular design of LZ-129, in which there was a lack of electrical communication between the fabric and the framework.

By: Harry

Harry — Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:41:59 +0000

Thanks for this. Since it was a spark caused by the earthing of the ship during rain, why didn’t most (all?) of the hydrogen airships crash and burn long before the Hindenberg? Surely this wasn’t the first time it had rained during landing?

By: Zechariah Barrs

Zechariah Barrs — Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:17:10 +0000

This is interesting, however you don’t necessarily need to have a perfect mix of aluminum powder and iron oxide to have an adverse and explosive reaction. Additionally, hydrogen needs to mix with oxygen to become the death causing chemical horror show you depict, and a spark in the interior would interact with the higher pressure hydrogen. I mention the higher pressure because the higher pressure would cause the hydrogen to flow out of the airship rather then the oxygen rich atmosphere to flow in to the ship. The spark would also not have occurred on the outside of the Hindenburg due to the engineering of the discharge system. The positive charge in the air ship would have passed to the negatively charged ground through the landing lines, neutralizing the electrical imbalances. The theory I put stock in is the theory that the outer covering was not discharged cohesively, this caused the charge to build in the panel and then discharge into the frame this heated up the covering and ignited it. In this theory the covering would have burned to the vent leading to igniting the hydrogen. So a mechanical and engineering failure, not a chemical one. I do not claim that the hydrogen did not have a part I’m just saying the hydrogen was not the cause.
A side note. In the article you mentioned other airships, and zeppelins exploding in the event that they were, shot or struck, this is not the reason the Hindenburg was a disaster. The reason for this and so many other articles is the fact that is was unexpected and the cause is unknown.

By: Chris P B

Chris P B — Sat, 13 Jun 2020 00:01:09 +0000

I’m surprised there’s been little speculation about a military aspect to the disaster. By 1937 the Nazis were emerging a serious threat on the world stage. France, Britain, and less overtly their allies the US, along with many others, were becoming increasingly concerned about Nazi military goals and ideology for global domination. The Germans had an unblemished record of safety in civilian zeppelins and a clear technical superiority in the field. The US had already severely limited the supply of helium, of which they had almost all the global supply, to Germany, forcing them to stay with hydrogen, possibly for strategic reasons. In the event of conflict the Nazis could have found ways to use zeppelins in a military capacity, possibly including bombing raids over the US, which were then impossible for airplanes from Europe. The US government may have seen a motive therefore to kill off the airship industry completely by artificially and secretly creating the disaster, possibly using some specialised suppressed incendiary bullets fired from a long distance. Trans-Atlantic strategic bombing possibilities were then ruled out. There was the motive, the means and the opportunity. Some sleuth should look into it.