Come take a trip on a Zeppelin ...

[Mark Allen M]

I have been spending a bit of time with this series of photos that belong to the facebook page I've attached for those who do facebook. Really incredible photos of what it was like to travel around the world on one of the German Zeppelins. The photos cover both the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin & LZ 129 Hindenburg. I loaded about 275 of the photos in a Flickr album for you who do not do facebook to see. Unfortunately most of the photos have no information posted. The flickr album is loaded but not sorted as that would almost be impossible for me to do. But they are wonderful photos and extremely interesting. For those interested I encourage you to spend some time with both the facebook link and flickr link.

Really special opportunity to see these photos.


AEROCRAT facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/aerocra ... ter=photos

Zeppelins Flickr Album
https://www.flickr.com/photos/142209609 ... 1982811090

[navion91104]

Did someone say Airship? Please join us in the adventure:
https://www.facebook.com/Aeronaut-Association-490286061165658/
Become an Aeronuat!!!

Learning how to make girders and metal fabrication:


Engineering metal fabrication:


Lecture for American Chemical Association:


Lecture for American Association of Mechanical Engineers:


*The LZ-127 was the most successful passenger airship.

Prof Vos

[p51]

I work in insurance liability and once dealt with an aeronautical engineer about an accident he'd caused (pulled out from a stop sign into the path of an oncoming car he never saw but several independent witness did).
He stated that due to his occupation, his opinion of the loss (he contended the other driver must be liable because the other car must have been speeding so fast that our policyholder couldn't have seen him, which is a common argument from those who just didn't see the other car) was correct because engineers are never wrong.

I couldn't resist, going into all the other engineering disasters in history, and he immediately noted none were aeronautical engineering problems and again, people in his profession were never wrong.
"Oh?," I asked, "How about -" and I then went into all the airship (going back to the Roma) disasters, and by the time I came around to the Comet airliner, he started screaming.
My manager, who of course got a call from him later with the same argument, told him he needed to embrace the reality and that was that.

[navion91104]

"Oh?," I asked, "How about -" and I then went into all the airship (going back to the Roma) disasters, and by the time I came around to the Comet airliner, he started screaming. My manager, who of course got a call from him later with the same argument, told him he needed to embrace the reality and that was that.

Hindenburg: "Anxious to land quickly, before weather conditions could deteriorate, Captain Pruss decided to execute a tight S-turn to change the direction of the ship’s landing; Pruss ordered a turn to port to swing out, and then a sharp tight turn to starboard to line up for landing into the wind. (Some experts would later theorize that this sharp turn overstressed the ship, causing a bracing wire to snap and slash a gas cell, allowing hydrogen to mix with air to form a highly explosive combination.)" Exactly where the engineers said it would under those flight conditions as specified. Engineers are not always wrong either. You roll with the margin or error you're comfortable with, i.e. is it worth it? I think we all understand risk mitigation here.

[maxum96]

Thanks Mark for sharing the links to some great pictures. I never knew they had swiveling props back then. Was that on the Hindenburg or the Graf Zepplin?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/142209609@N05/41772035965/in/album-72157691982811090/

[goaly]

He stated that due to his occupation, his opinion of the loss (he contended the other driver must be liable because the other car must have been speeding so fast that our policyholder couldn't have seen him, which is a common argument from those who just didn't see the other car) was correct because engineers are never wrong.

At this point I would have asked, “So you believe that he was traveling faster than the speed of light?

[michaelj2k]

because engineers are never wrong.

And all this time I thought that was a PHd problem!

[p51]

He stated that due to his occupation, his opinion of the loss (he contended the other driver must be liable because the other car must have been speeding so fast that our policyholder couldn't have seen him, which is a common argument from those who just didn't see the other car) was correct because engineers are never wrong.

At this point I would have asked, “So you believe that he was traveling faster than the speed of light?

Oh, I have asked that of others, many times, over the years.
It's a very common thing when someone pulls out into the path of a car with the right of way, so assert they must have been speeding because they never saw them.
Ask anyone in the biz about, "They must have been speeding". Even without context, you're likely to get a knowing laugh.

[navion91104]

Thank you Mark for your effort putting these photos together and sharing.

Here's a neat vid on airships from (I think) 1939: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3EEEO24E4