You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Ballooning Ambitions - ‘His Majesty's Airship The R101, Life and Tragic Death of the World's Largest Flying Machine'
2023-09-01
[Free Beacon] On June 18, a small submarine called the Titan imploded in the depths of the Atlantic, killing five people on a visit to the RMS Titanic, which had sunk to the ocean floor in 1912. The question, of course, is why five men would risk their lives just to see the drowned corpse of an old passenger liner. The answer is that they knew, as we all know, that the Titanic is more than a wrecked ship. It’s a symbol of a time when we imagined and built great things—and saw them sink, too, from time to time.

Failure is inevitable in engineering pursuits. Yes, the lives lost from such engineering overreach are a tragedy. But early failures can provide instruction for future successes, and the unavoidable fact of occasional failure is the price of grand ideas.

Some grandiose projects fail from bad engineering, some from bad operators, and some from just plain bad luck. Others are simply bad ideas. Not examined enough, however, is yet another reason for failure or success: the cultural narrative behind a technology. America’s moon program, for example, succeeded in good measure because its race for technological advancement was willing to express a national purpose.

Or, for an example of failure, consider the sad history of zeppelins, dirigibles, and blimps. A recent book, His Majesty’s Airship: The Life and Tragic Death of the World’s Largest Flying Machine, reminds us of the power of narrative for an overly hyped technology that struggles to stay in the air. S.C. Gwynne tells the story of a 1929 British airship program that produced the R101 airship, a rigid-frame, hydrogen-filled lighter-than-air craft that, at 777 feet, was the largest airship of its time. Tracing the engineering challenges, the in-group dramas, and the political battles, Gwynne reminds us that behind every nut, bolt, and sewn cow-intestine hydrogen gasbag is an engineer, a banker, and a politician who help make the technology possible.

Lighter-than-air craft, beginning with hot-air observation balloons, had their beginnings in war. The ones known as "airships" are steerable vessels with a structural frame, held aloft by hydrogen or helium. At a time when heavier-than-air planes were dangerous, needed regular refueling, and could not carry heavy loads, airships seemed a plausible technology.

These early airships had their shortcomings. Lift—the upward force generated by buoyancy from the lightweight gas—needed to be managed meticulously. In calm skies, this task can be done by a back-of-the-envelope undergraduate-level force-balance calculation. But even the slightest breeze generates sufficient force to push the airship hundreds of feet. Meanwhile, the lifting potential of the flammable hydrogen gas is altitude and temperature-dependent. Rearward engines provided the linear motion of the vessel, but as the engines operated, fuel would be consumed, decreasing the weight. If more lift was required, excess fuel, cargo, and supplies needed to be jettisoned. Everything not bolted down or breathing was at risk of being thrown overboard.
Posted by:Besoeker

#2  ...A little more background:

There were two airships - R100, which was a privately built ship, and R101, built under the direct design and control of the Air Ministry. 100 pretty much sailed through construction, not without issues but mostly on time and under budget. 101, however, was an overweight and structurally iffy mess.

100 flew first - spectacularly to Canada and back - badly embarrassing the 101 team, which now felt compelled to make a flight to India. That flight ended in a French wood after just a few hours with a crash that killed all but twelve of the fifty-six people aboard.

That ended the British rigid airship program. 100 was never even allowed to fly again and was quietly scrapped a few years later. The British government had her dismantled, the framework run over with steamrollers, then sold.

Mike

Mike
Posted by: MikeKozlowski   2023-09-01 08:49  

#1  I wrote about the great airship development in 2006, when the wreck of the US airship Macon was discovered off the coast of California.
Sky Sisters.https://ncobrief.com/index.php/archives/sky-sisters/
Thespectacular loss of the Hindenburg, two years after the crash of the Macon, only added to public misgivings, although the argument has been made that the great airships were doomed, by increasing competition from commercial airplane services and the coming of a new war, where conventional air craft would be of far more use. But the fairly constant series of spectacular airship disasters probably darkened the public and the political view, too. In the long run, airplanes may have been as much at a hazard, the development of air services just as rocky, and the cumulative casualties just as many. But there was enormous prestige placed in those few great dirigible projects, and great expectations by the public made the various disasters all the more public and crushing.
Posted by: Sgt. Mom   2023-09-01 08:44  

00:00