AIRSHIPS VERSUS AIRPLANES --- AN EARLY (1931) COMPARISON

Where have we Airship enthusiasts and advocates failed ? By forgetting that the Medium is the Message, and that we have not placed sufficient effort into teaching the public --- for, in essence, that's what Public Relations is (are?) --- teaching the many advantages, benefits, and the true story of the Airship.

Advocacy, Education, Leadership ! That's a start !

Here is a copy of an interesting comparison in a book published in 1931 by Hugh Allen, whose thesis was the natural advantages and dominance of LTA airships over airplanes. It's an interesting twist on the usual criticisms hurled at airships. Quotes follow :

.... The airplane is a dynamic craft, deriving its lifting power from its velocity alone. The air pressure and suction on its wings give aerodynamic lift only as long as flying speed is maintained.

The airship is primarily aerostatic, that is its buoyancy arises from the fact that the lifting gas it contains is so much lighter than air that it will support, without other assistance, not only the balloon-like cells in which the gas is contained but the metal frame of the ship itself and the weight of crew, motors, fuel, and a pay load.

The airship continues to remain aloft even though its motors are shut off.

The airship, however, has an additional buoyancy, an aerodynamic lift resultant from motors and control surfaces.

[HNP comment : SO FAR, SO GOOD! Then the analysis and predictions start]

The airship and the airplane differ again in that the airplane is primarily a fast short distance craft, while the airship is slower and comes into its full efficiency only on long voyages, particularly across oceans.

The cruising speed of most transport or mail planes carrying a pay load is 100 to 120 miles an hour with a radius [RANGE] of about 500 miles. Though naturally a specially built or special purpose plane can fly faster and farther if pay load is replaced by fuel.

The airship, having a speed of 80 miles an hour and carrying ten tons of useful load, has been flown more than 6,000 miles in 69 hours with a comfortable fuel reserve at the end of the journey.

While the transatlantic flights of the R-34, the Los Angeles, the Graf Zeppelin and the R-100 have indicated transatlantic flying as a logical field for the airship, there will still be controversy as to whether the airplane may not challenge the airship here.

In discussing the subject before a meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers in New York in May, 1930, former Commander J.C. Hunsaker, U.S.N., who had charge for the Navy of the design both of heavier-than-air craft and lighter-than-air craft during the war [WORLD WAR I] stated his belief that :

"All successful Atlantic airplane flights may fairly be discounted as having been made by overloaded planes, without payload, by abnormally courageous pilots, and in the most favorable summer weather that could be found. The unsuccessful airplane flights give mute testimony that good luck cannot be depended on.

"We do know, however," he continued, "that the modern airplane can fly the Atlantic provided that one of several things does not happen. The things that must not happen re : first, persistent head winds causing exhaustion of fuel supply at sea; second, engine failure from any cause; third, loss of visibility with consequent loss of control and course; and fourth, failure of any structural part or function of lifting, stabilizing or control surfaces.

"Each of these contingencies may be fatal to the airplane, and in this I include the flying boat or seaplane in the North Atlantic, as its chance of survival there on the surface of the sea is at best precarious. In low latitudes both in the Pacific and Atlantic, the flying boat has a very fair chance to remain afloat, but due to the infrequency of passing steamers many days may elapse before rescue. In general, a forced landing on the high seas cannot be tolerated by a commercial enterprise.

The chance of a forced landing at sea due to exhaustion of fuel is measured by the margin of fuel carried versus the weather to be expected. We know that even with an overloaded start and no pay load and with favorable weather there has been practically no margin for those airplanes that have successfully negotiated the eastward crossing of the North Atlantic.

We are building larger airplanes but their endurance unfortunately is not increasing... There are gains in aerodynamic and structural efficiency due to changes in design made possible by very large airplanes, yet the effect of such gains is largely absorbed in overcoming the relative weight increase due to size itself."

End of quote from book "The Story of the Airship"

[GEE, DO YOU THINK THAT THE AIRPLANE WILL EVER CATCH UP TO THE AIRSHIP --- THE EXPERT ENGINEER WHO WROTE THAT LITTLE PIECE IN 1931, QUOTED VERBATIM ABOVE, ASSURES US THAT IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN but it's certainly an interesting twist on the usual blather by the negative nattering anti-airship nabobs. ]