@@Helperbot-2000 Mmmmm being on it in vr wouldnt be fun tho. I played a vr game where you can fly around and fall off a building (forgot its name) and it wasnt fun Edit: game was infact fun
Man, I bet it was magical to see those massive things hovering overhead. A lot of other people have said it, but it would be so cool if such massive zeppelins made a miraculous comeback.
Zeppelins should be back with new tech to be affordable and fun, like an air cruze with no worry about travel time. Imagine spending a couple of days hovering the mediterranean with some cool amenities for a couple hundred euros! I'd pay for that.
It would be fun but due to weight constraints it would never really be affordable to take a cruise on one, since boats are so much more efficient in every way and dont have any real weight constraints. A cruise on a ship like the Hindenburg was around $7000 adjusting for inflation and took around 2-3 days. A 3 day ride on a cruise ship meanwhile is about $500 and a transatlantic cruise (which is about a week) is closer to $750 with a cheap room, even the fanciest suites are about $1000 for the 3 day cruise or $3400 for the week long cruise. It would be alot of fun, and i'd love to take a cruise like that, but it would likely be at least 3 or 4 times the price of a similarly luxurious cruise ship and your vacation would be less than half as long.
@@arthas640 ¿Would they need today a crew of 52? ¿How much will cost today to produce one? ¿How much they will spend on fuel-consumption? It will be fun to cruze on it, but I see another use for them. Passanger/cargo transport in countries without a decent road/rail infrastructure. I know an 8 million city with no subway, no tram, no highways... ¿Could it work financially?
The core issue with airships is usually weather; The problem is that the lighter then air and large size leaves them exceedingly vulnerable to strong winds; the method that nearly all crashed airships were lost. Space is pretty easy to deal with as they often waste a lot of potential space (e.g. the entire bottom of the frame could serve as a floor if designed for it without substantial weight difference) so even if you couldn't carry more people they could at least have large rooms etc. Carrying capacity can be improved by further redesigning the shape with modern wing designs; a redesign of the hindenburg could potentially nearly double the lifting capacity at the upper limit. Combine this with modern lightwieght technology and you could create an airship that genuinely would be luxurious with large isolated rooms and spacious lounges. It's possible you could even develop a way to harvest water from clouds/air at altitude. Unfortunately the problem of weather would remain.
the problem with weather is largely that airships often find themselves having to approach the ground for mooring, etc, while at the same time not having great maneuverability. But if we extend the analog to ships, no ship ever tried to moor on a windswept cliff face - they find safe harbors and bays. Sadly there is no equivalent of a bay for airships - even mountain ranges which are the most bay-like analogs for the sky tend to intensify complicate wind patterns. So if mooring is such a big issue, then perhaps the answer is simply to avoid it altogether. Having an airship remain on station almost permanently, and having supplies and crew embark/debark via smaller heavier-than-air craft, may be a much better way to handle airship operations
Im building an airship. Its worth noting the Graf Zeppelin served as a commercial passenger airship, flying around the world for years, without incident and carried hundreds of thousands of people. She never crashed and was scrapped at the start of WW2. Airships can be successful.
Froggy Frog 9000 actually the Graf Zeppelin nearly crashed after losing 2 of its engines and while trying to return to Germany, two of the remaining three engines failed, forcing it to land in France. Excellent airmanship kept her from crashing
I think they lost an engine and experienced stronger than expected headwinds enroute to America and turned back only to lose more engines and put her down in France. Good choices by the Captain in such a situation.
Check out some of the more modern ones. Just a reminder for folks, the Hindenburg was considered technologically advanced for a zeppelin because it no longer used cow intestines for the balloons. Here is a modern cargo airship currently testing: www.hybridairvehicles.com/aircraft/airlander-10
That's one theory, with fairly little support behind it. The paint was most likely flammable, but not rocket fuel levels since that would have been far too heavy.
Watch season 1 episode 4 of Secrets of the Dead - What Happened to the Hindenburg. Static electricity from thunder storms in the area + aluminum perchlorate paint/doping (rocket fuel "like") + hydrogen gas is a pretty convincing and logical theory and explanation.
@@volundrfrey896 He is talking about the chemical composition of the paint. It was super flammable, very like rocket fuel of the day, but not three inches thick.
I saw a video where a Scientist at NASA was investigating that. He showed that when the Space Shuttles went up, the Hydrogen from the large external tank burnt with hardly showing flames and smoke. One can see that with pictures and scenes of Space Shuttles launching. Whereas, the Hindenburg burns with clear flames and smoke. That shows again it being mostly that material it was covered in, being like gunpowder.
I was going to say that until I saw your comment,which is quite correct,the U.S.A. was the major if not the only source of Helium but the U.S.A. refused to sell Helium to the Nazi regime so the Nazis had to use Hydrogen,which is highly inflammable for the Hindenburg.
TheVideoMaker after the Hindenburg crash the Germans tried to switch to helium but the US, which had the largest amount of helium in the world at the time, refused to sell it to them
Zeppelin originally designed it to use helium on the assumption that the USA would sell to him. However, The USA had two military airships at the time and only enough helium to fly one at a time. The U.S.S. Akron and U.S.S. Macon were both designed as intermediary aircraft carriers to help span the air cover gap in the Atlantic and as such were most likely deemed to be of higher priority than the Hindenburg. Zeppelin was refused and although Germany (the German government) could have pursued the matter, they did not likely as a result of the fact that the cost would've been astronomical given Heliums single source and extreme rarity at the time. In addition, Germany was still in financial hot water and hydrogen is dirt cheap.
Nope. The "not enough helium for two airships" debacle was between the Los Angeles, which was built by the Zeppelin Company for the US Navy after WW 1, and the Shennadoah, which was domestically built.
The whole point of the video is that the accident is a red herring. Airships died out because they were obsolete, the accident just expedited the process.
You have a device that makes thousands sparks a minute just a few centimeters from plastic pipe that has gasoline pumped at 4 bars in it and you're not complaining...
@@piotrmalewski8178 Bro who's complaining? lol I just think it's hilarious that society was so addicted to their cigarettes that they had to make flying in a flammable balloon even more unsafe haha
They used a single flameless electric lighter that was not allowed to be removed from the specially sealed smoking lounge, and no other lighters or matches were allowed aboard. So they clearly thought it through, they weren't being reckless.
I mean, we have quad rotor technology. I feel like you could build a propeller ship that could fly. Probably wouldn't be very efficient, but you could do it.
I keep thinking that a modern role for a Zeppelin would be for short, day-trip tourist expeditions where low and slow would be a part of the appeal. Think of cruising over the Serengeti at 500 feet, up the Rhine or along the Great Wall. That would be simply amazing and I can't believe that it couldn't be made economically viable.
With modern technology - airships would very viable for heavy transportation over difficult terrain. Funnily enough, industry and military considers it "too new" and "radical" to make initial investition.
Another disadvantage they didn't mention in the video was the lack of heating and insulation. At cruising altitude, those airships were uncomfortably cold inside no matter what the season. You could count on wearing your winter coat the entire time.
If you would build the Hindenburg today, it would be absurdly more efficient than 100 years ago. 2 Pilots would be enough, no need for heavy aluminum skeleton, lighter materials like carbon, graphene and plastic and a Wing like body to give her extra Lift, she would also be equiped with modern and much more effecient therefore ligther engines!
And solar panels since you would use electric motors rather than engines. carbon fibre skeleton, and possibly the gas bags would be carbon too. And a lifting body with small wings would definitely be part of the design. Though it would still need a runway (or a big field)
The Americans were the only ones being able to produce helium at the time and export was illegal. That is why the hindenburg was run with hydrogen. The Americans were worried the Germans might use it as an warship since if it used helium it wouldnt explode so easily.
The helium control act of 1927 wasn't directed at Germany. It was a matter of supply and the lack thereof. America had two smaller airships at the time and only enough helium to fill one. The Germans were allowed to acquire a waiver for helium purchase but never did. At 9 million cubic feet the Hindenburg would've been enough to completely bankrupt a post war Germany. Hydrogen however is cheap as all get out with it being the most common element in the universe and all.
RaeSyngKane Okay you seam to know alot more about that matter but i had heared that the guy who build the airship had talked with the american president about a possible export in the future but that the plan was banned after the Nazis rose to power.
I know that Zeppelin's company contacted the national munitions control board and was denied by them but I am not sure for what reason. I do know that Zeppelin was of the opinion that it was a sure thing and had begun constructing the airship for helium even before he knew whether the trade would be approved so he at least thought that relations were decent. The Hindenburg began construction 2 years before the Nazis and flew 2 years after. Regardless of feelings they did let it fly a swastika above major American cities and carry American mail and postage. Personally I believe that the two airships that were being constructed at the time the Akron and the Macon had higher priority and need. This was before warplanes had the ability to protect Atlantic transports the full journey and the U-boats exploited this heavily in WWI. Both the Akron and the Macon acted as flying aircraft carriers carrying 5 planes apiece and were able to partially fix the coverage issue. To do this they needed 7.4 million cubic feet of helium apiece. The Hindenburg would've taken the place of one and a bit of the US fleet at the time. Zeppelin would, most likely, not have known about the Akron or the Macon which may be why he was so over confidant. As it was, imagine Mexico contacting the US during the Manhattan project and asking if they could buy most of the worlds supply of uranium and plutonium to use in illuminating stop signs.
Yup! Aeronautics back then was the wild west of engineering. You can check out the problems with airship aircraft carriers here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VNOusZLO7y4.html Problems of fighters being able to support bombers continued well into the atomic age. The US even built a small fighter plane to be dropped from the bomb bay of B-52's just in case the Cold War heated up: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TvmwfoyIZLQ.html While most attempts have never been able to re-attach themselves to the mothercraft the dream has not been forgotten. DARPA still tosses the idea around every once in a while: www.popsci.com/article/technology/darpa-wants-airborne-aircraft-carriers
Interesting Fact: The smoking room was pressurized and separated from other areas of the Hindenburg's interior. The bar on the Hindenburg was put next to the smoking room, so the bar tender could make sure smokers didn't leave the smoking room with a lit cigarette.
Even with that safety measure, it still seems crazy to allow smoking with all the hydrogen. I guess complete non-smoking would just have been a deal-breaker for many potential passengers.
it's a very new channel with 1 month of life and 3 videos. content quality is top notch, even though i know the whole story of declining of the airships giving it all the info in a 5 minute video is quality work. this channel will grow exponentially, very fast. It's related channels are wendower productions, vox, reallifelore and kurzgesagt. even this tells so much. i was seeing the latest video for the last few days on my home page, glad i finally clicked on it. good job mustard!
I bet we could make way better airships now with carbon fiber and composite materials. Also we now have jet propulsion and helicopter propalsion. I'm thinking of the Avengers helicarrier lol.
I'd gladly pay $7000 for a trip to Europe on a Zeppelin. It's a floating luxury liner of a technology that died long, LONG before I was born. Frankly I'd have a greater chance to visit space in my lifetime then I do enjoying fine dining and seeing the world from a Zeppelin.
Interesting video (especially for someone whose first flight ever was aboard a blimp), but there are a few mistakes. Although the Hindenburg (LZ 129) was designed to use helium, the LZGmbH was not able to get the helium needed, for it was only available in the US and deemed to be of strategic importance, so they filled her with hydrogen. And since hydrogen lifts more than helium, they added several staterooms after the first season of operation. Also, water wasn’t really rationed on airships because it was used as ballast to compensate for the fuel burned, and for the same reason, sewage was kept aboard and also used as ballast, so it did not matter if it had washed someone or not…
Thank you for this. I never believed that they went out of fashion because of the filming of the Hindenberg crash. After all, we see lots of photos of crashed air liners these days but airplanes haven't gone out of service. Your explanation is excellent and long overdue.
THANK YOU FOR SHOWING THE INTERIOR/ PASSANGER COMPARTMENTS AND AMENITIES!So many videos completly ignore the interiors of these old timey methods of transportation, and thats literaly the only thing that interests me.
Basically, it turned out its easier to float on something as dense as water compared to floating on something as undense as air. And today, wings generate artificially dense air below the wing and undense air above the wing to generate lift (literally out of thin air).
actually while it's often talked about the Bernulli's principle is not how wings generate most of their lift. They generate it by deflecting air downwards which because of Newton's third law pushes the plane upwards. It's the reason why planes can fly upside down and why they generate more lift when angled upwards.
Damn, this is so sad. I guess in those days it was much easier to be more optimistic about the future, they were simpler days when WWII wasn't even on the horizon.
Well, supersonic airliners were a thing for a while but they didn't work out (see mustard's Concorde video), and flying cars and trains don't really make sense lol.
Well back in the 11th century the city was called Hampton. Then the city became abandoned and another settlement in the north of Hampshire was built and was also called Hampton. So now Modern day Hampton is now Southampton
3:27 - FALSE! Hindenburg never "switched from using helium to using hydrogen". She was designed for helium lift, but the world's biggest supplier of helium, the United States, would not sell the gas to a Germany under the Nazi regime. That is why, all her gas bags were ever filled with, was hydrogen gas. Just to set the record straight. Peace!
*Not true, the world's only commercially available supply of Helium was the United States and in 1925 Congress passed the **_Helium Act of 1925_** which nationalized all helium production in the interest of national security and was reserved only for military use by the U.S. Navy, effectively banning the sale or export of helium outside the U.S.*
@@meaningful2366 learn to read u dick xD It was designed for helium but was built with hydrogen cause usa wouldn´t supply helium, so no they didn´t switch they built it for hydrogen in the first place because of those reasons
This video repeats what would appear to be discredited 'common knowledge' about why the Hindenburg burned. There were studies done, articles in aviation publications, and at least one documentary that showed what is thought to have actually happened (and no conspiracy nonsense required).....a combination of issues with how the skin was supported on the framework, and the chemical doping used on the skin fabric, very similar to solid rocket motor fuel. Studies of the Hindenburg video supported that the skin was the first thing that caught fire, and the majority of the fire was from the skin, not the hydrogen. Some hydrogen certainly burned, but most escaped without burning....just like other fuels, it needs to be in the correct mixture with the oxygen in order to burn, and when the gas bags ruptured most of the hydrogen gas just burped out and away before it could thin out enough to burn. And the flames in the old Hindenburg films are clearly colored, while hydrogen burns transparently.
+youtuuba The flames and smoke seen in the film definitely belong to the burning skin-material ; hydrogen gas burns instantly, probably in few micro-seconds without emitting much light, irrespective of its quantity. It will be an implosion, not an explosion (because the combustion product, water vapour will have less volume than hydrogen gas). This is evident from the shape of the framework remains. Correct mixture with oxygen -- interestingly, hydrogen is the one with the widest range of mixture ratio (LEL - 4% , HEL - 74% lower/higher explosion limits) which makes hydrogen gas too much prone to catching fire. This means that even a small contamination (with atmospheric oxygen) can make it combustible, hence very dangerous. How can it be contaminated ? Unless hydrogen is stored in rigid metal containers, (cylinder/bullets) the phenomenon called diffusion can take place whereby atmospheric oxygen can enter the container when stored over a long period of time, depending on the material that contained the gas. It needed to be sampled and analysed periodically to assess oxygen presence. Source of ignition? there were many, such as the thrusters, smoking cabin.....even static electricity which needed earthing to get eliminated (All hydrogen handling machinery need to be earthed ; but how, when it is floating in the sky?).Add these to a very small gas leak that went un-noticed.PS Sorry for typing this long..........Summary : It can be the hydrogen gas that caught fire first.
I think the official story is that there was a hydrogen leak in the back of the ship. When the cable connected the ship and ground, a spark was created by static electricity and ignited the hydrogen. The fire was combination of skin and hydrogen. That's why you can see it.
Vojta Ježek, what is the Official Story? I saw a documentary that said the original investigation by the Germans concluded that the spark started in the skin panels, and caught the skin doping on fire, but that that Nazis covered it up and called it a hydrogen accident.
youtuuba i think i saw a documentary but i dont remember much. But i saw an experiment proving that the skin itself burns really slowly. And as we know, there was nothing slow about that fire.
youtuba The ship had passed through a thunderstorm before landing, so it had a large static charge built up in the frame. When the mooring cables, which were water soaked because of the storm, touched the ground, the charge was suddenly released. Arcing across failed welds ignited the skin, which unlike other rigid airships was dopes with what was effectively liquid thermite, and the resulting fire quickly made its way to a leaking gas bag. All this took far less time to happen than it did for me to write this. Also, the official German inquiry at the time declared the cause of the crash to be "Act of God", not a hydrogen accident.
Thanks for looking at the truth of the matter - it wasn't the Hindenberg disaster that killed the airship, that was sort of the "nail in the coffin" but, compared with ships and ever-improving airplanes, they just weren't practical. Just like thoughts that the Concorde crash in 2000 ended the Concorde, it sure didn't help but it was really just the extreme cost that brought it down in the end. I do ponder about other applications of airships, such as possibly for carrying very large but lightweight cargo, things too large to be transported on aircraft or on roads (at least not without a huge hassle). I'm thinking of wind turbine blades, they are huge, getting ever bigger and transportation is becoming the limitation to their size (rather than actual ability to construct them), yet are very lightweight. In that scenario, an airship could also serve the role of a crane in installing the wind turbine as well as delivering outsize components, all allowing for larger wind turbines to be built at lower cost.
Using airships as sky cranes especially for a windfarm won't work. One of the biggest limitations of airships is that they are very weak powerwise but have a huge surface area making them easily blown around by the wind. Windfarms are made in very windy locations so the majority of the time it wouldn't be able to operate. Cranes need to be precise as you have heavy items just hanging from cables and if they start to sway they could seriously damage stuff or kill people. Sky crane helicopters already struggle significantly with heavy winds and they are significantly more resistant to it than airships. With an airship keeping it in place was already very, very difficult because it's essentially a giant sail. With your idea of cargo it's much easier to just put several inside an oversized cargo plane like the Baluga or the An-124. Also oversized lightweight cargo is a very tiny niche. Not to mention turbine blades really are not that light. Remember that they are capable of generating several thousand watts of electricity. They are over 60.000 lbs each for a large windmill, windmills really are not made to be as light as possible as you don't want them spinning too fast. You actually do want them fairly heavy and sturdy so that a decent gust won't just break them.
I kind of want airships to come back one day (with new technologies and stuff). It would feel surreal to board something similar to a huge balloon the size of the titanic.
They couldn't, they asked America for a nonflammable gas, but they were worried that they would turn it into a war blimp, so the disaster is kinda Americas fault
So Hindenburg was basically a flying Titanic - built for travel in luxurious style. Too bad they ended the same fate. btw I came here after watching your Buran vs Space Shuttle video, it appears that you're a master at video making & editing, story telling and era matching: love those 80s music in the Buran video and the 30s music in this one, so nostalgic! Please keep it up, look forward to seeing more of your stuff!
3:56 "You could hear your neighbors talking, coughing or worse!" Worse what? That was a very naughty insinuation! Was there a mile-high club at the time? Fell off my chair laughing!
I think it accommodated more passengers than could be carried by conventional commercial airplanes at the time. And the British R100 was designed to accommodate about 150 passengers, not including crew/staff personnel. And all with very archaic technology and materials. Shortly after WW2, the Goodyear Airship division proposed building passenger airships that could accommodate considerable more. But unfortunately, Goodyear threw in the towel on building big rigid airships not long after that.
hbarudi Yep, we have Helium, we have lighter materials and engines, we have computers, so we don't need many crew members, and we can use solar panels and electric engines, so we don't need fuel.
On the Hindenburg flight schedule, I can see 48 hour flights from New York to Germany, but there were also 60 and even 80 hour flights for the same destination. So it would surely much depend on wind direction. I think such Zeppelin concepts would make a great tourist experience today, hovering above tourist attractions such as the Grand Canyon or the great Pyramid or even a Safari or Himalayas. At a much smaller scale of course with fewer passengers and no overnight accommodations. The gentle and slow hovering could be attractive and a better alternative to air balloons because you are controlling the flight direction.
Flying over the Grand Canyon is tricky. Flights below a certain altitude are entirely prohibited to keep tourists on the ground from being overly bothered, then right above that altitude is a block reserved entirely for air tour operators which is HEAVILY used, and above that you have quite a bit of general aviation traffic (small private planes). Since airships still rely on the same piston engines used in general aviation aircraft they are quite noisy and I doubt any exemption would be made for them to fly lower, and they certainly won't blend in with the much faster helicopter tour traffic, nor will they blend in with the even faster piston-engine planes flying above that. There's a few places in the world operating air tours with airships from the ZT company, the same model as the Goodyear blimp if I'm not mistaken, or at least the same company. They're quite expensive, moreso than a helicopter tour of comparable duration but with a much shorter route.
brickman409 it's stupid. If you're so hellbent on censoring that kind of stuff, why not just censor it completely from history? "Nobody is allowed to chat about the Germans of WW2" "but it's such an important part of history!" "Shut up they were a symbol of hatred so no talking about them!" I mean seriously it's as if people are afraid of our history! Get over it! Yes it's hainous, but it's still a part of history so we mist acknowledge its existence. Why? For the same reason we teach history. He who ignores history is bound to repeat it
brickman409 RU-vid is such a fucking safe zone. Only "advertiser friendly" content (clickbait etc.) prosper and original, actually funny youtubers get demonetized or worse.
These are all great videos and I watch them regularly! In this case, I would like to point out the omission of any mention as to why they used hydrogen: it's not (only) because they were crazy, but (also) because the US would not sell the helium.
The failure here is not in form but in function. A modern airship could run using automation and a skeleton crew, and could use solar power for a considerable portion of its motion. It would not be a transporter but a cruise ship of the skies. Not meant to haul people across oceans but to bring them to scenic luxury. You could stand atop balconies overhanging the amazon rainforest or the Himalayas or the grand canyon.
my thoughts exactly! It would make an excellent air-yaught! With today's technology, knowledge and possibilities, you could make suberb luxurious ships for the skies. Electric engines, computers to help with controls and safety, lightweight design is also far more advanced! Instead of those bunkbeds, I'm sure we can make comfy king sizers of the same weight! I guess what will make it "harder" for those to exist in any number are the rather strict regulations on air traffic. I guess they would never be allowed to cross major populated areas and also stear clear of current flightpaths of commercial and cargo traffic. So that's a big no-no for Europe... Still, one can dream... Even if I can never own one, it would be great to see one passing by.
Even in Europe, they could probably avoid the paths of jets and stay above buildings. And let's not forget Europe does have rural areas. Air tours of the Alps anyone?
Also, they were difficult to steer with powerful winds. They tried to make those airships "land" directly at the top of the Empire State Building but it wasn't possible because of the wind.
What CAUSED hindenburg: Due to a delay when the airship was about to land, they had to make 2 sharp turns to land safely. On the second sharp turn, a suspension wire snapped and ripped a hole in a hydrogen tank. Due to a storm, there was electricity in the metal beams which ignited the leaking hydrogen.
I love airships, rode in a blimp in Florida about 20 years ago, but the early Zeppelins crashed as did the US NAVY ones (bought from Germany) as did the British built ones in the 1930's due to high winds and thunderstorms. Cool, damp weather really impairs the "lift'. A friend saw a blimp going backwards over Toronto recently due to head winds. Hindenburg would not have been destroyed if Americans let Germans use helium. Very nice video but Mustard also fails to mention built in physics problem: as airship releases ballast (drops water overboard from ballast tanks) to go higher, then later when gets sunny weather and rises too high only way to descend is to release gas, but then as ship gets lower and if gets into cool wet weather closer to destination it keeps sinking as no more ballast to release and the extra gas is gone. Sinks right into the sea or ground. Thus ended several US and British airships. I am thinking if they had burners aboard like today's hot air balloons they could heat the remaining gas but this emergency trick would only work on a shorter trip, could heat the remaining gas a few times in a long trip to ascend but to descend they would still need to release gas and have less and less gas to heat. Then again we still have blimps (never hear of them crashing) and secret huge lighter-than-air ships being tested in SW US and Russians use large airships to carry very heavy cargo, so the airship is NOT dead. PS - the HIndenburg movie of 1975 was very good, a real blast :)
"the US NAVY ones (bought from Germany)" - the only US Navy airship not to crash was the one they got from Germany (ZR3 Los Angeles). The ZR1 Shenandoah & ZR4 Akron were lost in storms. The ZR2 (British R80) broke up when trying a tight turn during its trials in England and the ZR5 Macon lost part of its tail off the coast of California leading to its eventual plunge in to the sea. The ZR3 Los Angeles survived to be scrapped later on, probably as WW2 was starting. The Hindenburg had the capability to collect rain water and so offset the use of water onboard (for showers, toilets and ballast).
It always kind of surprises me that the huge airships of the past had cockpits and seats. Some of them look big enough that they’d be flown from a bridge of a cruise ship or the starship Enterprise- standing up. Walking around. You’d still have a wheel and banks of controls, but there would be a need to look out from side to side - by walking to one side of the flight deck or the other. It makes sense the way the engineers did it, and I’m not saying my idea is better or even feasible. I just sorta wish zeppelin/dirigibles or even some flying boats would have been flown from a standing position. It’s be much more steampunk that way :)
He works hard on these videos, and pronouncing every little word while trying to keep up with demand isn't the easiest, cut him some slack come on now.
Thanks RU-vid! how have I not seen this channel before I'm always looking up planes and anything amazing that we use to use to fly with. I've seen a few of your videos since I discovered this channel last night.
Me after seeing the hindenburg with swastika: Well thats noice. Me after seeing another airship this time with a sickle and hammer sign and says "kirov reporting": *RED ALERT FLASHBACKS*
I did an entire essay in college about the rise and fall of zeppelins. The old photos of their interiors are amazing and they were truly floating hotels. Modern blimps pale in comparison to "Graf Zeppelin" and "Hindenburg".
