Hi. I am a retired military meteorologist. Sadly in America, the weather conditions in the southern states. Were the reason that all ships were lost due to quick changing weather conditions. gas reacts quickly to temp and pressure changes. Sadly there is no answere to that. I would not consider flying airships in such weather zones. Germany was lucky to have such success. Weather is much colder over Europe. To therir credit. They recognised. tgat following a constant pressure and temp iso therm They were safer.

As a meteorologist. I would not like to fly airships in that part of America. The Gulf is where many tornadoes etc are borne. Western America is notorious for vicious weather changes. Airships are only safe following the contours of stable pressure and temp.

Hi. But as an ex military meteorologist. I must add. That any gas is very sensitive to temperature and pressure change. That is what destroyed most of the American airships.
Europe had more stable and cooler climate. That is why Germany was so successful to fly them with good safety record.

Although constructed for the U.S. Navy, LZ-126 was built as a passenger ship with compartments and sleeping berths. The first airship with sleeping berths that actually carried paying commercial passengers was LZ-127.

Had I read a little further, I would have seen Stu addressed this very concept in his comments a little later on the page!

Depending on their operating weight an airship most definitely can stall. It was rare that an airship operated with static lift from the gas (hydrogen or helium) exactly even to its weight. Typically, zeppelins would weigh-off slightly light, that is, slightly higher static lift available than takeoff weight. But, a large rigid airship could carry a significant payload dynamically if weighed-off heavy–more weight than lift available from gas. This condition also typically developed after extended flight as fuel was consumed. Graf Zeppelin used blau gas as a preferred fuel which weighed almost exactly the same as air, while the USN rigids Akron and Macon had a water recovery system to minimize weight loss as fuel burned. When heavy, the hull of the airship could be made to act like the wing of an airplane, if flown above its stall speed. Graf Zeppelin could carry over two tons heavy when flown at sufficient speed. Far more dangerous was flying significantly light. This required the elevator man to maintain large nose down deflection. If the ship stall in this condition, an uncontrolled pitch up could occur, causing potentially catastrophic bending loads on the frame.

Airships don’t have to worry about engine failure like helicopters do. With a stall speed of zero, airships can free-balloon safely to a soft landing similar to a helicopter auto-gyrating downwards in a one way, short window of safety.

I’m with you but for two issues: using jet power and using airplanes to keep the airship afloat longer. Turboprops would be what you meant I presume for jet engines and they burn each a little as 40 gallons an hour at cruise power for the little and capable PT6A, to more for the Rolls Royce and Allison models. With say, four or five turboprops, that’s 200 gallons an hour, times 48 hours is 9600 gallons of fuel burnt. At roughly 8 pounds a gallon, that’s 76,800 pounds of fuel that was liquid when the ship took off and is now vapor and weightless.

Keeping an airship trim in flight is the greatest challenge to any aviator of LTA. The Germans used to simply valve cheap hydrogen as they flew and became lighter as they burnt fuel. They even resorted to gaseous fuel such as Blau gas to partially power the Graf Zeppelin. Imagine a hydrogen filled airship with cotton gas bags filled with flammable lamp gas. Talk about a flying bomb! The American Navy devised ingenious exhaust gas water recovery apparatus for their zeppelins which worked to great effect, with over 100% efficiency depending on meteorologic conditions. They had to – there was a scarce supply of helium and valving helium for trim purposes was not allowed.

So that begs the question of using lightweight and powerful turbine engines, but thirsty. A large diesel, heavier and less powerful, could burn about 10 to 15 gallons an hour, more than half the fuel burnt by the gas turbine. That’s half the 76,800 pounds of fuel burnt off to account for in trimming the ship. That leads to the second argument – remaining aloft for log periods of time.

Everything on an airship, from crew, passengers, their luggage, clothing, accessories, food, water, drinks, plates, forks, etc, etc must be carried aloft in an airship. It’s a simple exercise in statics. What dead weight that goes up must have equal mass to what the useful lift of the airship is. That is why airships long ago “weighed off” to test their balance before flying. Dropping water ballast to shed pounds to account for unanticipated weight was one way to trim the ship. The ship can create dynamic lift of up to 7500 pounds as long as it was flying at cruise speed. Airplanes also have to watch what they carry aboard like airships did. But with tons of thrust available at the pilots fingertips, they can use their engines to push the extra weight aloft. Airships can’t and thus the challenge of keeping aloft for a long period of time is still daunting.

For airships to work, the concept would be short hops in luxury, flying low for sightseeing and observation of events, sporting contests, etc. The short hops allow liberal use of water and fuel while preserving a balance of static equilibrium. Also, with our shorter attention spans, long distance flight, even in the comfort and luxury of an airship is not possible with most people today. The airship would offer a niche alternate to flying commercially today that would be comparable to what the Concorde was with it’s $5000 per ticket one way fare to cross the Atlantic in two hours versus other airlines charging only $500 in 6 hours. But it can happen, and it will work. Thanks!