Comments on: Hindenburg Accident Report: German Investigation Commission

By: James Blauvelt

James Blauvelt — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 03:09:02 +0000

Lots of interesting information here that I was never aware of. The day of the disaster I was a small boy living in Brielle, NJ (about 20 miles from Lakehurst). In the early afternoon I watched what, at that time, I believed to be the Hindenburg pass a little West our home headed towards Lakehurst. As the airship passed it continually discharged a heavy black cloud of smoke from the area by the aft port engine. I wonder if this unusual occurrence had anything to do with the later igniting of escaping gas? At the time I was told that I must be mistaken about the airship’s identity as the Hindenburg burned later that evening and would not have been near Brielle in the early afternoon. I now see that an early afternoon sighting in Brielle was quite possible.

By: Patrick Russell

Patrick Russell — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:13:32 +0000

In reply to Stu.

Stu, there is one thing to bear in mind: the Hindenburg’s tail heaviness began at least 5 minutes BEFORE that final tight turn up to the mast. So, if we are to assume that the tail heaviness and the hydrogen leak were connected, then that sharp turn up to the mast really cannot have contributed to the problem.

If you look at the landing approach map showing all of the gas valvings and ballast drops, you’ll see that they began valving from the forward cells at approximately 7:13 PM, just before the ship crossed back over the air station boundary. I also know from reading the crew’s testimony transcripts that Captain Sammt (who was on watch during the landing) relieved Ludwig Felber at the elevator wheel at about 7:10 or 7:11 and replaced him with Eduard Boetius, a navigator who had more experience on the elevator wheel.

This very strongly suggests to me that the command crew were aware that there was a problem by the time the landing station signal was sounded at 7:10. I honestly can’t tell how long before this they may have suspected that there was something wrong.

But one thing is certain: they were trying to correct the tail heaviness problem long before that final turn up to the mast. In fact, I almost wonder if the turn up to the mast might not have been a RESULT of the tail-heaviness problem. I think it’s very possible that, out of concern over the tail heaviness and a possible gas cell leak, they decided against making an additional circuit of the airfield when they saw that the wind had shifted and that the ground crew had changed position again.

Then again, it may very well just have been that they were delayed and couldn’t afford another 10 minutes of landing time if they were going to get provisioned and turned by midnight or 1 AM.

By: Stu

Stu — Sun, 06 May 2012 17:16:12 +0000

The German engineers certainly deserve credit in the overall design of the Hindenburg and other airships before and after. However, one thing is still unanswered; the uncharacteristic tight turn made to align the ship with the wind at the mast. I am fairly certain, Eckener, if he had command would have simply flow over the mast on an easterly heading, and brought the ship around a wide, easy turn from the northeast. It was very widely known that airships were built to be very light, and therefore were not well-suited to having their hull structures torqued and bent during tight turns. I believe Pruss’ last “S” turn did the Hindenburg in and by stopping the ship after the turn, the lack of headway caused the leaking hydrogen to accumulate in the upper keel by the tail fin. If you look through history, simple little things that are most often overlooked, are the culprits to disasters.

By: Paul Adams

Paul Adams — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 01:24:14 +0000

Thanks for making this available – most interesting!

Personally, I think the evidence of a leak in cell 4 is beyond question, however, I would be surprised if a broken wire caused it, the Germans are far too good engineers for that to happen!