Zeppelins in 1916

[Tom Morgan]

A couple of technical questions, which I hope someone will know the answers to.......................

When a Zeppelin took off, it did so by releasing ballast (water, I think). When it landed it did so by releasing some of its gas. Obviously it carried enough gas and ballast to enable it to take off at the start of its flight, and come down again at the end. The question is - if a Zeppelin had to land away from its base because of some emergency, would it be able to take off again? And land again? (From a ballast/gas point of view).

The second question - am I right in believing that the big 1916 models had mechanics permanently on duty in the engine gondolas to effect repairs and adjustments while the ship was in flight?

As always, I'll be grateful for any answers.

Tom

[Smithmaps]

Tom

It's more complicated than that, in flight they used fuel (ballast) and therefore became lighter. Therefore they had to release extra gas to compensate.

I believe they would top up with gas if they stopped, and of course fuel, needing more gas again.

Later ships like the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenberg, devised clever ways of counteracting this.

The Graf Zeppelin, ran on Blaugas, in gas bags instead of petrol. Blaugas weighed about the same as air, so no weight was lost as it flew, conserving gas.

They also flew very low (500ft generally) in commercial use, to avoid using gas, as it expands and vents with height.

The Hindenberg, and Graf Zeppelin 2, had condensors and litterally guttering to collect water from the atmosphere in flight, thus adding weight to compensate for the fuel usage. If it flew into rain, it collected water.

The whole thing was a very fine balance, I have seen pictures of the Graf Zeppelin, touching the water in the Arctic circle. Clearly she was able to get airborne again, probably with the power of the engines.

The WW1 ships, which flew high, could probably only come down, and not up again, as to fly high, they vented a great deal of gas.

I don't know about the engine crew.

Cheers

Guy

[centurion]

The WW1 ships, which flew high, could probably only come down, and not up again, as to fly high, they vented a great deal of gas.

I didn't realise that to gain altitude you vented gas - I always thought you dropped ballast.

Although they were rigid airships the internal gas cells weren't and some allowance was made for expansion as altitude was gained. The height lifters were designed so that the need to vent gas when rising to altitude was minimised. When not in an emergency situation (eg being attacked) airships gained and lost altitude in a very similar way that submarines did (ie using the aerial equivalent of hydroplanes). The biggest need to vent gas would be when the bombs were dropped.

[Tom Morgan]

Thanks both, for your interesting comments. Guy - I hadn't considered the fuel being slowly used up, and thus gradually lightening the ship.

(I'm still considering the pros and cons of the alleged emergency landing, repair and take-off in the Midlands in 1916 - hence my question. )

Tom

[Smithmaps]

Tom

In an emergency, they could always dump equipment/bombs etc

They would chuck machine guns over the side too, if they were in trouble. I seem to remember the one that went down to Africa did that.

Guy

[Tom Morgan]

Guy - dumping heavy stuff like guns and bombs would certainly help in certain circumstances. But there's a thought....

This particular ship is supposed to have landed without any support and taken off again without getting rid of its bombs. A bit risky, I would say, quite apart from considerations of bouyancy!

Tom

[centurion]

A bit risky, I would say,

Landing any airship, rigid or non rigid, was a risky operation, before post war mooring towers,and required a sizable ground handling crew. A the ship lost speed it also lost any steering and could be blown around by any wind. The ground handling crew grab hold of cables etc before it touched down and helped turn it around into wind and fasten it down (or walk it into the hanger). With something as big as a Zepp this required a lot of men - the idea that someone could just shin down a ladder and tie it to a tree is, frankly, ludicrous.

If there is any truth to the story I would think, as I've said before, some one confused the landing of a British sea scout non rigid airship at one of the dispersed landing points. As photos show these were sometimes positioned where stands of trees acted as wind breaks. Some one unfamiliar with airships and watching from a distance might think that it was tied to a tree. Even with these relatively small craft (2 man crew) the thing was pretty big and did need a pre prepared and positioned ground crew..

[Adrian Roberts]

This particular ship is supposed to have landed without any support and taken off again without getting rid of its bombs. A bit risky, I would say, quite apart from considerations of bouyancy!

As we discussed in another recent thread, there is also the incident of the L23 alighting on the sea, (or getting very close to it) in order to send a boarding party to the Norwegian vessel that it capture). So it must have been possible. Presumably whether or not landing and taking off in these early ships was possible, depended on how much ballast you had dropped already (if you had none left you couldn't lighten it any further except by throwing equipment overboard), and whether you had had to vent much gas previously. And as has also been said, to some extent you could use dynamic lift with the forward motion of the ship with the elevators slightly up.

[centurion]

In the maritine circumstance the problem was easier as the ship did not have to touch downbut could face into wind with its engines going and effectively hover. Even if the wind did blow it around a little there would be nothing fro it to hit. On land with an actual touch down is quite another question. Once down but not secured it faces the same problam as a gigantic free balloon unless its landed so hard as to be grounded. The size of crew needed to safely secure a Zepp exceeded its flight crew by quite a margin.

[centurion]

It might be useful to look at how an airship was actualy landed.

From The Wartime Experiences of Sir Lionel Hooke

"Landing an airship required considerable concentration by the commander and a well coordinated ground handling party. In calm conditions the S.S. Zeros could be hauled down by a few strong men, but the big Coastals were usually hauled down with the aid of a mechanical winch. A ground crew of at least twelve (and preferably more) men was needed to manoeuvre them safely on the ground. The landing approach had to be made into wind, so as to reduce the way on the ship. When at about 200 feet, landing ropes were dropped to the landing party and the airship gradually hauled down until it was possible to "walk" it to its mooring spot, or into the hangar. During this operation a number of side-ropes were also used to maintain lateral stability of the ship. One of the hazards of a light landing was the possibility that members of the ground crew could be carried aloft if the ship suddenly rose into the air again. It was, therefore, imperative for all members of the ground crew to keep a sharp eye on the C.P.O. in charge. Every man followed the rule that, if he could not see anyone else holding on, he immediately released his own hold on the landing rope. This is just one of the reasons why it was important to have properly trained and experienced men in the ground handling parties. Harking back, for a moment, to my training days at Cranwell, I remember one of our instructors always made a great issue of the safety precautions necessary to avoid being carried aloft. Strangely enough, he was later killed when he failed to observe these precautions himself and fell from a considerable height."

This was with the non rigid types much much smaller than the rigids but the system was essentially the same - just a much bigger ground crew. You just didn't casually touch down in them!

[Adrian Roberts]

Every man followed the rule that, if he could not see anyone else holding on, he immediately released his own hold on the landing rope. This is just one of the reasons why it was important to have properly trained and experienced men in the ground handling parties. Harking back, for a moment, to my training days at Cranwell, I remember one of our instructors always made a great issue of the safety precautions necessary to avoid being carried aloft. Strangely enough, he was later killed when he failed to observe these precautions himself and fell from a considerable height."

This happened all too often. A senior officer, Wing Commander C M Waterlow was killed in July 1917 when he hung onto the rope too long - he may have been the officer that Hooke mentions. And there was in incident involving one of the American Rigids post-war, when a considerable number of men were carried aloft and fell one by one without the crew realising they were there.