Zeppelin NT crossing the Atlantic

[Andreas Burkart]

Hi,

Regarding to the article about Airship Ventures, their great success
and the plan to ship the Zeppelin NT to America.

What are the reasons for shipping the airship? And why shipping it inflated?
Why not deconstruct the Zeppelin and waste less space at the transporter?

And there´s always this idea in my mind of an airship, crossing the
Atlantic by its own power. Doing what was done in the last century.
Using the brilliant weather forecast in our days, flying the airship
for most of the distance without engines like a balloon, and maybe
have some ships to get new fuel on the way, wouldn't this work?

Please tell me the reasons for this, kind of boring, shipping.

_______________________________________________
The-List mailing list
The-List@...
http://airshipworld.info/mailman/listinfo/the-list_airshipworld.info

[TURTLEAIRSHIPS]

Two primary reasons:

(1)  the zeppelin NT is not large enough to carry sufficient fuel without considerable re-fitting.  the cost of doing so is not worth it.

(2)  they don't have the confidence needed in their own craft to undertake the risk.   the zeppelin NT that was destroyed in Botswana a few months ago, had been shipped, inflated, on a marine vessel just as this later one is planned to be shipped to San Francisco.   It is unfortunate that these airships may or may not have the strength to make the trip; but it is more unfortunate that they are unwilling to make the effort.

[brunians]

They would prefer to assemble it at the factory. It is not a blimp, where
you can fold up the envelope and ship the car in crates.

They also would prefer not to risk losing their ship before it is
delivered. That would not look good at all.

It is really not a very large airship. The LZ-126/Los Angeles was thought
to be just barely large enough to make it across the Atlantic.


.

> Two primary reasons:
>
> (1)  the zeppelin NT is not large enough to carry sufficient fuel without
> considerable re-fitting.  the cost of doing so is not worth it.
>
> (2)  they don't have the confidence needed in their own craft to undertake
> the risk.   the zeppelin NT that was destroyed in Botswana a few months
> ago,
> had been shipped, inflated, on a marine vessel just as this later one is
> planned to be shipped to San Francisco.   It is unfortunate that these
> airships may or may not have the strength to make the trip; but it is more
> unfortunate that they are unwilling to make the effort.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Zeppelin-NT-crossing-the-Atlantic-tp17184642p17190005.html
> Sent from the The Airshipworld Mailinglist mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The-List mailing list
> The-List@...
> http://airshipworld.info/mailman/listinfo/the-list_airshipworld.info
>

_______________________________________________
The-List mailing list
The-List@...
http://airshipworld.info/mailman/listinfo/the-list_airshipworld.info

[blimpship]

TURTLEAIRSHIPS wrote:

Two primary reasons:

(1)  the zeppelin NT is not large enough to carry sufficient fuel without considerable re-fitting.  the cost of doing so is not worth it.

(2)  they don't have the confidence needed in their own craft to undertake the risk.   the zeppelin NT that was destroyed in Botswana a few months ago, had been shipped, inflated, on a marine vessel just as this later one is planned to be shipped to San Francisco.   It is unfortunate that these airships may or may not have the strength to make the trip; but it is more unfortunate that they are unwilling to make the effort.

Don't really understand either of these points!

1. Why wouldn't it be 'worth it' to create an airship capable of crossing the Atlantic?

2. Are you saying that the shipping was responsible for the crash? and why would you be so ready to put a $10million airship at risk?

[blimpship]

Andreas Burkart wrote:

Please tell me the reasons for this, kind of boring, shipping.

As you'll probably know, the Zeppelin is semi-rigid which means that it has an internal structure unlike blimps which are non-rigid and contain only lift gas. The Zepplin NT has its engines mounted higher than blimps, on the envelope supported by the internal structure.

I have some info (via the Colorado List) that also points to the extremely difficult task of pulling the envelope over the internal structure and then removing all of the air so that the purity of the helium provides maximum lift. The Zeppelin Company have perfected this process in construction but, quite understandably, don't seem too keen on taking one apart, shipping it and then travelling to the other side of the world to put it back together again.

It would seem that the decision to ship these airships is both economic and logical, besides it would be like Airship Ventures getting all excited about opening their Christmas present only to find it in pieces - this is the 'ready-to-go' option.