Chad Goodwin
Member
I am just amazed that people survived.....several survived without even a hint of a burn.........
-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Do you have a passion that rivals your Titanic interest
- Thread starter Tarn Stephanos
- Start date
Arun Vajpey
Member
>>>>>> Of course the Hindenburg played a major role in that decision! <<<<<
That and World War 2, which paradoxically made the airplane a 'norm' in people's minds to such an extent that it was simply a switch from military to civilian air traffic afterwards. Airships, other than use for barrage balloons, were not an option for WW2; and so all aspects of aviation, including personnel, developed enormously out of necessity during the War. When it was over, there was simply too much talent, skill and technology available to even think about going back to the airship.
If helium had been available more widely outside the US, notably to the Germans who seemed to have special skills with airship technology, the whole concept would have made greater progress in the 1930s, perhaps enough to have limited commercial life after the war. But we'll never know now, will we?
That and World War 2, which paradoxically made the airplane a 'norm' in people's minds to such an extent that it was simply a switch from military to civilian air traffic afterwards. Airships, other than use for barrage balloons, were not an option for WW2; and so all aspects of aviation, including personnel, developed enormously out of necessity during the War. When it was over, there was simply too much talent, skill and technology available to even think about going back to the airship.
If helium had been available more widely outside the US, notably to the Germans who seemed to have special skills with airship technology, the whole concept would have made greater progress in the 1930s, perhaps enough to have limited commercial life after the war. But we'll never know now, will we?
George L. Lorton
Member
True Chad! I was under the impression myself that a lot of folks were seriously injured in the Hindenburg Explosion when I first started studying it and was amazed that a lot People escaped so lightly which is a good thing!!
Arun, That also played a part as well. Actually speaking of Helium I'm under the impression that Germany tried to obtain some from the US but were unable to forcing them to use Hydrogen with disastrous results!
Arun, That also played a part as well. Actually speaking of Helium I'm under the impression that Germany tried to obtain some from the US but were unable to forcing them to use Hydrogen with disastrous results!
Michael H. Standart
Member
The thing about the airplane as opposed to the airship is that they were reletively cheap, and decidedly more rugged. There were never really a lot of airships which made it into service in the first place, and a lot of them for one reason or another flat out failed to survive.
Whether this would have changed over the long haul is anybody's guess. Had a war not intervened, development might well have carried on a lot further then it did. While I'm confident that these craft could and would have been made better and safer over time, they one area in which they could not, and cannot to this day compete, is the sheer speed possible with heavier then air aircraft. That's why ultimately, the airship still would have been a technological dead end. It just can't get you there faster whereas an airplane can.
We may yet see the rebirth of the SST as a viable form of air transport, and possibly even suborbital craft which can get you halfway around the world in 90 minutes. You'll never see that happen with an airship.
Whether this would have changed over the long haul is anybody's guess. Had a war not intervened, development might well have carried on a lot further then it did. While I'm confident that these craft could and would have been made better and safer over time, they one area in which they could not, and cannot to this day compete, is the sheer speed possible with heavier then air aircraft. That's why ultimately, the airship still would have been a technological dead end. It just can't get you there faster whereas an airplane can.
We may yet see the rebirth of the SST as a viable form of air transport, and possibly even suborbital craft which can get you halfway around the world in 90 minutes. You'll never see that happen with an airship.
Arun Vajpey
Member
>>>>> Actually speaking of Helium I'm under the impression that Germany tried to obtain some from the US but were unable to forcing them to use Hydrogen with disastrous results!<<<<<
Yes, that's true. Hitler was not exactly popular in the US even when the country was neutral. That did not stop Hugo Eckener from trying though.
Yes, that's true. Hitler was not exactly popular in the US even when the country was neutral. That did not stop Hugo Eckener from trying though.
George L. Lorton
Member
Poor fellow! Poor Hindenburg passengers as well!
Arun Vajpey
Member
>>>>> Arun, your speaking about Hitler reminded me of seeing newsreel footage of everyday Americans giving the Nazi Salute to the dead crew of the Hindenburg as they filed past them. <<<<<
I suspect that it might have been a mocking gesture, considering that Hitler tried to use the Hindenburg as a propaganda tool. 1937 was still peacetime even in Europe (though with hindsight, most of that "peace" was for appearances only) and so the position of the US was not much different from that of Britain. While the average American was not keen on his/her country becoming involved in another conflict in Europe, he/she did not think any more of the Nazis than the average Brit or Frenchman at the time, the activities of "the Bund" notwithstanding.
I suspect that it might have been a mocking gesture, considering that Hitler tried to use the Hindenburg as a propaganda tool. 1937 was still peacetime even in Europe (though with hindsight, most of that "peace" was for appearances only) and so the position of the US was not much different from that of Britain. While the average American was not keen on his/her country becoming involved in another conflict in Europe, he/she did not think any more of the Nazis than the average Brit or Frenchman at the time, the activities of "the Bund" notwithstanding.
George L. Lorton
Member
Yes, America was in an isolationist mood! Perhaps some of the people filing past were mocking the Nazi's although some probably did it as a sign of sympathy for the crew not because the average American liked Nazi's so much but felt sorry about what had happened to the Crew! A lot of Americans also had relatives in Germany or were of German descent so there might of been interest in what was happening in Germany but a lot of Americans were caught of in the daily task of living and some didn't look kindly to Germany because of the Great War. I think all of this plus what you said played a factor.
Evgueni Mlodik
Member
Hmm... For me, I guess it is rivalled by (and this is really random) Empress Elisabeth of Austria (the person, I mean!)
I am also fascinated with the Lusitania, Empress of Ireland, Andrea Doria, Hindenburg.... But not as much as the Titanic and Kaiserin Sisi.
I am also fascinated with the Lusitania, Empress of Ireland, Andrea Doria, Hindenburg.... But not as much as the Titanic and Kaiserin Sisi.
Arun Vajpey
Member
Another potentially interesting drama, including for a film, is the sequence of events leading up to the crash of JAL 123 in 1985. The plane's rear pressure bulkhead failed soon after reaching cruising altitude and the resulting explosive decompression ripped off the vertical stabiliser and severed all the hydraulic lines. Even though rendered almost completely out of control as a result, the plane flew on for 32 minutes in an irregular phugoid cycle before crashing into a mountain. There were many survivors initially but most gradually died during the night while waiting for help in that remote area. Finally only 4 out of over 500 lived to tell the tale.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Finally only 4 out of over 500 lived to tell the tale.<<
Which is a shame but still quite a testiment to the amazing airmanship of the pilots of that aircraft. Flying any large aircraft sans hydraulics is no mean feat. Doing it with a beast as large as a 747 was nothing short of incredible!
Which is a shame but still quite a testiment to the amazing airmanship of the pilots of that aircraft. Flying any large aircraft sans hydraulics is no mean feat. Doing it with a beast as large as a 747 was nothing short of incredible!
Arun Vajpey
Member
>>>>> Which is a shame but still quite a testiment to the amazing airmanship of the pilots of that aircraft. Flying any large aircraft sans hydraulics is no mean feat. Doing it with a beast as large as a 747 was nothing short of incredible!<<<<<<
You can say that again. During the subsequent investigation, they tried several times to simulate the situation and none of the "expert" pilots involved could even come close to the 32 minutes managed in real live by those two Jap pilots.
Apparently, they managed to keep the plane aloft using just engine power. During the nose down phase of the phugoid cycle, they increased power to bring the nose back up and vice versa. They also managed slight turns by creating a power differential between the right and left engines. But without a vertical stabiliser they could not control the yaw and so the overall direction of the plane. Even then they might just have pulled off a miraculous ditching at sea and since by then Air-Sea rescue were on full alert, the result might even have turned out very favourable. But unfortunately, despite the pilots best efforts, the plane turned back towards land and flew into a mountain
You can say that again. During the subsequent investigation, they tried several times to simulate the situation and none of the "expert" pilots involved could even come close to the 32 minutes managed in real live by those two Jap pilots.
Apparently, they managed to keep the plane aloft using just engine power. During the nose down phase of the phugoid cycle, they increased power to bring the nose back up and vice versa. They also managed slight turns by creating a power differential between the right and left engines. But without a vertical stabiliser they could not control the yaw and so the overall direction of the plane. Even then they might just have pulled off a miraculous ditching at sea and since by then Air-Sea rescue were on full alert, the result might even have turned out very favourable. But unfortunately, despite the pilots best efforts, the plane turned back towards land and flew into a mountain
Jim Kalafus
Member
One of the most disturbing pieces of stage drama you are ever likely to see is Charlie Victor Romeo (C.V.R. = Cockpit Voice Recorder) which is a literal re-enactment of the events leading up to six major plane crashes. JAL is one of them.
This sounds like a tacky, "gimmick" play, (like "Amy Fisher: the Musical") but isn't.
http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/181953-1.html
A forgotten major crash took place over my magically accursed hometown of Carmel NY, back in 1965. Two passenger planes collided over us. One, damaged but controllable, managed to return to NYC. The other, an Eastern Airlines flight, slammed into a mountain about ten miles east of here, near Danbury, Connecticut. In a case that illustrates, beautifully, what a crew can do with passengers if they work together cohesively, in the few minutes that the Eastern plane had left to live, the passengers were so well prepped on what to do if the hull survived impact that all but three on board DID survive the crash and subsequent fire. Unfortunately, the captain stayed with the plane too long and died of smoke inhalation.
Speaking of Japanese plane crashes. One of the creepiest news photos of all time is a shot of the charred remains of a crashed passenger jet on the ground at Narita Airport, Tokyo. Directly behind it, on the taxiway, is a jet filled with American tourists that less than an hour later would be literally torn apart by turbulence over Mt. Fuji. Equally odd is that the Fuji crash gave us the only known passenger POV of the interior of a plane in the course of an unsurvivable crash. A home movie camera was recovered intact. Someone was filming scenery thru their window at the moment the rear of the plane failed. The camera swings, violently, away from the window, shows a brief view of cabin interior and seatbacks, and then shuts off.
I think that the WORST plane crash movie, worse even than Airport 1979: the Concorde, was the one loosely based on the 1989 Sioux City crash, "Fearless." Patrick Swayze plays a man with a terrible allergy to strawberries who is rendered both Fearless and suicidally risk taking after surviving what is obviously the Sioux City crash. Hell, he even eats a strawberry! Rosie Perez plays a mother who, like a couple who survived Sioux City, is both angry and guilt ridden because she lost her baby, "Bubble," in the crash. (Mothers were told to hold on to their infants and not to strap them to seats. When the plane cartwheeled, nearly all of them lost their grips) Anyway, to make a long story short, Swayze gets the guilt ridden Perez into a car. And has her hold a toolbox that weighs as much as the late Bubble. He then drives straight at a brick wall at warp speed (being FEARLESS he can do that!) but slams on the brakes at the last microsecond. Momentum yanks Bubble The Toolbox out of Perez's arms and sends him thru the windshield. She then realizes that her son's death was not her fault, she could not possibly have held him under the circumstances, and so begins the healing process.
My review at the time was WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST SIT THRU?
Well done, but disturbing, is Fire and Rain, a factually correct film about the Dallas L-1011 windshear crash (Copilot's last cheerful words as they flew into the thunderstorm while attempting to land: "Looks like we're gonna get our plane washed.") With Robert "Benson" Guillaume as a medical examiner; Tom "Happy Days" Bosley as the father whose college age son got decapitated when the L-1011's wing sliced the roof off of his Toyota; Patti "Lady Marmalade" LaBelle as a nervous woman who has never flown before (she survives) and a cast of B-list celebrities, it seems like it SHOULD be camp and painfully stupid, but isn't. It works as drama. The cast, which on paper reads as if it SHOULD be a recipe for disaster, works.
Sadly, one of the best plane crash books, Crash, about the 1972 L-1011 crash in the Everglades, was made into one of the worst of the fatal crash films. One of the greatest stupidd lines of all time comes when a rescuer encounters his first injured victim in the swamp and asks "Are you from the plane?"
Best Eastern 401 site:
http://eastern401.googlepages.com/investigation
I've shamelessly linked you to the page on which my work appears, but read the entire site. It's great, and, again, the fellow who runs it is a researcher of the highest quality. Oh, and check out the photo of the stewardesses on the above link. It was taken on the afternoon of the crash. During the freaky, psychic obsessed, 1970s, some mileage was gotten out of the fact that the only two stewardesses who died in the crash were the butt of the practical jokes in this snapshot.
This sounds like a tacky, "gimmick" play, (like "Amy Fisher: the Musical") but isn't.
http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/181953-1.html
A forgotten major crash took place over my magically accursed hometown of Carmel NY, back in 1965. Two passenger planes collided over us. One, damaged but controllable, managed to return to NYC. The other, an Eastern Airlines flight, slammed into a mountain about ten miles east of here, near Danbury, Connecticut. In a case that illustrates, beautifully, what a crew can do with passengers if they work together cohesively, in the few minutes that the Eastern plane had left to live, the passengers were so well prepped on what to do if the hull survived impact that all but three on board DID survive the crash and subsequent fire. Unfortunately, the captain stayed with the plane too long and died of smoke inhalation.
Speaking of Japanese plane crashes. One of the creepiest news photos of all time is a shot of the charred remains of a crashed passenger jet on the ground at Narita Airport, Tokyo. Directly behind it, on the taxiway, is a jet filled with American tourists that less than an hour later would be literally torn apart by turbulence over Mt. Fuji. Equally odd is that the Fuji crash gave us the only known passenger POV of the interior of a plane in the course of an unsurvivable crash. A home movie camera was recovered intact. Someone was filming scenery thru their window at the moment the rear of the plane failed. The camera swings, violently, away from the window, shows a brief view of cabin interior and seatbacks, and then shuts off.
I think that the WORST plane crash movie, worse even than Airport 1979: the Concorde, was the one loosely based on the 1989 Sioux City crash, "Fearless." Patrick Swayze plays a man with a terrible allergy to strawberries who is rendered both Fearless and suicidally risk taking after surviving what is obviously the Sioux City crash. Hell, he even eats a strawberry! Rosie Perez plays a mother who, like a couple who survived Sioux City, is both angry and guilt ridden because she lost her baby, "Bubble," in the crash. (Mothers were told to hold on to their infants and not to strap them to seats. When the plane cartwheeled, nearly all of them lost their grips) Anyway, to make a long story short, Swayze gets the guilt ridden Perez into a car. And has her hold a toolbox that weighs as much as the late Bubble. He then drives straight at a brick wall at warp speed (being FEARLESS he can do that!) but slams on the brakes at the last microsecond. Momentum yanks Bubble The Toolbox out of Perez's arms and sends him thru the windshield. She then realizes that her son's death was not her fault, she could not possibly have held him under the circumstances, and so begins the healing process.
My review at the time was WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST SIT THRU?
Well done, but disturbing, is Fire and Rain, a factually correct film about the Dallas L-1011 windshear crash (Copilot's last cheerful words as they flew into the thunderstorm while attempting to land: "Looks like we're gonna get our plane washed.") With Robert "Benson" Guillaume as a medical examiner; Tom "Happy Days" Bosley as the father whose college age son got decapitated when the L-1011's wing sliced the roof off of his Toyota; Patti "Lady Marmalade" LaBelle as a nervous woman who has never flown before (she survives) and a cast of B-list celebrities, it seems like it SHOULD be camp and painfully stupid, but isn't. It works as drama. The cast, which on paper reads as if it SHOULD be a recipe for disaster, works.
Sadly, one of the best plane crash books, Crash, about the 1972 L-1011 crash in the Everglades, was made into one of the worst of the fatal crash films. One of the greatest stupidd lines of all time comes when a rescuer encounters his first injured victim in the swamp and asks "Are you from the plane?"
Best Eastern 401 site:
http://eastern401.googlepages.com/investigation
I've shamelessly linked you to the page on which my work appears, but read the entire site. It's great, and, again, the fellow who runs it is a researcher of the highest quality. Oh, and check out the photo of the stewardesses on the above link. It was taken on the afternoon of the crash. During the freaky, psychic obsessed, 1970s, some mileage was gotten out of the fact that the only two stewardesses who died in the crash were the butt of the practical jokes in this snapshot.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>I think that the WORST plane crash movie, worse even than Airport 1979: the Concorde, was the one loosely based on the 1989 Sioux City crash, "Fearless." <<
Which rip off is also a shame since the real story needs no fictionalization. The DC-10 was rendered essentially unflyable after the failure of the blades in the fan disc cut through all of the hydraulic lines which operated the control surfaces. That managed to even make it to final approach at Sioux City was a feat of airmanship which nobody else was able to duplicate in subsequent simulator trials.
Which rip off is also a shame since the real story needs no fictionalization. The DC-10 was rendered essentially unflyable after the failure of the blades in the fan disc cut through all of the hydraulic lines which operated the control surfaces. That managed to even make it to final approach at Sioux City was a feat of airmanship which nobody else was able to duplicate in subsequent simulator trials.
Jim Kalafus
Member
Another great aircrash movie bad moment. Ghost of Flight 401. Airline honcho goes to gate at Miami airport, where families of the crashed passengers are unknowingly waiting for them. He tells the female gate agent that the plane is down. She says "Oh my god" with JUST the inflection a party hostess would use when she was informed that she forgot to thaw out the pre-made clam dip. Then there is a cut to a shot of a loudspeaker from which issues "May I have your attention, please! Flight 401 has crashed in the Everglades." and we briefly hear the sounds of relatives begining to react before we cut to another scene. It's a sequence worthy of Airplane, and it is 100% serious.
>Apparently, they managed to keep the plane aloft using just engine power.
It seems that the Turkish Air crew NEARLY pulled off the same feat, Paris, March 1974. In that case, it appears that the plane pulled out of its 77 second death dive about 10 seconds too late. From comments on the CVR, it seems that Captain Berkioz had the idea of using airspeed and engine power to regain control of his crippled plane. The nose HAD pulled out of the dive, and the plavne was almost on an even keel when it collided with the treetops at nearly 500 MPH and disintegrated.
Which, of itself, makes for a great film. DC-10 is designed. Engineers say that the cabin does not have enough venting capability, and that in the case of a survivable hull rupture, the floor will collapse and sever the controls underneath it. The first time a DC-10 is pressure tested, a badly designed cargo door blows out, and the cabin floor collapses, just as predicted.
Some modifications are made. The DC-10 is introduced. Then, an almost-new DC-10 has its cargo door blow out over Windsor, Ontario, sending luggage and a coffin from the cargo hold raining down on to a farm field. The cabin floor partially collapses, leaving passengers suspended over an open door about 10,000 feet up. Not all controls have been severed, and the crew does all the correct things and lands the badly damaged craft.
DC-10's makers then reach an infamous "Gentlemen's agreement" with the FAA. The cargo door problem will be dealt with "in house" if the FAA does not issue a revenue threatening, bad publicity generating, mandate on the cargo door issue.
Ttwo years later, a cargo door that somehow slipped thru the cracks, blows out about seven minutes after takeoff from Paris. This time, the cabin floor DOES entirely collapse, severing all controls and ejecting six passengers, strapped to their seats, out the cargo door into a 12,000 foot free fall. The remaining 340 people on the plane are subjected to a straight-at-the-ground dive, at airspeeds approaching 500MPH. In the last seconds, the bow comes up and it seems that the crisis is coming under control. Then of course the plane crashes, with at least 346 fatalities.
It would make a great, if bleak, film about the corporate mentality of the 1950s-late 1970s. This crash, the Ford Pinto, Chevy Corvair and a few other scandals that all seemed to "break" at once made it harder for corporations to maintain the old "What's Good for General Motors is Good For the Country" outlook.
>Apparently, they managed to keep the plane aloft using just engine power.
It seems that the Turkish Air crew NEARLY pulled off the same feat, Paris, March 1974. In that case, it appears that the plane pulled out of its 77 second death dive about 10 seconds too late. From comments on the CVR, it seems that Captain Berkioz had the idea of using airspeed and engine power to regain control of his crippled plane. The nose HAD pulled out of the dive, and the plavne was almost on an even keel when it collided with the treetops at nearly 500 MPH and disintegrated.
Which, of itself, makes for a great film. DC-10 is designed. Engineers say that the cabin does not have enough venting capability, and that in the case of a survivable hull rupture, the floor will collapse and sever the controls underneath it. The first time a DC-10 is pressure tested, a badly designed cargo door blows out, and the cabin floor collapses, just as predicted.
Some modifications are made. The DC-10 is introduced. Then, an almost-new DC-10 has its cargo door blow out over Windsor, Ontario, sending luggage and a coffin from the cargo hold raining down on to a farm field. The cabin floor partially collapses, leaving passengers suspended over an open door about 10,000 feet up. Not all controls have been severed, and the crew does all the correct things and lands the badly damaged craft.
DC-10's makers then reach an infamous "Gentlemen's agreement" with the FAA. The cargo door problem will be dealt with "in house" if the FAA does not issue a revenue threatening, bad publicity generating, mandate on the cargo door issue.
Ttwo years later, a cargo door that somehow slipped thru the cracks, blows out about seven minutes after takeoff from Paris. This time, the cabin floor DOES entirely collapse, severing all controls and ejecting six passengers, strapped to their seats, out the cargo door into a 12,000 foot free fall. The remaining 340 people on the plane are subjected to a straight-at-the-ground dive, at airspeeds approaching 500MPH. In the last seconds, the bow comes up and it seems that the crisis is coming under control. Then of course the plane crashes, with at least 346 fatalities.
It would make a great, if bleak, film about the corporate mentality of the 1950s-late 1970s. This crash, the Ford Pinto, Chevy Corvair and a few other scandals that all seemed to "break" at once made it harder for corporations to maintain the old "What's Good for General Motors is Good For the Country" outlook.
Similar threads
