On 7/10/2014 10:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 July 2014 06:22, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 7/10/2014 12:59 AM, LizR wrote: Without claiming to be a wiser head, I will still say that you don't use 747s in a green economy! You use airships... And you reduce air traffic by getting almost everyone to telecommute. The trouble with airships is that they slow and they can't handle bad weather. The Shenandoah and the Akron were destroyed stormy weather within 3yrs of being built. The Macon suffered a structural failure mainly due to a design fault. Only the Los Angeles, of the Navy's big airships, served eight years and was decommissioned. The Los Angeles was built by Zepplin and it took 81 hrs to fly from Germany to New Jersey. The Hindenburg, which was the same size but used hydrogen instead of helium for buoyancy, had a crew of 61 and carried 36 passengers. So a ticket was very expensive. Is this still true of airships built using modern technology?
I'm sure there are improvements, but I think those two problems remain. It's obvious that large airship will be hard to control in a storm and they can't fly over them like airliners. They're not going to be much faster, so long distance flights will still require a lot of food and water and passenger support with lot fewer turn arounds per week - so the cost much go up proportionately.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
