On 11 July 2014 17:26, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/10/2014 10:16 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 11 July 2014 06:22, meekerdb <[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. >
This is true, however I think a "green economy" should not involve a lot of passenger air travel by any method. -- 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.
