FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1916
1916 - 0201.PDF
By R. P. HEARNE. A QUESTION of more than passing interest to us is what load of bombs a Zeppelin can carry. The matter is best treated by an enquiry into the useful load capacity of the Zeppelin, for it is obvious that one factor governs the other. Going back to the 1913 type of Zeppelin, we have data to show that the average useful load capacity was in the region of one-fourth the total "lift. That is, if the gas volume of the vessel gavea total lift of 20 tons, the useful load was about 5 tons, after allowing for the engines and all fixed equipment. Zeppelin Load Capacity. This useful load might be apportioned thus: Crew, 1 ton; fuel, i£ tons ; ballast, i£ tons ; ammunition, 1 ton ; total, 5 tons, or one-fourth total lift. Obviously many changes could be rung on these pro portions. For short raids the fuel load and the crew could be reduced, and the bomb load increased. Ordinary ballast, too, might be replaced to a considerable extent by ammunition, and on various raids bombs, in which the firing-pin has not been released, have actually been thrown overboard for this purpose. Zeppelin Efficiency Ratio. Reverting now to the ratio of useful load, to total lift, it is not difficult to demonstrate that in the later ships a much higher ratio must have been arrived at. In the first place, gas capacity has been increased, thus giving a greater total lift. Zeppelins have now passed the 1,000,000 cubic feet gas capacity, and the gross lift is about 30 tons for the latest naval ships. On the old ratio this would give a net lift of 7-5 tons, and the extra gain of 2^ tons would be applied for increasing the fuel load and the bomb load. A bigger crew would also be required. But this useful load of 7^ tons will not satisfy the re quirements of a ship which makes long distance raids at high speeds, and at the same time can take a big load of ammunition to great heights. The more powerful engines call for a greater consumption of fuel, and to reach altitudes of over 5,000 ft. the ship must have ample capacity for ballast, as in order to rise vertically in the manner of a balloon a Zeppelin must reduce its weight. Climbing Power. The only other way to attain a good height is to climb by engine power, and this entails additional consumption of fuel. It is undoubted that the naval Zeppelin raiders attacking England have been able to attain great altitudes, and this could only be possible by increased efficiency. From various calculations I have arrived at the conclusion that the new Zeppelins have an efficiency ratio of about one-third as compared with the old ratio of one-fourth. That is to say, the latest 30-ton naval Zeppelin has a useful load capacity of 1 o tons. This load will be allocated to crew, fuel, ballast and bombs on a sliding scale which depends on the nature and extent ol each raid. The Ammunition Load. But it looks as if the latest type Zeppelins could upon occasion take nearly four tons of war material, and from this we must allow that it is most unwholesome to have Zeppelins hovering over this country at night. The greater the bomb load capacity the greater is the risk of even some chance projectile hitting a place where appalling loss of life might be occasioned. Increased Accuracy of Attack. To assume that there will be a great degree of inac curacy always in aerial attack upon us is to live in a fool's paradise. No doubt our gun defence will continue to improve, and its direct effect will be to force airships to navigate at higher altitudes, as long as they rely upon bomb dropping. But we must bear in mind the possi bility of aerial torpedoes and shell-throwing guns being carried on aerial vessels, and then an airship may remain four or five miles away from the town it is attacking, and pour in a destructive fire whilst it is out of the range and out of sight of the inner defences of the town. I will return to this theme at another time, for I am concerned now with the size of Zeppelins, and the bearing this matter has upon developments in aerial warfare. At the same time we must not be carried away with the idea that airships (or aeroplanes, for that matter) can be easily and rapidly magnified beyond the dimensions now current. In the abstract, we look rather hastily for developments in size, but experience shows that increased efficiency is more important, and until this high efficiency is attained any great increase in dimen sions is dangerous. At all events, when we start building rigid airships I hope we shall not set out to excel the Zeppelins in dimensions merely. Smaller Ships- The lessons of the war will possibly tend to keep down the size of the Zeppelins, and make for higher efficiency rather than for increased length or girth. There is much to be said for a medium-sized airship of an improved design in which high speed is attainable. Of course, with an airship, to get the necessary initial lifting power we must have a reasonable volume of gas; and the tiny airship stands condemned for military uses, as it has not the requisite lifting power, and consequently cannot take up a powerful engine, and adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. Nevertheless, a better design of rigid airship would give us a super-Zeppelin which in speed and climbing power would far excel the German ships. There are many basic crudities about the Zeppelin, and I am sure, that if we had British builders of rigid airships working on a proper understanding with the Government, we could soon excel the Germans in this branch of engineer ing. All we need is a healthy and well-established industry for the manufacture of airships. Given the facilities to produce, and we need not fear about the articles produced. 201
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
