FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1922
1922 - 0354.PDF
JUNE 22, 1922 THE 18-TON PARSEVAL SEMI-RIGID AIRSHIP "PL27" A German Experiment of Promise ALTHOUGH built as long ago as 1916, there are several reasons why the Parseval type " PL27," designed and built by the Ltififahrzeug-Gesellschaft of Bitterfeld, is of sufficient interest to merit a fairly detailed description at the present time. In the first place, the airship was one of the largest semi-rigids ever built, being only very slightly smaller than the ill-fated •' Roma," purchased by America from Italy some time ago. Secondly, her design was one representing a considerable departure from previous German non-rigid practice, approach ing, in fact, more to the Italian than to previous German types. In spite of the accident to the " Roma," this type of airship is thought by many to have a very considerable future before it, and it is open to discussion whether the world, led Aeronautical Society that, according to his calculations, six non-rigids, each of 500,000 cubic ft. capacity, could be built for the price of one rigid of 2,000,000 cubic ft. capacity. In other words, with the non-rigid, we should get an extra million cubic ft. capacity for the same money. Then there is the question of useful load. Here again Col. Cave-Browne-Cave indicated that a greater percentage of useful lift is obtained in the non-rigid than in the rigid, owing chiefly to the absence of the hull structure. Thus the. point where the structure weight is no more than 50 per cent, of the total lift is reached in the non-rigid with the half- million cubic ft. ship, whereas in the rigid it is not attained until one comes to sizes of about two million cubic ft. It The Parseval » PL27 " in Flight. by Germany, was right in deciding in favour of the rigid type of ship. In Germany at the present time, there is a strong opinion that the limits in non-rigid and semi-rigid airships have in no way been reached, and certainly one could enumerate several advantages which these types possess as against the rigid. One very important item is that of cost, and in this respect the non-rigid, and, to a somewhat smaller extent perhaps, the semi-rigid, compares very favourably indeed with the rigid. The very expensive Duralumin framework is avoided, which at once means a great saving. Col. Cave- Browne-Cave, one of our soundest, and certainly our most persistent and eloquent advocate of the non-rigid airship, stated in one of his admirable lectures before the Roj-al would, therefore, appear that we may have been on the wrong track in pinning our faith almost exclusively to the rigid type. With things as they are at present, the question of the pur chase, running and upkeep of a rigid is a big item. It is, at least, open to doubt whether we should not be better advised in making a start on airship services with types other than the rigid. As regards safety, there is probably little to choose between the types, and the non-rigid, apart from the advantages already outlined, has another in that, when not in use, it can be deflated and stored away in the corner of a shed. A rigid airship occupies as much space when deflated as it does when inflated. Furthermore, in the case of a forced landing, the non-rigid, and the semi-rigid which has its THE PARSEVAL » PL27 View of the forward portion of the ship, showing the control car, etc, bumping bag under the car. 354 Note the
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
