Hi Guest!
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> Here's How << 
Also they knew the ship was tail heavy, which should have been a clue of a leak somewhere aft. They could have delayed landing until they had sent some riggers back to figure out where the leak was and possibly repair it, then delay long enough for the gas to dissipate. I thought the static electricity testing was excellent and, while absent physical evidence it doesn't prove 100% what happened, it think it certainly demonstrated that the hypothesized cause was a highly likely possibility.That is such a tragic story, and the latest info from the new camera angles and static discharge testing is fascinating. Eckener was so proud of the Zeppelin company's safety record in over a million miles of passenger service in 27 years - with not one single accident. And then the Lakehurst disaster. It could have been prevented if hydrogen hadn't been the lifting gas, instead of the helium the Hindenburg had been originally meant to use.
Schiff hoch!
This comparison graphic - it makes a 747 look like a toy.It will give you an idea just how big the Hindenburg was.
The fact they had such a stellar safety record before the Lakehurst incident was, in my estimation, a miracle.Been a number of years, but I recall seeing on a PBS Nova I think about Hindenburg, they recreated some of the aluminum based paint used on it and found it was, as they said then, basically painted with rocket fuel as it caught almost immediately after they hit it with a lightening like charge.
Both were built by hand with no technology of any kind (well, at least technology as we know it today).
Peter said:Both were built by hand with no technology of any kind (well, at least technology as we know it today).