The internet is filled with claims that the Hindenburg’s “flammable covering” was the main reason the ship was destroyed by fire in less than a minute. In fact, the Hindenburg was only the last in a long line of hydrogen airships destroyed by fire as a result of their highly flammable lifting gas, and scientific studies show that the Hindenburg’s covering might not have been flammable at all.
For a detailed historical and technical analysis, visit Rocket Fuel, Thermite, and Hydrogen: Myths about the Hindenburg Crash. But perhaps the most obvious and compelling evidence is found in the films and photographs of the disaster.
As you can see in the film, even as the hydrogen flames roared around the covering, the covering itself did not burn right away:
(click to enlarge)
The films shows that even with flames right behind the covering, the fabric itself did not not immediately ignite. Instead, the fabric burned from behind, where the hydrogen fire was roaring:
(click to enlarge)
And even as the zeppelin crashed to the ground, with flames erupting from its nose like a blow torch, the covering had not yet burned: Flames fueled by hydrogen reached the airship’s nose, killing the crewmen stationed in the bow [see diagram], long before the covering on the hull caught on fire.
(click to enlarge)
The following photograph demonstrates that the fire was fueled by the Hindenburg’s hydrogen gas cells and not by its fabric covering. As you can see, the fire progressed from gas cell to gas cell; if it had been the covering which was burning, rather than the gas cells, the fire would have spread evenly from one end of the ship to the other without the momentary pause between gas cells that we see in this photo:
Gas Cells 9 and 10. (The light circle in each image highlights the forward engine car to show the alignment of the two images, and the line separating Cell 9 from Cell 10.)
Airship historian Patrick Russell has suggested that readers pay especially close attention to the following two portions of the film.
From the 12-second mark to the 16-second mark, you can see a tear in the outer covering kicked open by crew members trying to escape the burning ship. Through the tear, you see light from the fire which was blazing in the hydrogen gas cells long before the outer covering finally ignited:
(click to enlarge)
And between the 23-second mark and the 32-second mark, you can see the fabric covering below the passenger compartment, which had still not ignited, even as the rest of the ship was consumed by fire:
(click to enlarge)
The Final Proof
The final proof may be this: Even after a fire so intense that it took less than a minute to destroy an airship the size of almost three football fields, some sections of the covering never burned at all.
Some sections of the Hindenburg's covering never burned at all. (click to enlarge)
Summary
Whether the Hindeburg’s covering was sufficiently flammable to have been the initial source of ignition may be open to reasonable debate. It is possible (although not likely, given the rainy and wet conditions) that the covering was the cause of the initial ignition, but if the Hindenburg had been inflated with helium instead of hydrogen, even a small fire on the outer covering would not have resulted in a major catastrophe.
Hydrogen is a highly volatile, flammable gas under all conditions, and when mixed in certain ratios with air it is even explosive. Claims by hydrogen fuel cell advocates that hydrogen was not responsible for the Hindenburg’s ultimate destruction are nothing less than silly.
For a detailed analysis of Hindenburg’s covering, visit: Rocket Fuel, Thermite, and Hydrogen: Myths about the Hindenburg Crash. And for detailed background about the accident in general, visit: The Hindenburg Disaster.
But for a basic understanding of the “rocket fuel” argument (sometimes called the Incendiary Paint Theory), you just need to look at the films of the crash: If the Hindenburg had been painted with anything as flammable as rocket fuel, its covering would have burned rapidly during the fire, but that simply did not happen.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
thanks so much for this information. have you seen the mythbuster episode where they figured out what made it crash.
[Reply]
wow! this is an information overload. very informative indeed. thanks for sharing
[Reply]
On a slightly unrelated note, how did the stern landing wheel end up where it did, to the right of the wreck in pretty good shape? I’ve noticed that in several photos & it makes me curious.
George Wilson
[Reply]
Before reading this, I had no idea that there existed “myths” about how the Hindenburg went down. I guess general high school chemistry has taught me that hydrogen is extremely flammable, and when you’re not trying to look for reasons that aren’t there, you often put 2 and 2 together.
[Reply]
Dear Dan,
I would like to know more about the Colonel Fritz Erdmann.
What he really doing in the ship.
[Reply]
it is showing a bit of the fabric that is not burnt
[Reply]
all the history is very very interesting, just as the idiotic legends and myths that surround (and try to justify) the destruction of incredible technology. Technology and industry that was providing safe, eco-friendly, economically superior, already existing and proven technology that could NOT be readily “Militarized”
Perhaps the MYTHS and Slanderous lies that destroyed the industry was NOT ACCIDENTAL , NOR merely IGNORANT….
Perhaps the Hindenburg was sabotaged to support the more militarially -promising heavy lift technologies by the Military industrial complex which now controls our populations worldwide ….addicted to oil, and supporting astounding military societies, rather than human beings…. this technology would be vastly superior to the successful peaceful endeavors of our past…. if only our brains could overcome our fear from the miltary industrial terrorists in control.. and their ignorant propaganda. Want to rebuild america with a new technology? …similar to what the internet has done… EASY!! Just develop rigid airship technology.
If the oil-military conglomerate doesn’t destroy you first.
[Reply]
reinhardt Reply:
October 10th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
yes… it seems obvious that the skin was NOT any problem.. nor was the hydrogen (vast record of safe operations worldwide for years) My question is WHY would such nonsense even be published, and by whom…. who would benefit by sabotaging the entire industry… and what technology has been supported to replace the ‘proven-promise’ of the rigid airship. i would welcome even more than a ‘discussion’ ….i would love to see a suggestin along the lines of a company like Virgin Galactic… humans could actually bring back this wondrouse and safe technology…. if we can just get started
[Reply]
Has anyone on this site done experiments with nitrate doped linen? WWI aircraft were wood and covered with nitrate doped linen. That is why they used incendiery ammo to shoot them down. The FAA long ago required Butyrate dopes to cover over the nitrate dope to postpone flammability. The silver dopes applied for UV protection can certainly promote flammability. Remember that this aircraft was moving vertically down and as gas bags were burning as well as the aerodynamic covering the airflow would force the flames upward.
I stopped using nitrate and silver processes long ago to prevent the potential for covering fires in my restorations.
[Reply]
Dan (Airships.net) Reply:
September 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
@ warbirder:
Nitrate dopes (like nitrate film stocks) are known to be highly flammable, which is why they were not used by the designers of the Hindenburg; the designers chose an acetate butyrate solution instead of a nitrate solution for that very reason.
[Reply]
warbirder Reply:
September 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
The linen and butyrate would still burn as evidenced in Ray Stits videos from the 50′s-60′s demonstrating his aircraft covering process.
[Reply]
Dan (Airships.net) Reply:
September 7th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
No-one has suggested that the ship’s covering was not combustible (in other words, that it would not burn).
I am a little confused by your comments: I cannot figure out whether or not you are trying to make a specific point. If you would like to make a specific suggestion about the Hindenburg disaster, it would be very welcome, but please make your point a little more explicit so it will be easier for people to respond (whether in agreement or opposition).
[Reply]
For further proof that the fire was burning inside the ship long before it ignited the cover surrounding it, look for the sudden bright spot between the bow and the bottom of the screen that appears in the newsreel at about the 12 second mark on the video embedded at the end of this article.
What you’re seeing there is a seam in the outer cover just aft of Ring 233 being kicked open by one of the crew members who were unfortunate enough to have been ordered to the bow to help trim the ship several minutes prior to the fire.
Even though the external fire consuming the ship’s bow fabric hasn’t yet spread that far aft, you can clearly see the fire burning inside the hull through this torn seam.
This, of course, corresponds with the Board of Inquiry testimonies of crew survivors Alfred Groezinger and Kurt Bauer, both of whom were stationed a short distance forward of Ring 218, and both of whom stated that they felt the ship shake, looked up, and already saw fire above them either just prior to (Bauer) or simultaneous with (Groezinger) the moment the stern began to drop.
Also, watch the embedded video from the 23-second mark to the 30-second mark. Pay particular attention to the fabric along the bottom of the hull, especially below the passenger observation windows. Most of it stays intact even as the hull collapses to the ground, and the fabric under the passenger windows remains practically untouched until the shot cuts away at the 33-second mark.
[Reply]
It seems the evidence Dan gave here is more than common sense, if there’s still pieces of the skin left on the charred skeleton of the ship after a blaze that intense, one would think that the skin isn’t as flammable as rocket fuel… But some people still believe it.
Now on the second to last picture in the article, what is the highlighted circle on the airship highlighting? Is it just showing one of the engine nacelles?
[Reply]
Dan (Airships.net) Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Thanks for your comment.
And yes, you are correct; the highlighted circle in the next-to-last picture shows the forward engine car, as a way to align the drawing with the photograph.
[Reply]
Tael Neilan Reply:
August 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I actually didn’t notice the highlight on the drawing, that makes a lot of sense now…
[Reply]