USS Akron and USS Macon

USS Macon in Flight

The United States Navy airships U.S.S. Akron (ZRS-4) and U.S.S. Macon (ZRS-5) were designed for long-range scouting in support of fleet operations. Often referred to as flying aircraft carriers, each ship carried F9C-2 Curtiss Sparrowhawk biplanes which could be launched and recovered in flight, greatly extending the range over which the Akron and Macon could scout the open ocean for enemy vessels.

[Read more about the operational history of USS Akron]

[Review a list of the officers and men of the Akron and Macon.]

The Akron and Macon as Flying Aircraft Carriers

Both Akron and Macon were designed as airborne aircraft carriers, which could launch and recover heavier-than-air planes for use in both reconnaissance and self-defense.

N2Y-1 training plane beneath trapeze and T-shaped opening of Akron's hangar deck

N2Y-1 training plane beneath trapeze and T-shaped opening of Akron’s hangar deck

The ships were equipped with hangars, approximately 75′ long x 60′ wide x 16′ high, which could stow and service up to five aircraft in flight. Aircraft were launched and retrieved by means of a trapeze, and could enter and exit the hangar though a large T-shaped opening at the bottom of the hull.

F9C-2 Sparrowhawk seen though hangar deck opening at bottom of hull

F9C-2 Sparrowhawk seen though hangar deck opening at bottom of hull

The capacity to embark and deploy fixed-wing aircraft was the essential element of Akron and Macon’s ability to serve as naval scouts. Airplanes greatly increased the range and area over which the airship could search for the enemy, but also addressed the airship’s own inherent weakness; its vulnerability to attack. The giant airships made large, slow targets which were highly vulnerable to destruction by an enemy’s planes.

Although the Navy originally envisioned the airships as scouting vessels which carried airplanes for fighter defense, over time (and over the objection of officers like Charles Rosendahl) the Navy eventually realized that the vulnerable airship itself was best employed in the background, out of sight of the enemy; the airship’s function would be to carry scouting planes within range of the enemy. As naval airship doctrine eventually developed, rather than the airplane extending the scouting range of the airship, it was the airship which extended the scouting range of the airplane.

USS Macon Launching and Recovering Aircraft

USS Macon Launching and Recovering Aircraft

Development of the Akron and Macon

The Akron and Macon grew out of the Five Year Plan proposed by the U. S. Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, which had been approved by the United States Congress in 1926, and which authorized the construction of two large rigid airships.

The Navy contest to design and build the two new ships was won by the Goodyear-Zeppelin Corporation, a joint venture and patent sharing arrangement between the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin and the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Corporation which had been created in 1923.  (There was no serious competition for the contract, and it was clear to everyone involved in the process that Goodyear-Zeppelin was the only firm with the ability to design and construct these ships for the Navy.)  Goodyear-Zeppelin and the United States Navy signed a contract for the construction of two large rigid airships on October 16, 1928.

F9C-2 hooking on trapeze (left) and stowerd in hangar deck (right)

F9C-2 hooked on trapeze (left) and stowed on hangar deck (right)

akron-070web

Structural Design of the Akron and Macon

As part of the Goodyear-Zeppelin arrangement, the Luftshiffbau Zeppelin had sent technical experts to Akron to train Goodyear employees in the design and construction of airships. Goodyear president Paul Litchfield had insisted that the Zeppelin Company’s chief stress engineer, Karl Arnstein, be included in that group, and in November, 1924 Arnstein arrived in Akron along with a team of 12 hand-picked Zeppelin engineers. It was under Arnstein’s leadership that Goodyear-Zeppelin developed the plans which became the USS Akron and USS Macon.

USS Macon under construction

USS Macon under construction

Arnstein’s design was radically different from the conventional zeppelin designs he had worked on at Friedrichshafen. No longer under the direction of the conservative Ludwig Durr, the Zeppelin Company’s chief designer since the LZ-2 of 1906, Arnstein was free to develop new designs and techniques for Akron and Macon.

“Deep Rings”

Traditional zeppelin design featured a series of main rings built of a single braced girder, which were generally spaced 15 meters apart with unbraced rings in between.  Arnstein’s design for Akron and Macon utilized a series of “deep rings,” which which were large triangular structures — similar to the keel — spaced 22.5 meters apart.

Design of main rings of Hindenburg (left) and Akron/Macon (right)

Design of main rings of Hindenburg (left) and Akron/Macon (right)

Arnstein’s deep-ring, three-keel structure was considerably heavier than the framework of a traditional German zeppelin, but it was also believed to provide greater structural strength, which was very appealing to a Navy which had just seen the USS Shenandoah crash after suffering in-flight structural failure during a storm.

Structural design of Akron/Macon, from "The Story of the Airship" by Hugh Allen.

Structural design of Akron/Macon, from “The Story of the Airship” by Hugh Allen.

The deep-ring design also accommodated a Navy requirement that all areas of the structure be accessible during flight; the 8-foot deep rings were large enough for a man to climb their entire circumference.

Three Keel Design

Triple keels design of Akron/Macon

Triple keel design of Akron/Macon

Traditional zeppelin design was built around a single structural keel running the length of the ship along the bottom of the hull. Arnstein’s design was radically different, and featured three large triangular keels; one at the top of the ship, and two on either side at a 45 degree angle from the bottom of the hull. The main keel, at the top of the ship, provided access to the valves for the gas cells, and the two lower keels provided support for the engines and crew spaces.

Engines and Propellers

The three-keel arrangement, along wth the use of non-flammable helium, also allowed the engines to be carried internally, along the lower keels, rather than in external power cars; this significantly reduced aerodynamic drag and allowed for easier access and maintenance of the engines.

Propeller of USS Akron

Propeller of USS Akron

The 560 hp Maybach VL-2 engines were connected to outrigger propellers by long shafts with bevel gears which allowed the propellers to be rotated to provide thrust not only forward and reverse, but also vertically downward to assist in takeoffs and landings.

The mounting of the engines on the two lower keels did create one design element which was accepted only as a compromise; the four engines on either side were mounted in a straight line, and not staggered as the external power cars of earlier zeppelins had been. In earlier zeppelins, the staggering of engines at differing heights along the hull allowed each propeller to operate in clean air, undisturbed by the prop wash from the engine in front of it, whereas the propellers on Akron and Macon operated in the disturbed air created by the engines ahead of them.  Placing the engines in a straight line along each of the lower keels, however, allowed for a much simpler and lighter design, and was accepted as a better alternative than the additional weight and complexity of the framework that would have been required to stagger them.

One of the eight engine rooms aboard USS Akron

One of the eight engine rooms aboard USS Akron

Non-cruciform Tail

Traditional German zeppelin design included a cruciform tail structure for strength, which Arnstein and his design team eliminated in the Akron and Macon.

Cruciform tail of Hindenburg (left) vs. Akron/Macon (right)

Modification of the Stabilizers

One other design element which would have great significance in light of later events was the shape and position of the stabilizing fins, which were modified from their original design to accommodate a Navy request that the lower fin be visible from the control car.  Experience had taught airship commanders that the lower fin was vulnerable to damage in operations near the ground; Charles Rosendahl had been aboard the Graf Zeppelin during its difficult overweight takeoff from Los Angeles during its 1929 Round-the-World flight, when the lower fin, which had not been visible from the control gondola, only narrowly missed hitting power lines at the edge of the field.  Both Rosendahl and zeppelin commander Hugo Eckener believed it was important for the officers to have an unobstructed view of the lower fin, and this requirement led to a modification of Arnstein’s original design which would later have tragic consequences in the crash of USS Macon.

Final, modified stabilizer arrangement of Akron/Macon, showing main rings (highlighted in yellow)

Final, modified stabilizer arrangement of Akron/Macon, showing main rings (highlighted in yellow)

In the original design, the fins were to have been attached to the hull at three main rings: Ring 0 at the tail; Ring 17.5 at the center of the fin; and Ring 35 at the leading edge of the fin, which carried heavy loads.  In order to make the lower fin visible from the control car, however, the design was changed to shorten the fins, and the modified fins were attached to only two main rings (numbers 0 and 17.5).  The leading edge of the fins, which were subject to very heavy aerodynamic loads, were not firmly attached to any main, load-bearing structural element, but merely to weaker, intermediate framing.

Given the in-flight structural failure of the tail section of USS Macon, there was considerable controversy regarding decision to eliminate the cruciform structure of German zeppelins, and even more controversy regarding the decision to move the leading edge of the fin so that it was no longer anchored to a main ring.

Water Recovery Apparatus

One notable feature of Akron and Macon, easily visible in all photographs of the two ships, were the water recovery apparatus designed to recover water from engine exhaust to compensate for the weight of fuel burned during flight, to avoid the need to valve helium to maintain aerostatic equilibrium as fuel was burned.

Operational Career and Crash of USS Akron

Be Sociable, Share!

    { 135 comments… read them below or add one }

    Ed Gilbert February 4, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    Does anyone have information about the Atlantic crossing of a German airship in either 1935 or 1936 ? I was a student at Si. Joseph’s School, in either the First or second grade, and was thrilled at seeing this air hugh airship as it passed directly over the town of North Brookfield , MA., at an altitude of less that 3000 feet, travelling in a north east to south west direction. This was such a thrilling event that the teachers allowed all the school students to go outside on the lawn to get a better view.
    I always wanted to know the name of this incredibly hugh airship.
    Edgar F. Gilbert efgcmg@aol.com
    New Smyna Beach, Fl, 32168

    Reply

    Dan February 9, 2014 at 10:38 am
    Charles Jones January 30, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    Dear Sir,
    I came across your website, and appreciate your effort. As to paper models,
    there is a web site currell.net/models/mod_free.htm, which has free models
    of the R100, R101, Vickers Transoceanic Airship, a mooring post for British
    airships, the Cardington airship shed, The Giant(Imperial Russian airship), and a Graf Zeppelin kit. Thanks for your website.
    Sincerely,

    Charles Jones

    Reply

    Rob January 28, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Greetings
    I have a section of Girder from the Macon that I bought about 10 years ago from Ohio. Reputed to come from the estate of a worker who built the Macon. It is 54.5″ long and 6.25″ wide. The girder is damaged and shows evidence of compression buckling. It was cut very carefully and precise so it may have been damaged during assembly.

    It is probably the most common type of girder but both ends have extra reinforcements around them. I know it is a longshot but I was wondering if anyone could give me more info on where this might have been used on the Airship.

    http://i59.tinypic.com/2v8igle.jpg

    http://i61.tinypic.com/nwh9a8.jpg

    Best Regards
    Rob

    Reply

    Stu April 20, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Looks like a test model used for analysis by Goodyear Zeppelin. It definitely has the look of a typical girder that you would find in any airship of that era, particularly those of the ZRS class used by the US Navy before WW-2. The boxed off ends indicate that the girder was reinforced to take some loading at the ends along it’s long axis. Normally, girders were open ended and terminated with triangular gussets that braced the girder to the other connecting girder. This specimen has boxed off ends that suggest it was never intended for use on an airship, rather in a testing lab somewhere. I wonder what date it was tested and if it’s testing was done before or after the tail fin incident with the Macon. Thanks for sharing the pictures and keep a hold onto that sample. It’s of value to the Goodyear corporation or to the Lighter Than Air Society in Akron, OH.

    Reply

    Madison May 23, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    I have been attempting to re-engineer the old rigid airships, but one problem I always run into is, what is strong enough? What girder area moment is good enough? How much cross sectional area? What buckling loads were they considering? etc…

    While at NAS Pensacola, I searched their archives at the Naval Aviation History Museam & found design sheets and calculations for the Macon and the Akron, but they were only for the overall frame, not of the individual components. Unfortunately I have lost that information in subsequent moves.

    With an actual individual components, you have access to real dimensional information from actual old rigid designs. With that information I could re-figure what standards they deemed good enough back then, and have more confidence in my current designs.

    Would it be possible to get the thickness of the metal sheet? And the diameters of the holes punched into the girder? What about the metal thickness between the holes and the curve depth? Or the rivet diameter and spacing?….

    Suffice to say 1 hour with that girder & a set of calipers would give me the information I need unlock the secrets to what their standards for airship design were.

    Reply

    Eric June 25, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Madison,

    You wrote this some time ago, but I would still like to recommend a book “Airship Design” by Charles P. Burgess. This book goes into quite a bit of detail in calculating the answers the questions you are asking. As far as the rivets and metal thickness these would have to be calculated for todays materials, but rivet diameter and spacing can be looked up in reference manuals for the material and thickness you are interested in utilizing.

    Reply

    Karl Moeller January 25, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    My family lived in Akron in those years, my grandfather worked for Goodyear Tire, and my father was a boy when the Macon and Akron were under construction. I recall him telling me that he’d heard that the building(s) for each were so large that they generated their own weather systems, depending on humidity and outside temps, from fog to rain.

    Reply

    Maintenance Platforms July 21, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    Mark, do you have any pictures of the 12 foot left hand rotation two bladed wooden propeller? Thanks for sharing.

    Reply

    Mark March 16, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    Sorry for not getting back for quite sometime yes I need to get pictures posted of this 12 foot propeller that I have. Will include hub dimensions bolt patterns as well.

    Reply

    susie June 8, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    after more research .. i appears that this is a blimp .. and there were hundreds used for anti-sub and other work in ww2 .. hopefully the link to pic works
    thanks
    susie

    http://smg.photobucket.com/user/dobiemooky/media/1%20sparedollar%20and%20new%20ebay/ship.jpg.html?sort=3&o=413

    Reply

    Stu April 20, 2014 at 10:42 am

    Hi Susie; The “K” ships were very common in WW2 for anti-sub patrols off the coastlines of the USA. There were over 200 of these blimps serving for our Nation I believe. There’s a great documentation of their exploits in William F. Althoff’s book “Skyships” published by Orion Publishing, 1990. He covered the development of the program, the bases and the amazing adventures these blimps undertook including some amazing endurance voyages. He also covered the post war ZPG early warning blimps that were over a million cubic feet each.

    Reply

    susie June 8, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    i have a photograph of my father’s DE, uss Washington .. leaving san francisco for first deployment in ww2 .. there is a zeppelin over it and the golden gate bridge behind it ..

    thanks, susie

    Reply

    Hector Gonzalez April 4, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    This group and the folks who follow this posting are very informed and full of incredible knowledge. Here is a tidbit to add to the discussion. years back the location of the Macon was found by MBARI the US Navy and others after they conducted several dives and documented the final resting site of the airship. The part that wasn’t told was how this came to be, how the location was discovered after prior failed attempts.

    Monterey Fisherman had located the site years earlier after snagging pieces of the wreckage and tearing nets. In one such episode a large piece of the structure was hauled up. The fisherman each took their keepsakes and dropped the larger pieces back to the ocean. They were aware of what the skeleton represented and that this was the USS Macon.

    Fast forward many years and one of those pieces was mounted and displayed in a small Moss Landing restaurant owned by one of those fisherman, the name of the restaurant was “Jeannie B’s” owned by my uncle Vince Balisteri and named after his wife Jeannie.

    As fate would have it one day the daughter of the commanding officer of the Macon happened to have lunch at the restaurant and jumped up on a chair discovering what was a piece of her late fathers history. She was very excited and had many many questions. At one point she asked to buy the artifact which was turned down.

    Subsequently a MBARI researcher came to the restaurant and likewise climbed on a chair and even broke off a piece of the display. He tried to ask for coordinates and information to the site. The owner (my uncle) refused first because he had just caught this guy breaking a piece of the dispay, and more importantly he felt MBARI and others would take full credit and not recognize the true discoverers, the Monterey fisherman Captained by Dave Caneppa. Uncle Vince provided him Capt. Caneppa’s name and information and they eventually obtained the coordinates and further information from him and the final expedition was conducted where the site was finally found.

    True to my uncle’s intuition, none of these organizations have ever recognized the local fisherman who initially discovered the site although there are several references in articles to the location of an artifact at a local Moss Landing restaurant.

    In closing, this artifact is now in my families hands as Uncle Vince has passed it on to my son. The metal (aluminum rigging) is approximately 24″ long and has large and small circles exactly as depicted in the photographs we have seen on various sites. It is in very good condition although it does show some weathering. We believe this is the only authentic piece of the crashed Macon in existence in private hands.

    Reply

    Stu April 20, 2014 at 10:54 am

    What you have may very well be (and probably is) a section of girder off the old Macon. Keep it safe please. It’s a worthy piece of LTA history. Can you photograph it?

    Reply

    Burt feit April 1, 2013 at 12:54 am

    My uncle Max feit was aboard the Macon when it went down.his son lives in calif.

    Reply

    Chris March 7, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    Dan,
    I currently in the middle of a big final writing assignment for my naval history class and i just wanted to say thank you for all of your hard work!

    Reply

    Dan March 9, 2013 at 11:18 am

    Thank you for the kind words! I am always pleased to help someone at our Naval Academy; let me know if I can offer any other assistance.

    Reply

    onlein February 19, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    I’m looking for an old movie I once saw a bit of on TV years ago: A dirigible aircraft carrier lowering and raising small planes and other things, very complicated maneuvering on very long pulley systems. Any info on such a movie would be appreciated.

    Reply

    Dan February 20, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    There is much archival footage of air ops on the Akron and Macon and it has been used in a number of various programs.

    Reply

    Stu April 20, 2014 at 11:01 am

    F9C Sparrowhawk “landing” on the Akron (probably Macon) can be found here – YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTGBFY82Gik

    Reply

    Mik Atoms January 2, 2013 at 6:15 am

    I create 1/6th scale figures as a hobby and I am thinking of doing an enlisted crew member on the Akron or Macon. What would he have in his seabag? What kind of footwear, uniforms, equipment (flashlight, riggers knife, hammock, lifejacket, etc.), headwear? Detail is very important to me my figures include items in their pockets. Any help would be great and I will send photos when the project is completed. Great site on a subject I really love. Also do you know of any model of airships that include interior detail?

    Reply

    Stu April 20, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Probably the same clothing worn by Navy aviators and sailors of that era (mid thirties). For enlisted men, it was probably bell bottom bluejeans, and for officers the typical duty uniform. The Akron and Macon lacked heated quarters I think so they wore heavy leather flight jackets on the flight deck and inside the hull during winter operations.

    Reply

    Scott August 1, 2014 at 12:56 am

    From watching the Youtube video here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTGBFY82Gik

    It would appear that there were all sorts of variants of normal Naval uniforms from the time in use. You can see lower enlisted in Dungarees, an Officer in Aviator greens (looks to be a LTJG, during dining scene), and an officer in Khakis heading down the internal girder/p-way. There also seemed to be some lax rules, as was common at the time. The three pictured at the helm seemed to wear a mottle of uniform items, including a strange skullcap on one individual.

    Take a look, it should help out alot. I’m sure there are other historical videos you can also use for reference.

    Reply

    LARRY V. December 17, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    I have recently found a piece of the USS MACON’S life raft. It was tucked away in my grandfather’s military scapbook. It has the specs of the Macon handwritten on it and includes the crash date and time. It also includes 3 names that I am assuming were rescued from the life raft. It is signed by a coxwain Olivia? Does anyone have any info on the rescue ships or on the life rafts? As near as I can tell my grandfather served on the USS HOVEY and the USS PENNSYLVANIA.

    Reply

    Lonnie January 4, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Dear Larry,
    I am currently working on a USS Macon study. Would it be possible to talk?
    Lonnie

    Reply

    Nick England October 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Does anyone have info on the type of radio equipment carried aboard Akron and Macon? On a vintage military radio list we are currently having a discussion stimulated by the photos of the Macon radio room at
    http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/photos/showimg.php?file=/Macon/Interior/macon_inside13.jpg
    and
    http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/photos/showimg.php?file=/Macon/Interior/macon_inside11.jpg

    So far the RU receiver is ID’ed and transmitter models GK and GM may be possibilities but no photos have been found of either model so far. Any info is greatly appreciated.
    Nick – navy.radio@gmail.com

    Reply

    Stu August 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Here’s a link from a air history buff who has a YouTube channel. He downloads all sorts of interesting air history stuff and had this newsreel of the Macon crash including an interview with her commander, Herb Wiley.

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU3fS22ZI9M

    The Ride of the Valkyries would not have been my first choice for the background music.

    Reply

    harry lang August 3, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Why are Americans taking so much credit for the Akron and Macon when 12 German engineers were the driving force behind the project?
    signed a modest Canadian

    Reply

    Ben Brigham August 23, 2012 at 2:45 am

    I understand the position you have, and you are correct. No nation had the expertise that Germany had. But the Akron & Macon were made in the US, (emotionally important; throw us a bone here) with essentially no credible airship engineering tradition to depend upon. Lichtfield brought Arnstein and his 12 apostles over from Germany, and told them to build what they, not Durr or Eckener, thought an airship ought to be. The result was a radical departure from the restrictive-if-proven LZ tradition.
    And to be perfectly fair, Arnstein was Chech, and Jewish. His brilliance, as well as the importance of his & his family’s safety, both played roles in his having been chosen to come to the US. There’s an excellent biography/history of this era called “When Giants Roamed The Skies”.

    Reply

    John Hartley September 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Actually, the US deserves a lot of credit for preserving the entire Zeppelin firm and advancing airship design. After WW1, when both Britain and France sought to eliminate airship building in Germany, the US Navy negotiated an agreement with Zeppelin to build the USS Los Angeles that essentially saved the Zeppelin company. The Akron and Macon were built by Goodyear-Zeppelin, a formal partnership between Zeppelin and Goodyear that lasted almost to WW2. After Germany, I don’t believe any other country can rival the US in the development and innovation of rigid airships.

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo November 9, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    The USS Akron/Macon designs were so revolutionary that Herr Doktor proclaimed:” But that is not a Zeppelin!” When he saw the Akron take off using its reversible props instead of “floating” up like a balloon like the regular German Zeppelins. It was so revolutionary, that in fact the ship after the original Graf Zeppelin (DLZ-127) the DLZ-128, was scrapped and the new design DLZ-129 (later named Hindenburg) was literally a Germanized copy of that design..so in this case it was the Germans copying the Americans, not the other way around..and yes, Karl Ernstein WAS a Jewish Czech..not German.

    Reply

    Stu December 20, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    The Hindenburg may have looked like the ZRS 4 & 5, but she was built completely different. Eckener designed her for helium, and at the last minute, when the wary US Government denied Eckener the use of their helium, he was forced to resort to hydrogen. The Hindenburg’s internal hull structure was entirely different from the revolutionary structure of the ZRS 4 & 5 with their three keels and deep structural rings. Where the Hindenburg was superior was the Achilles heel for the Akron and Macon; the tail fin structure. The Hindenburg had tail fins whose internal support struts ran straight through the hull of the ship, whereas the ZRS 4 & 5 had fins bolted onto the support rings of the hull. The result was weak tail fins and failure of the upper tail fin that led to the Macon’s crash and may have added to the Akron’s crash as well.

    Reply

    Stu April 20, 2014 at 11:21 am

    The US Navy contracted out to suppliers and manufacturers in the late 20′s for a large rigid airship scouting craft. Goodyear was the only player of serious recognition then making airships thanks to it’s previous connections with the Zeppelin Company which was in legal and financial purgatory following the first World War. It was Goodyear that proposed to the Zeppelin Company to co-design the ZRS ships. Remember, the Navy already purchased the ZRS-3 “Los Angeles” from the Zeppelin Company who was rescued from utter ruin following the war by this nice commission to build a passenger commercial airship for the US Navy. The writs of the peace treaties following WW-1 dictated that Germany was not allowed to build any military airships (as was the US and Britain too).

    It was the Navy contract for the ZRS-3 that opened a loophole of sorts to let the Zeppelin Company restart again and build the best airship to date followed by two other stunning ships ten years hence. The US Navy had to get special permission to build the Akron and Macon which were not civilian commercial airships, but were rather instruments of war. When they went to design the ZRS 4 and 5, they hired designers from the Zeppelin Company who ended up moving to the USA full time to work with Goodyear / Zeppelin. The design of the Akron and Macon was truly independent from what was later to follow from Germany in the form of the Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin 2.

    Interestingly enough, Goodyear just launched their first semi rigid airship – a Zeppelin NT copy that was built here in the USA. The Zeppelin NT is a hybrid semi rigid airship that was designed solely by the Zeppelin Company in Germany ten years ago and has seen successful use all over the globe. The Goodyear – Zeppelin partnership is one formed very early on by Goodyear’s founder, Paul Litchfield and still exists.

    Reply

    Steve Fuhro May 11, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Hello everyone: I attended the 75th Anniversary of the Hindenburg crash last Sunday evening at Lakehurst Joint Base. Some 400-500 mixed military and civilians attended the memorial service at the crash site. Two of the speakers were: 1. Robert Buchannan, 92, who is the last remaining civilian ground crew member and 2. Horst Schirmer, 82, who was a passenger on the Hindenburg in 1936. It is believed that there are only 3 people left who flew on the Hindenburg. I took some photos of the ceremony which I will attempt to upload at a later time. I will also try to relate Mr. Buchannan’s story of that evening as he told it to us on Sunday last.

    Reply

    Nelson Minar May 4, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Youtube has video of a Sparrowhawk landing on the USS Macon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWoEQRl8dCs

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo April 5, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Yesterday marked the 79th anniversary since the tragic accident that took the life of 73 people, including Adm. William Moffett, aboard the USS Akron. God Bless their memory! May history never forget them.

    Reply

    Howard March 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    I was wondering about the mooring rigging used on the Akron. I’ve had a metal two-sheave block for about 20 years that came from the old rigging loft on Lakehurst NAS when I worked there. It’s marked “Akron Nose Pendant” hand painted on the block. The rope size would be 3/4″. Could this have been used to haul the nose down to the mooring mast? I actually borrowed it when clearing stumps when I built my shop but never got around to returning it. Years later I mentioned it to the riggers and they said that stuff isn’t used anymore and the stuff in the old loft was cleaned out and scrapped and they didn’t want it back.

    Reply

    Josiah Wagener March 6, 2012 at 3:54 am

    I am really curious about some of the day to day aspects of life on an airship. Water particularly interests me since water = ballast. Did they have flushing toilets? If so did they flush out of the vessel or into a holding tank? On the Akron and Macon in particular with their long range/duration operations did the crew have showers? Was water rationed for drinking and cooking? Was the drinking water stored separate from the ballast water? What sort of food did they have? Did they have to figure the weight of every piece of trash they threw out? When they launched an airplane did they have to release a bunch of helium to compensate, then release a bunch of ballast when they recovered the airplane? Or were they able to use the angle of the props to compensate for the change of weight for the duration of the plane’s flight? Did they typically have at least one plane in the air on “guard duty” all of the time or did they just launch planes when there was a specific scouting mission for them? Were crew members highly specialized for specific duty stations or were most of them generalists who could work at almost any part of the airship?
    Anyone have answers to any of these questions or know where I could look for this kind of info?
    Thanks for creating this great resource.

    Reply

    Hendrick May 19, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Josiah, Airships like the Graf Zeppelin and the Hindenburg had toilets (the Hindenburg had four as well as a shower) If memory serves me correctly I believe the waste water was jettisoned over water. There were specialized crew positions on airships such as navigator, elevator man (to control the up and downward angle of the ship), radio operator, ballast board operator, sailmaker (to inspect and maintain the golbeater skin gasbags), cabin boy,steward, and in the case of Ms. Imhoff stewardesses. Various crewmembers would interchange duties such as lowering the landing wheels. A couple of good books on the subject are The epic of flight : The giant airships, Giants in the sky,Zeppelin : the story of
    lighter than air travel (quite rare as it was published in 1937), Hindenburg: an illustrated
    history, and, best of all, Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg (that book has all kinds of appendixez

    Reply

    Hendrick May 19, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Sorry, appendices about crew, uniforms, procedures, ballast etc. Hope this helps :)

    Hendrick

    Reply

    victor.vasas August 2, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Actually, the Hindenburg had holding tanks for the waste water and sewage, which was very important to retain, because it made unneccessary to vent hydrogen. When you dump water, the airship gets lighter, therefore you need to release hydrogen to avoid the ship getting too light and rising too high, which actually requires the release of even more hydrogen. So they had big tanks to retain it. The Akron and Macon even had water condensation equipment to regain water from the engine exhaust, because helium is much more expensive than hydrogen. You always want to fly an airship a little heavier than air, in case you need to land or the engines stop, you don’t keep rising until the bag burst or or to avoid having to vent too much expensive helium.

    Reply

    Hendrick Stoops December 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    That’s quite correct (thanks for the info =-) ). That being said the Hindenburg could dump waste water (in light of the information you pointed out I doubt they used this capability often.)

    Reply

    Stu April 20, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Hi Josh;

    Here’s a try at answering your questions:

    “Did they have flushing toilets? If so did they flush out of the vessel or into a holding tank?” Yes – the bathrooms were located in the crews quarters next to the airplane hanger. I don’t think they flushed directly overboard as that would alter the ship’s static condition. That plus it was important to look below before flushing the toilet. Having a publicly funded costly zeppelin drop nasty stuff on the taxpayers would have been “bad press” for the Navy’s LTA program.

    “On the Akron and Macon in particular with their long range/duration operations did the crew have showers?” Not sure about any showers, but there was a bathroom with about three sinks and some water closets.

    “Was water rationed for drinking and cooking?” Yes, it was stored in separate potable water storage tanks. Ballast water was separately stored in tanks and bags that had openings in the bottom for drainage upon command. Water was rationed because of the limited quantities aboard. The ships had a useful lift of near 100 tons, so there was plenty of water aboard.

    “Was the drinking water stored separate from the ballast water?” See previous.

    “What sort of food did they have?” They ate what was typical of any Navy galley and had a electric galley aboard with full capabilities. The Akron and Macon typically carried up to 80 persons per flight so feeding them was a task.

    “Did they have to figure the weight of every piece of trash they threw out?” Not sure about that. Tossing trash out changes your static condition. And much depended on where the airship was flying over. In Navy strategic operations, floating trash on the ocean was a sure signal of where you were recently and frowned upon during strategic operations.

    “When they launched an airplane did they have to release a bunch of helium to compensate, then release a bunch of ballast when they recovered the airplane? Or were they able to use the angle of the props to compensate for the change of weight for the duration of the plane’s flight?” The Akron and Macon could use their elevators to pitch the ships slightly up or down during flight to compensate for changes to the static conditions. As much as 5 to 6 tons of lift could be achieved with full power and some pitch on the hull. I am unaware of the Navy valving costly helium or ballast water during operations of their aircraft. The only component that would change when launching the F9C’s would be the fuel they expended when they returned again to the airship. During their time out, the ship was quite capable of flying dynamically downward to maintain it’s altitude and slight change in static condition. The Akron and Macon’s props were vectorable (only half of them were) however that function was only reserved for use during landing operations.

    “Did they typically have at least one plane in the air on “guard duty” all of the time or did they just launch planes when there was a specific scouting mission for them?” They could only launch one plane at a time which made them sitting ducks when being “shot down” during Fleet exercises. They typically launched planes in search operations, two at a time flying angled vectors off the airship’s course. They did launch planes as running boats to ferry mail, personnel or packages back to the ground.

    “Were crew members highly specialized for specific duty stations or were most of them generalists who could work at almost any part of the airship?” They were somewhat specialized to LTA service. You had riggers, flight engineers for the LTA specialty, the HVA or Heavier Than Air pilots of the F9C’s and their support crew who worked the hanger and trapeze. Then there was the cooks, navigators and quartermasters who operated the airship with special training for LTA work on top of their Navy standard training. It was no uncommon for officers and sailors to rotate out of the LTA program into surface duty. The Navy flight program was still in its infancy then.

    Reply

    bill dalton November 19, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    not only do i have an origonal picture of the akron but its framed in the actual akrons skeletons material.

    Reply

    Ernie January 18, 2014 at 8:07 pm

    awesome i finally found some one else who has pieces of the USS Akron. Mine is from February 22 1932, from the first accident. I have a piece of the material. More than likely from the lower fin area.

    Reply

    Lani Griffiths October 22, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    I am so happy to finally see this response to dirigiles. My father, Lee “Ding”
    Meredith served on USS Los Angeles. J-4, Akron and Macon, being a member
    of the first crew to go to Moffet, and he almost served on the Shenandoah.
    To explain, he was originally with the Shenandoah but his father had recently
    retired from Elgin Watch Co. in Elgin, IL and they were planning to move to
    CA and retire in Modesto. My father traded ships with some so he could be on
    the West coast. I guess you could then. I remember him saying that the
    base was not ready when they arrived and the Navy put them as guests with
    the locals and also when Hanger 1 doors were operated at first the electric
    lights in Mt. View/Sunnyvale would dim. He laughed about how mad the
    farmers around hills behind Milpitis would be when the ships would glide low
    and silent over cattle and scare the daylights out of the cattle and the
    farmers would wave fists at them. He came back to Moffet in 1942-44 and
    spent time in Recife, Brazil, a site during the war. He loved the airships and
    the public loved them. He is listed on your site showing crews of the Macon,
    listed as Lee Meredith, AMM2c-Avm Mach Mate 2d.

    Reply

    Stu August 15, 2011 at 8:26 am

    Just an added note regarding the F9C-2′s flown off the Akron and Macon; After refining and perfecting the art of launching airplanes off airships, the Navy adopted removable landing gear for the F9C-2′s. After the airship would take off, the heavier than air contingent would fly up and join the ship, shed their terrestrial landing gear, and get additional belly tanks installed in place of the landing gear. The belly tanks extended the F9C-2′s range and gave the airship “over the horizon” surveillance capability. It’s a shame that the program died with the loss of the Macon. The Navy really had a unique and promising scouting / SAR methodology underway.

    Reply

    Dirk MacDowall August 2, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    How did the Macon get its name???

    Reply

    Hendrick Stoops December 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    The Macon was named after Macon, Georgia the largest city in the Congressional district of Representative Carl Vinson, then the chairman of the House of Representative’s Committee on Naval Affairs.

    Reply

    Deb June 16, 2011 at 12:51 am

    My great uncle was one of the crewmen on the USS Akron when it crashed. His name was Peter Boelsen, (AMMC/AVN. MACH.Mate 2d. ) I would like a picture of him to add to my family tree if anyone has pictures of the crew. Also was there any kind of a ceremony or anything for the lost lives? I can’t find any records of his death, not even in the Social Security Death Records.

    Reply

    Paul April 23, 2011 at 2:26 am

    So just how long did these airships stay in the air before they would return back to base to refuel and things like that? Also how offer were they sent out on patrol?

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo May 19, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    Dear Paul,

    I can speak mainly about the USSMacon. The Macon could carry up to 50 tons of fuel and could remain (and often did) remain aloft for 1 week a a time. Their fuel consumption based on speed was: 10,500 miles @ 60 mph (cruising speed); and 8,200 miles @87 mph (flank/max speed) hope this helps.

    Reply

    Kevin Olson October 10, 2010 at 10:48 am

    One thing I never thought about was the claustrophobic nature of some of the spaces aboard the Akron and Macon, such as the tiny engine rooms. That had to be a difficult place to spend your watch. There don’t appear to be any windows and the noise had to be significant. At least on the German ships with their external engine cars they were provided with windows. The only crewmembers that really could enjoy the flights were likely the officers in the control car.

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo November 3, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Hello Mr. Olson. I agree with you about the spaces inside the Macon/Akron engine rooms, however, the Shenandoa, Graf Zeppelin (first one) and even the Hindenburg had scary issues with the engineers climbing down into the engine carts (specialy in stormy weather and/or at night). This also made servicing engines much easier as NONE of the Macon/Akron engines failed in flight as did the Hindenburg & Graf Zeppelin engines did (both Zeppelins almost crashed on one occasion due to engine(s) failing).The inside engines also allowed mores treamlined as the Macon was clocked at 89 mph on one occasion and the Hindenburg could only go up to 84.4 mph tops, so there were definite benefits to interiror engines.

    Reply

    Kevin Olson November 6, 2010 at 11:43 am

    I agree that it was a better solution for the performance of the airships. The strange thing about the Akron/Macon layout was the inline position of the four propellers on each side of the ship. I’ve always wondered how efficiently the second, third, and fourth propellers would work behind the disturbed air from the ones directly in front. Thanks for the conversation.

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo November 6, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    You’re welcome Mr. Olson! My understanding is that each propeller behind the other one would have it’s setting “in opposition” from the one in front in order to minimize the air turbulence from the engine in front. The propelers could also be swiveled 90 degrees down and the ship could take off like a helicopter and/or the first two engines could be swiveled down and placed on reverse for the ship to come nose down to make it easier to be connected to the nose-mast. The major problem with all the turbulence of all 8 engines/propellers was that the control cabin was highly disturbed by it when the ship was going flank speed (84-87 mph) and would “shiver”. Some sailors reported getting “sea-sick” on that station and it wasn’t a big favorite of the Macon’s crew! Thank you for starting the conversation!
    Francisco

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo November 6, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    I meant to say the “Emergency Control Cabin” which was located on the Macon’s bottom stern fin. Sorry for the confusion! The actual control car was quite stable.

    John L October 28, 2011 at 11:33 am

    The crew of the Akron were kind enough to line up the props for this photo which pretty clearly shows light vs. dark blades alternating. So the assumption they were counter rotating seems to be correct. But I would guess there was considerable buffeting from having them inline which is what made engine crews seasick. Sloping side keels would have staggered the engines but added weight since the keels incorporated two longitudinal spars. Staggering could have been achieved just by varying engine mount inclinations, mounting engine rooms above and below the keel, and varying outrigger lengths easily by using longer drive shafts and struts.

    http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h42000/h42157.jpg

    Seems like a modern airship might have the obvious design layout of a large, counter rotating fan behind the airship with engines more forward for balance, but the Macon/Akron design allowed propulsion to also be used for maneuvering. The modern Zeppelin NT’s use a rear prop and two smaller maneuvering outrigger props towards the front. Rear prop means internal engine though, and a big reason most Zeppelins had external engines was that they were hydrogen filled and it was a pure safety measure.

    The idea of a giant lifting body shape for a future airship is interesting because of magnified ground and surface effects, ie using through-body fans could simplify landings, air blown over the top could enhance lift…

    Miguel May 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    I think the need for so many propellers might be due to the abyssmal power output that engines of the day had. A single motor&propeller from an Osprey per side, would probably more than replace the Akron/Macon power train.

    Reply

    Kevin Olson May 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    I’m sure you’re right about that Miguel. They were making the best of what they had with all the technology of the day.

    Francisco Carvallo May 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    True, True.. but remember the 12 cylinder Maybachs had a 900 rpm redline.. that means they only had to be turning 400-500 rpm for the most part to reach max torque/HP output. The noise output for the most part wasn’t much as most of the times the engines were barely chugging along.

    Stu August 17, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    I think for airship propulsion you need large bladed props to move large volumes of air quietly and efficiently with a good low speed as well as high speed capability. Airships need thrust, not high speed air movement. The larger fan blades wouldn’t have to rotate very fast to move air efficiently and create operable thrust. That would create a quieter propulsion system versus noisier, smaller propellers spinning at a higher rate of rotation.

    Airships spend half their time loitering, or slow flying which is the advantage of such an aircraft. If an airship were to be built, it would be used for air tourism, not high speed transiting. The need to slowly travel within sight of the surface by day to maximize the flight experience, then sprint at night would be optimum.

    Perhaps a combination of large fans with auxiliary smaller “thrust” props for maneuvering would be a good compliment of power on a modern ship. The larger fans would generate motive forward thrust for high and low speed cruising, and the smaller, vectoring props would be used to maneuver the ship around and add to the forward motive thrust in limited use.

    Stu August 5, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    The external engine cars of the Hindenburg, Graf Zeppelin and other ships were just as cramped as the engine rooms of the Akron and Macon. Plus with the propeller just feet away from the back end of the motor, the wind and noise inside the control cars was pretty intense. Add to that climbing over a 12″ wide ladder in a 80 mph airstream (hold onto something!). The Akron’s engine rooms may have been noisy and hot, but there was easy and safe access to them, and no airstream or first step to miss getting to the engines.
    A former mate on the Akron told me long ago that she had vibration issues from her in-line propellers. Other than that, he felt she was a solid ship.

    Reply

    K WILDE October 7, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    I have a orginal copy Blue Print of the USS Macon

    Reply

    Paul McMartin May 1, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    Is there a way to get copies of the prints. I would like to do a 3D model in SoildWorks.
    Thanks,
    Paul

    Reply

    W Hitchings March 8, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    How can I get a copy of the Macon plans?

    Reply

    William Shaw October 7, 2010 at 11:51 am

    I am a Life, Senior (grade ) member of the Insitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. I would like to alert you to a page on the IEEE.
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/airships-for-the-21st-century/0/airshipsb01

    I was not aware of your site until I read the IEEE article. I am so pleased I did.

    Reply

    William Shaw October 13, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    You may be well aware of these sites. But just in case, I think they would be
    of interest to you.
    America the airship: the first transatlantic crossing
    In 1910, six men (and a cat) attempted to cross the Atlantic in an airship. Only now is their pioneering journey being remembered.

    The Telegraph UK Oct 14, 2010
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8048396/America-the-airship-the-first-transatlantic-crossing.html
    OF COURSE THEY DIDN’T MAKE IT !
    This is a video of the arship AMERICA
    The New Jersey Antique Radio Club -njarc.org

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/10080192
    WILLIAM SHAW

    Reply

    David Erskine April 13, 2011 at 12:57 am

    Thankyou, Wlilliam Shaw, for alerting us to this web site. Interesting idea, an airship as mother ship for UAVs.

    Reply

    David Erskine April 13, 2011 at 12:59 am

    I am amazed that the US Navy succeeded in getting an airship to retrieve an aircraft while aloft. Releasing an aircraft in flight is no problem, but I can now see that a slow moving biplane can match speed with an airship with powerful engines.

    A civilian airship with this capability would use aircraft to transfer people to and from the ground, and also carry supplies up to the airship. Helicopters were not available in the thirties, but today a helicopter could land and take off from a helicopter pad on top of the airship, with stairs running down inside the airship. A small airship could do the same job, floating above the larger airship, transferring people and supplies.

    Reply

    Stu August 5, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Landing a helicopter on top of a moving airship would be a tricky maneuver. The slipstream of air would make the helicopter unstable on the platform. Also dead weights at the top of an airships will lower the center of rotation of the hull, making it more unstable and tending to roll over. Hook on propeller planes would be better and can carry more than a helicopter. With a stall speed under 90 knots, they could work with an airship at cruising speed. The hooking process would be a jolting ride, and not for the faint of heart. The fly boys on the Akron and Macon were called the “men on the flying trapeze” for good reason.

    Reply

    David Erskine August 7, 2011 at 8:02 am

    I imagined the airship stationary when the helicopter lands on the helicopter pad at the top. I accept that the weight of the helicopter will make the airship more likely to roll, but if the airships propellors can rotate through 90 degrees, they can correct any roll.

    Dennis Mena September 10, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    I have been fascinated with the airships Akron and Macon since childhood. I grew up in Sunnyvale, CA, and would often look in awe of Hanger One there. I was born in 1945, but my parents told me how traffic would stop as the Macon flew over the Bayshore freeway. I once saw a postcard of the Macon going over this highway with cars stopped to see it. Do you or anyone else have one of these postcards for sale?

    Reply

    Dan (Airships.net) September 11, 2010 at 9:24 am

    I have a photo like the one you describe; I will try to upload it if I get some free time. Meanwhile, you might like this image: http://www.airships.net/blog/uss-macon

    Reply

    Rick September 5, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    Don, try and check with the Museum at Moffett Fld, Sunyvale CA. They have logboks in the musuem and an extensive reference library!!

    Reply

    Paula May 27, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Hello. I have been researching genealogy and through my aunt I discovered Karl Lester Fiskes. He was a pilot on the USS Macon, but must not have been involved in the crash as he died in 1996 at the age of 93. He also was a passenger on the maiden voyage from Frankfurt to Lakehurst of the Hindenburg and was listed as head of blimp operations for Goodyear. Does anyone find his name in your history documents? Karl was my third cousin twice removed (or my grandfather’s first cousin). Thanks.

    Reply

    Dan (Airships.net) May 31, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    His name appears frequently in material about airship history.

    Incidentally, I have published a passenger list from the Hindenburg’s maiden voyage to North America, and if you scroll to the bottom of the page you can see his name on the passenger manifest used by the United States immigration service:

    http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/flight-schedule/maiden-voyage

    Reply

    Jeanpierre April 25, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Hello everybody
    I have realized a paper model of the Akron. As it comes entirely from free sources on the Web, I will be happy to make it affordable free for anyone who will ask.
    Jean-Pierre

    Reply

    Zcak Clayton June 17, 2010 at 10:39 am

    I am interested in the paper model of USS Akron.

    Reply

    Jeanpierre June 22, 2010 at 4:55 am

    Thank you for your interest
    Well for the moment I’ve the “USS Los Angeles” in line at the folowing adress
    http://pagesperso-orange.fr/spacecraft/maquettes.html
    It’s free, but for a personal use and not a commercial utilisation. Something as 10 dollars could be given to the poors as a sign of free recognition to the author.
    The instructions are in french, the level of difficulty is “hard enough”, and it’s better to have a good patience.
    Fell free to ask any advice.

    Reply

    Eric January 20, 2011 at 3:01 am

    Jeanpierre –

    Any chance this Macon model was ever posted? I don’t see it at your website.

    I’ve just posted a link to the Los Angeles from the AirshipModelers forum. Great job on that one!

    Reply

    jeanpierre January 30, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Hello Eric and everybody
    Eric you’re the first person to thank me for the Los angeles model. it’s the reason why I didn’t really care to make the Akron available on the net, since it’s so much work, for so little recognition. But I will try to make something of the sort :-)

    Joshua D. Slingerland April 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    I always found airships interesting machines. I would love to hear a detailed account of what was going on aboard the vessel when it going down.

    Also does anybody here have a list of the best books on airships?

    J. Slingerland

    Reply

    Don Brandes March 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    I have several books on airships and one in particular is excellent. It is THE AIRSHIPS AKRON & MACON-Flying Aircraft Carriers of the United States Navy. The author is Richard K. Smith. Published by the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland. Copyrighted in 1965 and had two more printings in 1972 and 1977. The book has many great pictures of both airships as well as a complete specifications list, pictures of the construction – almost everything you wanted to know about these two great airships. The only error I could find was that Dad’s last name was misspelled in the index. Dad gave this to me in 1982, six years before he passed away, one of the last survivors from the Macon crash.

    Reply

    Kevin Olson February 27, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    My parents told a wonderful story about seeing a rigid airship (most likely the Macon) fly over my mother’s house one evening. They were dating in the 30′s and were sitting on the porch in Rockford, Illinois, just west of Chicago. It was a dark, clear night and they talked about hearing a low rumbling noise that they couldn’t quite identify. They looked up and saw a long row of lights passing overhead among the stars that my mom said looked like a train. They went out into the yard and watched it as long as they could until it disappeared over the trees and was gone. I later learned that the Macon had made a flight in the area, so I’m pretty sure that’s what they saw. They said it was the coolest thing to see that long row of lights and hear the sound of it up there in the night sky.

    Reply

    david helms February 12, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    dan: do you know how i can reach a descendant of a macon or akron crewman? would love to contact such a person. thanks for your help.

    david

    Reply

    Don Brandes February 18, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Hello- My father, Ted Brandes was a crew member on both the Akron and Macon. He was on leave when the Akron was lost but on the Macon when it went down in the Pacific. My mother, brother, sister and I were living in a house in an orchard not far from Moffett Field when the Macon crashed. I still remember the Navy enlisted men that came to the house to tell us of the crash. They said the Macon “had gone down in shallow water” leading my mother to believe the crew all walked ashore. Dad passed away in 1988 one of the last remaining crew members. I have a lot of fond memories of seeing the magnificent ships flying over and hearing their eight engines. I have several books about the airships, and had tried for several years to interest various organizations in searching for the wreck. It had now been found and I have a copy of a video taken of the wreck. Too bad my dad was not alive to know the wreckage had been found.

    Reply

    david helms February 22, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    hi don. thanks for a reply. i would be delighted for
    anything you could share with me about the akron and more specifically the macon. i know there were not many survivors in the macon.i hope to hear from you very soon and many thanks.do you also have a list of the crew and captain when the macon crashed?

    david

    Reply

    Don Brandes February 23, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Hi, David-
    I’m not sure if there are any survivors from the Macon crash any longer alive. There were only two crewmen that lost their lives in the crash. One was the radioman who was only one of three or four survivors from the Akron. He had just been notified that day that he was promoted to Warrant Officer. His name was Dick Daley. The other crewman was one of the stewards assigned to the Macon. My dad was probably the last one to see the steward alive. Dad said he saw him climbing up the girders to the highest point of the inclined ship. Dad said he himself, couldn’t swim but learned rather quickly. He slid down a rope that ended about 25 feet from the water then dropped. Said he paddled “like hell” to one of the rubber rafts.

    Dad painted a picture of the crash from a piece of the “skin” that he got at the hanger after the crash (not from the ship itself). It was quite good, and he had all of the officers and men sign the back of the painting. Unfortunately, it was stolen from a storage place in his garage in 1945.

    I’ll look through the books I have on the Macon and see if I can find the names of all of the crew. If I can perhaps I can copy them off, scan them and send them to you. I’ll see what I can do.

    Don Brandes

    Reply

    david helms February 25, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    thanks don for sharing. i really appreciate it.

    david

    moey May 30, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Don, David,

    My name is sharon, My grandfather was on the macon when it crashed in 1935. He was also involved on some of the other airships. Please tell me about yourselves.. Sharon

    DR. RAY BRANDES September 3, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    Donald, this is your older brother. I recall vividly our stay in Lakehurst, later in Akron. The third man who did not die in the crash of the Akron was our father Ted. He was the man referred to elsewhere as being in sick bay the night the aircraft perished. He, in a sense, was the only man who survived both the Akron and Macon disasters. Retired before WWII, he was called back into service and he piloted the blimps off the California coast searching for Japanese subs.
    I had the chance to fly with him on one occasion and recall he, you and I spent time with him at Tillamook NAS before I returned to my infantry division.

    Vladimir Borovsky December 4, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    These stories you tell are amazing, I’ve always wanted to talk to an actual crew member of an airship, especially one from the ZRS-4 Akron or her sister-ship ZRS-5 Macon. Perhaps one of these days…

    …Anyway, I had one question, which was the better airship? Akron or Macon?

    Reply

    Tom Surek September 16, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    One thing I was wondering about: what were the crew accommodations like on board these ships?

    Reply

    Dan (Airships.net) September 17, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    I have a number of photos and will try to post them in the near future.

    Thanks!

    Reply

    david helms February 12, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    dan: do you have original photos of the macon, akron, and uss los angeles you can share with me. many thanks.

    david

    Reply

    david helms February 22, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    hope to see your photos very soon dan. i am sure they are fascinating. thanks for sharing. i want to purchase some for framing.

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo August 31, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Hello Mr. Surek. I work as a volunteer for the Moffett Field Historical Society and in their website they have several photos of the crews quarters. They were double bunked-hammocks for the most part. there are also several other faxcinating pictures abouthh the ship that I’ve never seen published elsewhere as well. Hope this helps.
    Francisco
    PS: the website is:www.moffettfieldmuseum.org

    Reply

    Tom Surek August 31, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Francisco,

    Thank you so much! The photos are great!

    Tom

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo August 31, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    You’re quite welcome! I’ve also heard that the Macon had a smoking room (much like the Hindenburg later in 1936) which of course carried a lot less “danger” than one in the highly flammable environment of a hydrogen filled ship. Alas, I’ve not been able to find any pictures of it.
    Francisco

    Reply

    Donald Mitchell July 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    Hi everone. A nice bit of information here about the ridgid airships. I have always been facinated with these behemoths of the air and my interst peaked when I found a picture of the Akron in an old Ford dealership. It was an award called “The Third Anual Godyear Zepplin Race”, July thru August 1931. The frame is made of small peices of Duralumin, as described by Dan above. A friend`s son used the picture for a term paper and even built a modle of it using a 2litre cola bottle for the ship. Thanks for Sharing your information on this great peice of history.

    Reply

    Tael Neilan June 28, 2009 at 1:04 am

    I learned a lot about the ships in this article, it was very informative! The double skeleton and triple keel are things I wouldn’t have imagined, but I did wonder why the skeleton on the Akron looked strange compared to the Graf. The part about how the engines were inside and the propellers on movable outposts made me lose that “Oh how innovative” thought when I look at the Zeppelin NT and it’s movable propellers, turns out they did it 83 years ago! Thanks for the info!

    Reply

    Mikey NTH January 8, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    And there are ships (USCGC Mackinaw) that utilize a pod for the propellers. The pod can rotate, eliminating the need for a rudder.

    “One of the Mackinaw’s unique features in the US Coast Guard fleet is the use of two azipods for her main propulsion. These, coupled with a 550 hp (410 kW) bow thruster, make the ship exceptionally maneuverable. Azipods also negate the need for a traditional rudder, as the azipods can turn 360 degrees on their axis to direct their thrust in any direction. The Mackinaw also lacks a traditional ship’s steering wheel.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Mackinaw_(WLBB-30)

    Reply

    Miguel June 25, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    The photos of the NT show a triple keel design with some stoutly reinforcing cruciforms on the rings where the tailfins attach. Seems the Zeppelin folks updated the Macon design, but with a traditionally reinforced tailfin section. Clever folks.

    Reply

    John Duffy June 23, 2009 at 11:36 am

    I had the pleasure of riding in one of the airplanes from the USS Akron at an airshow about ten years ago. Didn’t think to ask if it was original or a replica. my wife took a great picture of me sitting in the cockpit after landing with a massive grin. i’ll try to send along scan, its a great shot of the plane.

    after i forked over $60, signed a waiver, and got a six-second course in how to unstrap myself and deploy the parachute, the pilot took me up for some loops and rolls. all in a day’s work for him, but one of the coolest things ever for me.

    one thing that really blew me away was just how quiet the engine was when we were on our approach. as we coasted over virginia farmland i could hear dogs barking in a yard below and a truck on the road. not something you would get in an airbus.

    Reply

    david helms February 22, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    can you possibly share a picture of that aircraft with me? i would be indebted and thanks.

    david

    Reply

    John February 22, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    still got the photo on my shelf about six feet away (looking at it right now). i don’t have the capability here but i’ll see what i can do about getting a scan made. thanks for your interest…

    Reply

    david helms February 25, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    thanks john. hope to hear from you very soon. take care.

    david

    Reply

    Tael Neilan June 19, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    What are those strips of black on the sides of the airship up the engine nacelles? Is that open space where they housed the biplanes?

    Reply

    Dan (Airships.net) June 19, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Those were the water recovery units, which recovered water from the exhaust of the engines. (Weight is lost when fuel is burned by an airship in flight… to avoid the need to vent expensive helium to compensate for the weight of the fuel burned during flight, they had equipment to recover water from the exhaust to serve as ballast.) I will be discussing these when I update my sections on the US Navy airships… soon, soon! I wish I had more time! :-)

    Reply

    Kevin Olson June 14, 2009 at 7:54 am

    I visited the Lakehurst Air station with my daughter in 1995. I had called ahead and spoke with a public affairs officer about seeing Hangar One. She said she would leave pass at the gate that would allow us entry. We drove about 800 miles from Chicago and arrived at a gate within sight of Hangar One. The guard said he had no pass for us, but after a phone call issued us one and we drove in and parked on the field in front of the hangar. There was almost no activity at the time and we walked the field, went to the memorial embedded in the ground where the Hindenburg’s control car struck the ground, and walked all around the hangar exterior. Couldn’t go in. Took several pictures if you’d be interested. This was obviously pre-911. I doubt we’d have that kind of casual access today. It was a dream come true for me to stand on that ground.

    Reply

    david helms February 27, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    hi kevin. i have been to the crash site twice.fascinating. when you get time check out the career and credentials of the airship operations commander during the era of airships. he died in 1977 and his name was charles e rosendahl. what a career.keep in touch.

    david

    Reply

    M. Hardick May 8, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    I have a book mark made from the drop off aul. from the Akron, When it was made. It was my grandfathers. Were there many of thies made?

    Reply

    Dan (Airships.net) May 11, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Many small souvenir items were made by the Goodyear-Zeppelin Company from the duralumin used to build USS Akron, but I can’t give you an exact figure. I have a small ashtray and a letter opener made from Akron duralumin, and it is truly amazing how light they are, and how strong.

    Reply

    LEE STONE April 13, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Stu,

    I’ll bet the crewman from the Akron that you mentioned was John Lust. I published a letter that my dad wrote to my grandparents about the Akron and published my email, which is now BlackMarauder@Earthlink.net. I also had my phone number.

    John called me saying is name is John Lust. I said I know who you are and he was a little surprised. I then added, “I say you on the History Channel last week”. We had a good talk, he knew my dad real well. It was great to speak with someone from that era that knew my Dad.

    Call me or email me.

    Lee Stone – (561) 964-3201

    Reply

    david helms February 25, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    hi lee. would it be possible for me to get in touch with john lust? i would be thrilled . please respond and thanks.also, can you tell me how to reach him?

    david

    Reply

    LEE STONE July 10, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    David,

    John Lust passed away a year or two ago. A few years ago he called me. I had published a letter in the newletter for the NAS Lakehurst Historical Society with my contact info. He flew with my dad and I had a good conversation with him. I wish I had been able to meet with him in person.

    Lee Stone 561-964-3201

    Reply

    LEE STONE April 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    My dad, John Stone and my uncle were both crew members of the Los Angeles. My uncle Monty Rowe was a survivor of the Macon crash. I would like to hear from any of the LTA men and decendents.

    Lee Stone, 561-964-3201
    Greenacres, FL

    Reply

    david helms February 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    i also would love to hear from any of these lta men. what a thrill. please let me know how to reach any of them or their descendants and many thanks.

    david

    Reply

    david helms February 22, 2010 at 7:29 pm

    hi lee. when you hear , please let me hear. this stuff fascinates me. thanks for sharing.

    david

    Reply

    Stu March 28, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    I had the pleasure of knowing and talking to a crewman who flew on the Akron. He got into a car accident before the fateful April 3rd 1933 flight and was in a hospital recovering when he heard about the loss of ZRS-4. I knew himwhen I was a young boy. He knew I was fascinated in airships (still am!) and made time to talk to me whenever I saw him about his days on the Akron. He said the ship’s weakness was her inline propeller configuration which created vibration and turbulence in the stern-most engines. I wish I could talk to him now, for I am sure I would have a million questions now!

    Reply

    J. Sparks February 12, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    I have a coat that came off the Macon. My Grandfather removed it from the ocean after the crash of the Macon. I can not find any information about this coat that I can conferm that the story is true. It has a tag that states that it was made by AG SPALDING of USAS Design and has gold wings. Any info would be of very much help….Regards J. Sparks

    Reply

    Marc L. May 14, 2009 at 2:05 am

    That’s an interesting story. Maybe you should consider submitting it
    to the PBS TV show,
    History
    Detectives
    (as long as you wouldn’t mind being on TV if they
    pick your story).

    Reply

    Don Brandes June 1, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Hello, Sharon-Perhaps you have seen some of my replys on this website. Dad was on both the Akron and Macon. What was your grandfather’s name? Perhaps I had met him at some time since our family knew a number of the aircrew on the Macon.

    Reply

    Kevin Olson November 7, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    That’s interesting. It would make sense that the lower fin would be affected by the prop wash of all those engines just a short distance ahead of it.

    Reply

    Eric January 30, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    That would be wonderful! Thank you so much.

    Reply

    jeanpierre February 27, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    I’m still working on the paper model of the Akron, .Perhaps a day will come when the model will be ready ! patience is required…encouragements are welcome.

    Reply

    Eric February 28, 2011 at 2:49 am

    I’m still working on my Los Angeles (I’m still not so great with paper models), but someone at Airship Modeler took on your Montgolfier balloon yesterday: http://www.airshipmodeler.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7649#post7649

    Reply

    jeanpierre August 8, 2011 at 5:33 am

    Hello Eric (and others), i’ve finaly managed to realize an Akron paper model; but I don’t garantee every thing works properly. It’s free, for non commercial use only (people have to give their word not to try to earn any money through it ). Instead of giving some money to the author (me), people would be kind to express their gratitude by showing some special gentleness around them, especially towards people who would be suffering from such or such cause. But beware the realisation is very, very hard and requires a lot of patience. For those who are waiting for fun, I think they should do something else : http://spacecraft.pagesperso-orange.fr/maquettes.html

    Reply

    Stu August 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Not to debate you sir, but an alternate thought:

    Dead weight is the enemy of the airship. The R101 was overweight and had to be fitted with more cells just to fly. She ended up not having enough reserve buoyancy and ended up exploding when hitting a hillside in France on a rainy night.

    The dead weight of the helicopter platform, the receiving room or scuttle, the vestibule, and stairs down to the accommodations below would be far greater than the weight of a trapeze, winch, and service platform for a fixed wing aircraft. The difference between the two ideas would be the weight of the stairs and the heli-pad. That’s a lot of dead weight to factor into the total, useful and safe lifting capacity of a airship.

    Novel idea though, but I am a traditionalist. I don’t see the need to shuttle passengers back and forth while in flight, considering the airship can land where it’s going (open fields will do). If a future civil passenger carrying resort airship were to exist, the biggest thing limiting it’s range would be the potable water capacity.

    I could not envision folks expected to pay thousands of dollars to share a toilet and shower with 40 other passengers as they did in the Hindenburg, which was the top of luxury in her day. On extended crossings of the Graf Zeppelin, when weather slowed them down, the ship landed with no water aboard and no food either. You couldn’t ask passengers to day to pay thousands for a cabin and go hungry and not shower. So the airship would have to stop every two or three days just to replenish it’s limited water capacity as well as take on fresh supplies. Otherwise, the ship designated to fly a week without stopping (easy with engine fuel) could only carry a dozen passengers with strict water usage. Not exactly a profitable way to pay off a multi-million dollar aircraft or entertain folks paying a premium for their passage.

    For landing aircraft on / to airships, one such use would be for military scouting and patrolling use where heavier-than-aircraft (manned and unmanned) would be sent to and from the airship to extend visual and contact range. Like the Akron and Macon, a flying aircraft carrier for UAV’s might be a reasonable mobile platform for quick interdiction into a hot spot where eyes and arms were needed to look into somewhere fast.

    That’s my opinion and it’s just that sir. My thanks for sharing your ideas with me.

    Reply

    David Erskine August 25, 2011 at 8:26 am

    I accept that extra weight on top of the airship is a bad thing. You have made the same point elsewhere on a discussion about solar panels on an airship. The point was worth making.

    The least safe part of an airship’s flight is taking off and landing, except in still air. The airship wants to move with the wind, but the ground stays still. I was trying to minimise interaction with the ground, though some interaction with the ground is essential.

    Water is an interesting point. Water can be condensed from engine exhaust, and after filtering should be acceptable for showers, and even for drinking. In the last thirty years or so extemely fine filters, capable of filtering viruses out of water, have been available. Each passenger could have his or her own shower and attached filter, so that most of the water is reused, just for that shower.

    Thankyou for your comments.

    Reply

    John L October 28, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Also interesting that the Akron seems to have had 2 bladed props, and the Macon seems to have have 3 blades.

    http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/photos/showimg.php?file=/Macon/Hangar_one/macon2.jpg

    Here is a terrific site. It took me a long time to find this. It’s photos from the assembly in Akron? This is an Ohio history site, but I thought there were assembled at Lakehurst?

    http://www.summitmemory.org/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOBOX1=U.S.S.+Akron&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOROOT=all&t=s

    Reply

    Francisco Carvallo November 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    Hello John!
    Both the USS Akron & Macon were manufactured inside the Akron airship dock. Only the USS Shenandoah was constructed in the Pennsylvaniasteel-works and then moved over to Lakehurst. On the prop question, yes the Akron had 2 bladed peops made of wood (there were plans to put steel props on all outriggers, but the ship crashed before that happened.) The Macon started with double blades as with early pictures of the ship inside the Ohio airship-dock, then switched over to the 3 bladed steel props. The props was what mad e the Macon so mych faster than the Akron (that and the streamling added to the ship) The Akron could fly up to 79 mph, whereas the macon could routenely go up to 87 mph and went as fast as 89mph once! Thank you fr the site with the pictures..they do have errors: The Macon & Akron never flew together, the picture shows the Akron & Los Angeles flying together.

    Reply

    Mark March 4, 2012 at 12:37 am

    I have in my procession a 12 foot left hand rotation two bladed wooden propeller. I think it was made for Akron

    Reply

    Leave a Comment