Comments on: USS Akron and USS Macon

By: Francisco Carvallo

Francisco Carvallo — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:15:06 +0000

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.

By: bill dalton

bill dalton — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 02:41:25 +0000

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

By: John L

John L — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:18:09 +0000

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

By: John L

John L — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:33:55 +0000

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…

By: Lani Griffiths

Lani Griffiths — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:16:27 +0000

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.

By: David Erskine

David Erskine — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:26:16 +0000

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.

By: Stu

Stu — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 03:59:08 +0000

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.

By: Stu

Stu — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 03:34:09 +0000

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.

By: Stu

Stu — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:26:04 +0000

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.

By: jeanpierre

jeanpierre — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:33:22 +0000

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