Indeed, another overseas trip or working with the U.S or Zeppelin company as well was planned. Alas finances were against them as this was just after the Great Depression.

Very true! good comparison

Thank you. I was thinking "sister" isn't the term I would have chosen lol

Sister doesn't equal identical twin.

Indeed... a second flight might have changed public perception but time money and events were against them.

Yes, I know. But what an elegant way to fly. I’ve read (as I’m sure you must have) the Nevil Shute book on the R100/R101. Also the book by ‘The Engineer Guy.’

I always wondered if she (R100) could have flown the India trip that R101 clearly wasn’t prepared yet to do. I know from ‘Sliderule’ that there was concern over the gasoline engines in tropics, but in retrospect, of course, gasoline aero engines work fine.

No it was not it had many problems especially with the outer cover. The structural tubes would have suffered internal corrosion.

Thanks - indeed there were many options, but timing and the financial crash of the 1930's really caused the death knell to LTA projects. Similar to many technologies in the 1970s'.

I Guess that the crew dropped ballast to compesate for the lack of dinamic lift.

I was just going to say -- should be the Jet Stream.

We'll have to make the change but were trying to keep the route simplified for the map. Thanks for giving us the details

Sisters but not identical twins ;-) The R100 had a more conventional duralumin structure, although it was desgned by the genius Barnes Wallis with Neville Shute Norway doing the calculations, whereas the R101 was built of stainless steel without guy wires. Neville Shute's "Slide Rule" describes this well. It's a great pity that such a magnificent ship, just as the second "Graf Zeppelin", never realised its potential due to the errors leading to the catastrophic loss of a sister ship. The original "Graf Zeppeilin" and the "Los Angeles" had very successful careers despite effectively being prototypes, thanks to the leadership, experience and sound judgment of Dr. Hugo Eckener and Vice-Admiral Charles Rosendahl, who flew with each other many times.

@@awuma True

@@awuma Interesting writeup. I had thought both ships where made of steal.

@@awuma It is also germane that whilst the R100 was designed and built by private enterprise, the R101 was designed and built by the Air Ministry of the United Kingdom. Although they were built in parallel, they were also designed and built in deliberate competition: the aim was to decide the question as whether it was better for such projects as the R101/R100 should be built by private enterprise or by government-owned companies?

I never knew that R101 was built out of stainless steel, and no guy wires. I’ve read ‘Sliderule’ several times, but missed that little detail.

Hi there, of the rigid type, the UK had 16, of which the R-100 and R.101 were the largest. There were plans for the R. 102 which would have been even bigger.

Yes, and far less innovative and complicated. The R101 was too heavy, using Beardmore Tornado diesels, modified from those used by the Canadian railways, using newly designed valves instead of the Zeppelin-tested valves of the R100 and, of course, the R100 team were appalled that the R100 used a new dope that, mixed with the previous coating would have destroyed the skin. Anyway, the R101 had to be lengthened and one wonders how much the stressing was recalculated.

Ooops, I meant R101 had the new dope!

@@johnjephcote7636 Very interesting information. A fascinating subject. A very romantic era even as flying boats were beginning to carry as many passengers in similar levels of comfort. All this aside this was a romantic era when air travel was new. John, I appreciate your insight.

It's a tough one, as they continued planning the R 102 and also possible further flights with the R100 in to 1931... it was also the financial crisis of that era which also brought British airships to a close.

Thank you.

Well one lives and learns !

Gasoline burns a larger percentage of cars than lithium batteries do. Don’t let facts get in the way of whatever dumb vendettas you might have though.

@@wp40 *The Simple Fact is there are far more of them, but Thermal Runaway in EV Batteries is mostly Fatal, where most ICE Fires can be extinguished with a cheap Fire Extinguisher !*

@@GrrMeister EV Cars catch fire 25 times per 100k vehicles. For gas the number is 1530. Those are the facts if you had bothered to look them up. And when your vehicle catches fire you get out, not try to fight it from inside. I imagine you claim about more deaths is probably pulled from your ass as well.