Cause of the Loss of R.101: Conclusions of the Court and a Summary of Investigations made at the National Physical Laboratory

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

ISSN: 0002-2667

Publication date: 1 May 1931


SINCE the Report of the investigations into the causes and circumstances of the accident to R.101 do not bring out any noticeably new facts, and in general can be said to bear out the statements made and conclusions arrived at m the article on the accident published in AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING, Vol. II, November, 1930, pp. 278–280, it does not appear necessary to publish here any extended summary of it, particularly as this has been amply done elsewhere. It may, however, be well to give the authenticated figures of the weight and lift of the airship, as given in the Report, as they differ somewhat from the estimates published in the article already referred to. As originally designed, the hull was 732 feet long, with a maximum diameter of 132 feet, the total gasbag capacity being 4,998,500 cubic feet, giving a gross lift of 148 6 tons. The fixed weights amounted to 113·6 tons, leaving a useful lift of 35 tons, instead of the 60 tons for which the specification had called. To remedy this deficiency the servo control and certain fittings were removed, giving a gain of 2·3 tons, and the gasbag wiring was let out, giving a further gain of 3·4 tons; the total gain from these modifications being 5·7 tons. In addition to these alterations, an extra bay (8a) containing a gasbag with a opacity of 510,300 cubic feet was inserted, which resulted in a further net gain of 8·6 tons. After these modifications the length of the hull was 777 feet, the maximum diameter remaining the same as before, and the total gasbag capacity had been increased to 5,508,800 cubic feet, giving a gross lift of 167·2 tons. The fixed weights now amounted to 117·9 tons, leaving a useful lift of 49·3 tons.


(1931), "Cause of the Loss of R.101: Conclusions of the Court and a Summary of Investigations made at the National Physical Laboratory", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 117-121.




Copyright © 1931, MCB UP Limited

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.