Skip to content
AIRSHIP.DIY

Does the square-cube law let a carbon frame carry this?

Can it be built?

The mass fraction against every rigid airship with published figures, the buckling allowables that actually size the frame, and the gust case that turns out to govern rather than the static one.


Can it be built?

Empty weight scaled from the Hindenburg, across the range of structural scaling exponents the historical record cannot distinguish between. This is deliberately a family of curves: one curve would be a claim the evidence does not support, and the two ends disagree about whether bigger ships are better or worse.

Envelope volumen = 1.13n = 1.00n = 0.90n = 0.80n = 0.67
5,95333%52%74%105%167%
15,80337%52%67%86%121%
37,45842%52%61%72%90%
80,00046%52%57%62%70%
200,00052%52%52%52%52%

✕ marks a hull that cannot lift its own empty weight. All exponents agree at 200,000 m³ because that is the Hindenburg, where the scaling is anchored.

Undecided, and the record cannot settle it

Fitting all eight rigids with published figures gives an exponent of 1.13 at R² = 0.94, which would mean the baseline closes comfortably and that mass fraction gets worse with size, not better. Restrict to the five best-sourced ships, whose volumes span only 1.41 to 1, and the fit collapses to 0.16 at R² = 0.45. The scatter from gas choice, structural material and national design philosophy is about 30 percentage points, which swamps any size trend over that range.

At the theoretical square-cube value the baseline ship cannot lift its own empty weight. A model that quietly picked the favourable end would report a comfortable design where the truth is a coin flip.

Every rigid with published figuresGasStructureEmpty weight fraction
R-38 / ZR-21921hydrogenduralumin45.0%
LZ-129 Hindenburg1936hydrogenduralumin51.8%
LZ-126 / USS Los Angeles1924heliumduralumin59.0%
USS Macon / ZRS-51933heliumduralumin60.1%
USS Akron / ZRS-41931heliumduralumin62.1%
USS Shenandoah / ZR-11923heliumduralumin63.1%
R1001929hydrogenduralumin67.4%
R1011929hydrogenstainless steel76.9%

Structural material moves the fraction by 9.5 points at constant size, year and specification: R100 in duralumin against R101 in stainless steel, both built to the same Air Ministry requirement in the same year. That is larger than any size effect in the dataset. Three of these eight entries were wrong in the first version of this table, all in the direction that flattered the historical fleet.

Brief's cited benchmark
60.1%
USS Macon, but this is whole fixed weight, not structure
Macon on hydrogen-equivalent lift
55.5%
a third of the apparent gap is gas choice
The real target
51.8%
LZ-129 Hindenburg on an ISA basis, 1936, duralumin

Diagnostics

The curves the design actually turns on. Shear and bending moment are drawn as two charts sharing an axis rather than one chart with two scales, because newtons and newton metres are not comparable heights and putting them on one plot invites a reading that means nothing.

Power required against airspeed

Drag goes as the square of speed, so power goes as the CUBE. Doubling cruise speed costs eight times the power, and on a vehicle whose energy comes from a fixed area of sunlight that single fact shapes the whole mission concept. This ship is slow because being fast is unaffordable, not because it cannot be made faster.

050100150051015208 m/s designdouble the speed, eight times the powerairspeed, m/skW

Hours of station keeping per day, against wind

How long the daily solar budget can hold position against a given wind. There is a speed above which the ship cannot hold station at all and must drift, and finding it is one of the most operationally important numbers the model produces.

010200510152014.0 m/s: below this it holds all daywind, m/shours/day

Shear force along the hull

Buoyancy is distributed in proportion to cross-sectional area and weight is distributed wherever the heavy things are. Those two do not match, and the running difference is shear. The steps are the gondola, the engines and the fin roots.

-200050100peak -37 kNstation from nose, mkN

Bending moment along the hull

The primary structural output, and what every laminate schedule downstream gets sized against. Warm above the line is hogging, ends down and middle up; cool below is sagging. This ship does both: it hogs forward of the gondola and sags aft of it, and it does so in still air at exact global equilibrium, because buoyancy and weight are never distributed the same way.

-0.20.0050100peak 0.38 MN·m saggingstation from nose, mMN·m

The frame, member by member

Everywhere else the frame mass is a scaling estimate: the Hindenburg's framework share of empty weight, corrected for carbon. That sizes a concept, and it is not a structure. This sizes the actual members against the gust moment and the buckling allowable, and then compares the two.

The laminate you can actually lay up

47 percent fibre volume, 3.4 percent voids, woven fabric, vacuum bagged. 822 MPa compressive against 1450 MPa on the datasheet: 59 percent of what a prepreg autoclave would give. Every one of those knockdowns is in the flattering direction if you skip it, and a buckling-critical frame is sized by exactly the properties they hit hardest.

Leaving the vacuum bag off costs a further 26% of compressive strength. The bag is not optional, and this is the number that says so.

Fibre volume
47%
57.4% for prepreg autoclave
Voids
3.4%
under 1% prepreg
Compressive
822MPa
59% of prepreg
Modulus
102GPa
Ply thickness
0.24mm
from 200 g/m² twill
LongitudinalsBaySectionPliesAllowableReserveFrame mass
1610 m151 × 0.9 mm443 MPa1.5×2,560 kg
16chosen8 m151 × 0.9 mm468 MPa2.4×2,560 kg
248 m151 × 0.9 mm468 MPa3.6×3,840 kg
246 m151 × 0.9 mm4120 MPa6.4×3,840 kg
326 m151 × 0.9 mm4120 MPa8.5×5,120 kg
Every configuration lands on the four ply minimum practical laminate, with reserve factors of 2 and above. THE HULL GIRDER MOMENT DOES NOT SIZE THIS FRAME: what you can lay up does. So each of these masses is a floor rather than an estimate, and doubling the longitudinal count doubles the mass while buying nothing.

Two routes to the frame mass, and they do not agree

Sizing the members from the gust moment gives 2560 kg; scaling the Hindenburg's framework share gives 5443 kg. The bottom-up figure is 2.1 times LIGHTER, and that is the expected direction rather than a contradiction: the members come out at minimum gauge, so the sizing is a floor, and the factor of 2.1 is everything an idealised tube sizing leaves out. Local loads at every cell attachment and cover fitting. Wire bracing and its terminations. The fact that a real airship longitudinal is a LATTICE of small tubes rather than one large one, because a 151 mm single tube at four plies cannot be handled, drilled or joined. Handling and assembly loads, which for a structure this light are frequently larger than the flight loads. The model keeps BOTH numbers and uses the heavier one.