The Hindenburg Fire : Hydrogen or Incendiary Paint ?

A theory of the Hindenburg fire that has gained popular acceptance proposes that an incendiary paint covered the outer surface of the airship. Further, according to this theory, the paint was both the point of ignition and the sole cause of the rapid spread of the fire. The hydrogen within the airship is held blameless for both the start of the fire and its subsequent advance. We have examined this theory experimentally and quantitatively. We find that the basic ideas underlying this theory are wrong. The composition of the paint is documented, and its flammability rating shows that it is safe. Indeed, we have confirmed in our own experiments that the Hindenburg paint barely burns. The burn rates we obtained are consistent with both testing-laboratory documentation and with our analysis of the burn rate of an actual piece of Hindenburg fabric that survived the 1937 fire. The burn rate of the paint is thousands of times too slow for the painted fabric to have been the driving force for the Hindenburg fire. Even if the paint were a form of solid rocket propellant (which it is not), the burn speed would still be too slow. For example, if the Hindenburg had been painted with exactly the propellant used in the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, it would take about 12 hours for the airship to burn from end to end. For the aluminum-powder paint used on the Hindenburg, the burn time would be approximately 40 hours. The Hindenburg was consumed by flame in 34 seconds. Further, the incendiary-paint theory involves igniting the paint by means of an electrical spark. It has been shown that spark ignition is physically implausible if a natural spark is employed. Experiment and theory are in accord, and they make clear that the incendiary-paint theory is without merit.