Talk:R38-class airship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed move and/or better ZR names?[edit]

I have posted a note to this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#better ZR airship names?

I see ZR-2 was moved from R38 (ZR-2), which makes sense from the point of view that it spent most of its flying life designated as ZR-2.

However, it is unfortunate that the article now has to host two messy (to my eyes) redirects. Also, a reader looking at the bottom navigation template "Aircraft produced by Short brothers" sees R.38 (airship) which pipes to R38 (ZR-2) which in turn now redirects to ZR-2. The reader will not spot they are the same ship.

The "R.38 (airship)" can be fixed by changing it to something like "R38 / ZR2", but the whole template needs fixing (for one, it's not alphabetical as it claims).

I'm not too motivated to make much of a case for this, so here are some tentative but far-reaching proposals.

1. As the Template:USN rigid airships only has five entries, the names could be enlarged to one of these variants:

and I'm sure there are more possibilities. Hopefully the goal is to help the reader navigate.

For comparison, the German template shows as ZR-1 „USS Shenandoah“ | ZR-2/R38 | ZR-3 „USS Los Angeles“ | ZRS-4 „USS Akron“ | ZRS-5 „USS Macon“.

2. The Short Brothers template given a complete overhaul, so all designations and names appear, and in order. Include ZR-2 in the R38 name too. Maybe seperate aerostats from other craft.

3. Move this ZR-2 to one of these possibilities:

  • ZR-2 / R38
  • ZR-2 - R38
  • ZR-2 (R38)
  • or something else. Not that I'm recommending what the other languages have: Czech has R 38, German has R38, Italian has R38 (ZR-2), Slovenian has Vzducholoď R 38 (whose article omits to mention ZR-2).

-84user (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on English Wikipedia do not contain alternatives in the article names themselves; that's why we have redirects. Therefore, any article name that has both the ZR-2 and R38 names in it (such as R38 (ZR-2), R38/ZR-2 or whatever) is inappropriate.
Really, the only choices are to name the article R38 or name it ZR-2. I believe that ZR-2 is the better name, for the very reason that you state: its entire operational life was under its US designation.
Agreed that the Shorts Brothers template does indeed need cleaning up; but the alphabetical section is alphabetical.
The US Navy airships navbox should remain as it is for consistency with the other navigational templates used by WP:AIR. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, of course, the article could be broadened in scope slightly to encompass the whole A class. Since there really isn't much to say about R39 through R41 other than there were short-lived plans to build them, this might be a better approach. It would also be more consistent with how WP:AIR organises content. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful information[edit]

Just spotted this web site detailing the memorial and the men on the airship that may be useful for expanding the article. I will also try and get a photo of the memorial for the article next time I am in the area. Keith D (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a photo of the memorial and the middle panel and will up load them later. The panels with the names are no longer present, do not know if they have been removed for safety purposes or vandalised. Keith D (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The memorial has been refurbished and the plaques of names replaced so I have uploaded a new image of the memorial File:R38 Memorial Kingston upon Hull.jpg. Keith D (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

design/build[edit]

It's my understanding (based on Nevil Shute's autobiography Slide Rule) that the entire design of the airship was by the British Government - as the Air Ministry. Short Brothers built to the design and did no engineering. Short's are NOT blamed in the current text. The Air Ministyr then went on to design the R101 (which also failed badly) I do not know if this is true and perhaps a more learned historian can amend the text accordingly? Offbeam (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am a great fan of Nevil Shute Norway's books I must take significant objection to of some of the opinions expressed in Slide Rule. Mr Nevil Shute Norway the engineer became Nevil Shute the novelist in the desire to separate his profession as an engineer from what was in the 1920s a hobby writing fiction. By the post WW II period he had become highly successful as a author. He had emigrated to Australia motivated by a profound disgust with high taxes needed to repay the immense cost of WW II, as well as the cost holding what they might of the empire, building a nuclear deterent, and ideological disgust with the socialists governments of Great Britain. Anyone familiar with the books "The Far Country" (1952) and "In The Wet" (1953) will easily see his philosophical beliefs at the time he wrote "Slide Rule" (1954). Thus while reading Slide Rule consideration must be applied to the opinions expressed. The book must be regarded well when he describes his activities and the project at hand. His comments upon the R.38 are both subjective and often wrong. Those most responsible for the R.38 fiasco died in it. They were not responsible for the R.101 design. Those most responsible for both crashes died in their creations but how could they have died twice? The first R.38 Memorial Prize was awarded to three Americans whom had been responsible in large part for the design of the ZR-1 Shenandoah, J.C Hunsaker, C.p. Burgess, and Starr Truscott if memory serves me. The American approach to creation airships was far more methodical than that exhibited by the English before the R.38 disaster. Had Britain learned nothing from the R.38 fiasco they would not have made the decisions which rendered the R.101 (and R.100) overweight compared to the post-war Zeppelin designs. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Severe Problem With Article End[edit]

Nevil Shute Norway (Nevil Shute) is my favorite author. I posses every one of his books. Yet I am well aware of certain things he states in Slide Rule which are historically in error. C.I.R. Campbell, the man who was responsible for the deisgn of the R38, was killed by his creation not rewarded by being allowed to design of R.101. Therefore he did not have to be "sacked" as his creation killed him. I understand Mr. Norway's (Nevil Shute's) ideological beliefs and motivations. That does not make them true or explain why they should be included in the Wikipedia article on the R38. One consequence of the R38 disaster was the requirement for future British airships to be designed with a reduced number of longitudinal members so that forces could be accurately determined. The strength requirements placed upon designers of the R100 and R101 were by the standards of airship design extreme and resulted in both the R100 and R.101 being considerably heavier than other (Zeppelin and Goodyear-Zeppelin) rigid airship designs by volume. Mr. Nevil Shute Norway describes in Slide Rule calculating the forces and therefor the strength of the structural members of R100. The volume of lifting gas and thus lift is fixed. Lift less airship weigh determines the efficiency of an airship. The higher the weight the less the disposable lift available for crew, accommodations, fuel and payload. Campbell was negligent in his assumption that the dynamic loads on the Admiralty A design were not of consequence. This was an assumption for which he paid the ultimate penalty. Still Mr. Norway's accusation that the men responsible for the R38 were responsible for the design of R.101 in Slide Rule was in error. I feel that some remediation of the final statement in this article needs to be made. To leave it as it stands reduces the historic accuracy and thus the encyclopedic value. Ether the end of the article need be expanded to explain Mr. Norway's error or removed to ameliorate the historic error. The later seems more appropriate. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Nomenclature[edit]

British airship nomenclature was often consistent and often not. In the case of rigids there was HMS NO. 1 followed by HMA NO. 9r to HMA NO 25r. Thereafter they were designated by R. such as HMA R.26 to HMA R.101. Non-rigid were a bit more confusing with designation varying in the early days from a simple name to HMA NO. followed by a number. This system was replaced by one of the type - number such as SS-31. Then the designation system changed to one similar to rigids with the type designated by letter followed by a period#. such as C.#, SSZ.#. This nomenclature system broke down severely when C.27 was followed by C*1. This was further confused when the practice of painting designations on airships excluding the period was followed by painting periods on airships such as N.S. 12 which was properly designated NS-12. Fortunately there were far fewer rigid airships and they followed the system of the period in which they were contracted though this left similar airships having either the designation HMA NO. 25r or HMA R.26. The proper legal designation for the airship in this article was R.38 For all the grim details see Mowthorpe, Ces. Battlebags: British Airships of the First World War, 1995 ISBN 0-905778-13-8. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about citation of "Giants in the Sky" by Douglas H. Robinson. I have long had a copy of this book and believe there is a typo in the citation in this article as the book was published in 1973. I also question the use of this source as Dr. Robinson's work with Charles Keller "UP SHIP" is a far better reference for the R.38 and by the same author. Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R38-class_airship&oldid=1206111727"