Talk:Rigid airship

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Energy efficiency

The cost of fuel for flying is now a major issue. What are the basic facts about energy efficiency, for modern heavier-than-air vs. lighter-than air flying, of goods and/or passengers? -69.87.200.75 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The basic facts are that nobody has yet built an airship to match, let alone exceed, the energy efficiency of a 747. The latter produces significantly more passenger-km per kg of fuel burned than Hindenburg did, and Hindenburg was the most efficient constructed to date. Hindenburg was not large enough. There is no reason in principle why a modern airship could be of sufficient size for scaling to make it more efficient than any airplane. Fnj2 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!!

I agree. I do not know who IP user is, but it costs thousands of dollars per plane per flight, a lot of fuel, and a lot of inefficiency. I also think that lighter-than-air craft is much safer than heavier than air craft, such as planes, which crash all the time and nobody has condemned them the way that lighter than air craft was. However, this probably means that The Smart Fortwo will be adapted into a tiny cramped plane for fuel efficiency. Oh dear. In-Correct (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of this page?

Is there any need for this page when it clearly marks that zeppelin is a widely used word for all airships on the zeppelin page ? --Deadman (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If giant rigid airships went down because of political reasons, and not because of the Hindenburg crashing

...then why are there many places in Wikipedia that say that the end of The Rigid Airship was because of The Hindenburg???? There are some places that said that the day of that crash, was also the same day that Rigid Airships disappeared in favor of other aircraft. I do not think it is accurate. In-Correct (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity

I wonder if anyone's figured out how much water was created by the Hindenburg disaster? — Rickyrab | Talk 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen versus Helium

What I was looking for in this and related articles was which airships used hydrogen and which used helium. I understand that the US was the only country with large helium reserves, but did the US always use helium for US constructed airships? The R38 class airship, for example, was a British-built craft which the US bought during its testing phase. The fact that it later exploded suggests hydrogen, but I can find no definitive and explicit confirmation. Derrick Chapman 13:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)

new rigid airships

i have seen websites that advertise that they construct airships. one states that they are also building a rigid airship. (http://www.aeroscraft.com) if this can be confirmed, why has this article not been updated? Wessonjoe (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)wessonjoe[reply]

Aeros ML, the manufacturer of the aeroscraft has recieved FAA certification for the aeroscraft. [1] WhiteDragon (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

The terminology section reads:

Although "rigid airship" is the proper formal term, these aircraft are often casually referred to by several other names such as dirigibles (which is incorrect since both semi-rigid airships and non-rigid airships are dirigible, i.e. steerable), zeppelins (after the most successful ships of this type built by the Zeppelin Company), or the big rigids.

First of all, the majority of this section is parenthetical, I don't think that's appropriate for an encyclopedia. If someone wants to know why zeppelins are called zeppelins, they can find out at the zeppelin article. And the part about being called dirigibles doesn't make any sense. It seems to be saying that semi-rigid airships and non-rigid airships are dirigibles because they're steerable, and rigid airships are not dirigibles because... they're not steerable? I'm going to remove the parentheticals and possibly move the remaining content to another section. Onlynone (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rigid airship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egregiously bad source repeatedly cited.

While I have a substantial library on airships I do not have "British Airships 1905–30" by Ian Castle from Osprey Publishing, 2013. While I am aware of Osprey publications the one cited is egregiously poor and at times patently erronious. The entry on R.80 for example is at best ill informed. I recommend that ssections depending upon "British Airships 1905–30" for their citations be replaced by information from well reserched and accurate sources such as Higham's The British Rigid Airship 1908–1931 and Mowthorpe's. Battlebags: British Airships of the First World War. Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pathfinder 1

Someone should update the modern airships section to include the new pathfinder 1. it's been confirmed thru various construction images that is a rigid airship. https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/year-in-review/sergey-brins-zeppelin-the-biggest-greenest-aircraft-in-the-world/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/08/the-worlds-largest-aircraft-breaks-cover-in-silicon-valley/ Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can never understand why editors say something like this shoulkd be done rather than do it themselves.TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]