Talk:Rigid airship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Energy efficiency[edit]

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? - (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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)


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)

The meaning of this page?[edit]

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)

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

...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)

Out of curiosity[edit]

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

Hydrogen versus Helium[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

new rigid airships[edit]

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

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


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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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