Talk:Hybrid airship

message: Reverted due to vandalism and added a couple links 207.161.43.164 02:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How has this been missed? One sentence is just after the other, at the start of the Concept section:
:"usually define a hybrid airship as one that carries at least 40% of the weight of the loaded ship by aerodynamic means."
:"With hybrid designs, as much as 40% of its total lift is created by aerodynamics."
Unless these two things don't mean the same thing. Forgive me but I'm not an aeronautical engineer. --64.149.36.182 (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also add that the "Hybrid Airship" infobox is messed up under "Other Means of Lift". Only one of those 3 things is a means of lift. --64.149.36.182 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup / Contradiction 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Jl3MJh0lI&feature=related  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basiliev (talk • contribs) 09:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Other way to take off

message: There are many things fundamentally incorrect and misleading about this page, therefore it needs a genuine overhaul.  For instance, it leads off with a picture of Santos-Dumont's "walk-before-you-run" use of an old airship envelope to make a practice run with his first aeroplane before departing airships entirely and culminating his achievements in aeronautics with his Santos-Dumont Demoiselle.  Removal of "spin" when Wikipedia itself contradicts the facts presented here is in keeping with the purpose and function of Wikipedia.  Discuss. Cronkurleigh (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may need an overhaul, but you must understand that content needs to be sourced...who has made these engineering analyses? Also note that wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. The Daily Mail is a pretty shaky reference for anything in the real world as well. TheLongTone (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

text: ...a book written in 1927 is surely not the last word on the matter.TheLongTone (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Overhaul

message: Wikipedia has an old note at the bottom of this page stating, "This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (January 2012)
I will be endeavoring to clean this up.  If anyone want's to join in the fun and put a shoulder to the wheel, feel free to contribute!
Cronkurleigh (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Style 

message: Having engaged Wikipedia on a topic near and dear to my heart, I find it interesting that people hide behind "rules of engagement" over getting to the relevant facts. How inefficient, and condescending: The process is more important than the facts.
Not one person I that has engaged me has ever raised any sort of factual error I have committed; and why is that? Just one, "I have evidence that is incorrect based on the following..." would be appreciated.
No. Again, I say a resounding, "No." Engage me on the facts, the physics, and knowledge if you can; but never cower behind the artifice of process.
Got facts? Bring 'em. That is scholarly debate.
All else is illusion.
I have thrown down the gauntlet:  I leave it to you to make the best Wikipedia page you cant on Hybrid Airships; I will make a competing effort.  I propose the time limit thereof to be 1 April 2014 - just because.
Then let the readers judge which is more useful to them.
Game on?  or are y'all scared...
April 1st.  Don't be late.  Or without something to show "sweeties".
Cheers,
Cronkurleigh (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to get the attention of people who happen to reside in north western Europe, don't lay down your gauntlet when there's scarce enough light to see it by. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, don't waste your time. You haven't a clue how our community works - and more to the point, you don't want to. Go do something potentially useful instead, like coordinating the engineering of a lead zeppelin or something . — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, this gauntlet was slapped in the face and thrown at the feet - not simply laid down.  Instead of instructing me on getting attention, why don't you make a factual contribution?  Scared in your dark part of the world in Northwestern Europe?  I wonder what would happen if, this venue being a supposed resource, another Piaseki shows up and does his or her thing..  It's all fun and games until a framework made of non-aviation approved irrigation pipe succumbs to sympathetic vibration and people die.  Have you got a problem with a quote from a book written in 1927?  Are you that afraid of your gasbag religion?  Cronkurleigh (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I completely understand how your dysfunctional version of the Wikipedia community works; which is why I will author a page that contradicts your illusions of grandeur, and I quote the following on how it is supposed to work:  "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them."  My contribution was a quote, with an introductory paraphrase; I provided the source as required, and "editors" added their views by renaming the section I added on Engineering, spun it as they saw fit, and then removed a view provided by a quoted source simply because it was disagreed with.  You have no idea how hopeless your position is - for instance, that even middle school and high school teachers in my region of the world will not permit a reference to Wikipedia as a source.  So yes, I completely have a clue on how "your" community "works" - or essentialy fails to work, if accomplishment in terms of utility is a basis of value.  Cronkurleigh (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Hat, No Cattle... 

message: You - especially _you_ collectively - What do you want?  A video game of pretense in terms of contribution?  When there is some first-hand information about, offered for consideration?  In the words of John Wood (Wikipedia it if you don't know him re: Airship Industries): 
"Great to hear from you..., hope all is well! It's like watching those old steam powered carousels isn't it? Every twenty years the same od tired horses come around, and each time there's a bunch of fresh faced youngsters with cash a plenty to invest!! As Andrew Millar once sagely opined; "What are sheep for, if not to be fleeced?" If ever there was an example of a business selling sizzle and not sausage, it's LTA!! Take care of yourself."
So, if you don't want a guy referenced on Wikipedia referenced, have at it.  It is a public statement, readily referenced, from a former CEO of one of the most influential airship companies after WWII.  There for all the world to see; and you're so against a simple quote from 1927 that says what Mr. Wood has stated in a public electronic forum.
I took the time to bring information "your" way.  "You" chose to repeatedly delete, modify, and re-label it. Shame on you.  Don't you think a guy who's name is listed on your pages as a part of relevant history isn't worthy of his sort of knowledge being heard?  Does he have to take the time beyond what he has already done in order to have his voice heard?
I was just a minor player in the "game" back in the day; the leading remaining professional has publicly, and repeatedly been quoted as saying, "Stop!":
"The tired old carousel of Lighter-than-air (LTA) continues to revolve, on average once every twenty years or so. Is that an Aereon or a Megalifter? In a poor light a Skyship looks much like a Dynairship. Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them. Time on station has been a red herring for years, the area to focus on being "on station" LTA has never been any good at this, a twenty knot headwind reduces your speed of advance by 40%, and is likely to result, if prolonged for anytime, in the vehicle being as likely to be found in Alabama as Afghanistan. In the trophosphere the situation gets worse! The main attraction of LTA lies in the fact that those seeking investment in such crackpot schemes know that investors have no reliable database of what the build or r&d costs for such turkeys ought to be, it's rich picking time for the snake oil salesmen when an air ship project hits town. Luckily, the tired old carousel at DARPA and similar institutions revolves at about the same speed, whenever anybody at such government offices wants a little extra cash for themselves, why not flag up a new "Walrus" or "Skycat"? It like goldfish, a short attention span means you can re-introduce the same nonsense time and again and wait hopefully for the cheques to drop through the letterbox! It is just possible that a conventional blimp of about 100 metres, approximately similar to a "K" class but with advanced glass cockpit and lightweight diesels, could make headway in the coastal surveillance/anti piracy field, but its a small r&d task, no money in it for the speculators you see. I know what I am talking about, invest at your peril! John Wood (Ex Chief Exec and co-founder of Airship Industries)"
So, if you will not permit a simple quote from a book in 1927, along with references confirming this as recent as 2013, allow me to ask:  What are you up to and useful for?  Why not just quit?  Shut up?  End the pontificating that you have any _actual_ knowledge?
It's one thing for Doctor Who to say, "Bow ties are cool!".  That's fashion and science fiction.  It's entirely another thing to ban, "Hybrid airships don't work and never will.", because you don't have the chops to wear a bow tie or bear up to the standards of Wikipedia and admit that I had the statement from a recognized expert, the source material reference, and bothered to take the time to participate.
Again, to the many I've received attempts at repost from:  Stop it, read the rules, (especially those that predate Wikipedia on the same process) and then come to the discussion with facts instead of opinions - or at least quotes, references, and relevancy.
The living founder of Airship Industries has publicly said enough is enough.  I politely try to include a bit of history and reference without first pointing out so blunt a thing as a living person referenced herein - and you get in my face about it?
Get scholarly.  Get over your "power".  Gather around the real campfire of knowledge; rather than what can readily be perceived using this as some sort of video game whilst living you your parent's basement.
Cronkurleigh (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process or Knowledge? 

message: All this whining about me and my lack of approved method.  Where are you?  I'm building the understanding of humanity in my "sandbox", and you could comment on that if you have some engineering skills.  What?  No takers?  You're willing to whine about references on an historically based article, but can't contribute to the math?
Seriously.  Bring it.  Scholarship.  Or shut up.
Cronkurleigh (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The essence of scholarship is building an argument based on reliable sources: I suggest you bring these or shut up. Sources are certainly out there, although since airships are somewhat recherche many of the solid references are academic papers that one needs a subscription to access online. (I'm sure (this is relevant.) If your credentials are what you claim then surely you have some printed sources: I find it very hard to believe that somebody who has worked in this field for a substantial amount of time has not accumulated a bookshelf on the subject. You are clearly getting these formulae from somewhere.TheLongTone (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: When your sandbox article is complete, are you putting it through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Stop acting so hard done by and do some actual work on this article or the American Skyships article instead of wasting your energy on being needlessly offensive. If at the beginning you had shown just a little willingness to discuss what you were doing rather than indulging in empty rhetoric it might have been possible to take you seriously, but its very difficult to do so since you persistantly misinterpret almost every comment that anybody makes.TheLongTone (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Hat, No Cattle - Mark II 

message: There doesn't seem to be enough independently verifiable material on this method of propulsion to warrant its own article, so I have added it in here. It differs slightly from the other types of hybrid in that it uses aerodynamics to turn lift into thrust, rather than the other way round (much like the distinction between a helicopter and an autogyro). But, looking at the Hunt GravityPlane, which has both fixed wings and aerostatic gas bags, I find it impossible to say that it is not a hybrid airship. So I put it in here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a gravity-powered aircraft.  OBVIOUSLY, it flies straight down--once.  It's so revolutionary because it doesn't even need wings!  Is this technology also called "a rock?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.137.231.145 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha the joys of ranting as a substitute for reading the article. Once at low altitude it recharges its gas bag until it is buoyant and then flies back up - still under the power of gravity. I never met a rock yet that could do that, I think you will find that Avatar (film) is fiction. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gliding under gravity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hybrid airship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110417171945/http://www.aereon.com:80/pages/aereon26.html to http://www.aereon.com/pages/aereon26.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The redirect Plimp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  BilCat (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This redirect looks like ad of the Plimp Airships. I would delete it Apetrov09703 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Plimp]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]