Talk:K-class blimp

message: Needs some cleanup, and the story of k-74. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

message: During much of the first 60 years of the last century it was either easier to get Congress to go for a new aircraft, or for an 'new version" of an old one.
There are many examples of this. A good example is the "F-93" which was an all weather fighter with a largely new airframe, a new engine, and  an all weather radar and fire control system based upon the F-86. By the time that production examples were ordered, the Air Force dropped the "F-93" designation and called it "F-86D". The navy had the F9F-9 which was the designation used to gain initial funding for a new airplane. The F9F series had included straight winged and swept wing versions, because when the swept wing aircraft was under development it was easier to sell congress on a 'new version' than a new airplane. Likewise the "F9F-9," when it became more convenient to bill it as a 'new' airplane than a "development," became the F11F.
So it was with the "XZP5K" the designation made it appear to be a rebuild of the K-ships as the earlier ZP2K (later ZSG-2).
The ZS2G-1 was a totally new design and not a development, as the far more honest Z (LTA) S (scout) 2 (as in second design produced by the manufacturer) G (as in Goodyear) -1 meaning the first variant of that design.
The deception by the Navy was minor compared to that involved in the "K-1" which was composed of an "experimental" car supposedly ordered to test on a J-class envelope, *the J/K car" and an experimental envelope ordered to test blau gas fuel as used by the Graf Zeppelin.
Put two separate 'experiments" (that just happened to fit, using a totally novel car suspension system) and suddenly you have "K-1" which NEVER had a serial number, which is to say was never authorized by Congress as required by law.Mark Lincoln 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fun and games with designations. Why the ZS2G was originally called the XZP5K.

message: I spent a critical part of my life writing sub-routines. The first computers I bought were two MVP-2s from the Linotype company (before WW II see typesetting, 1950s and 60s, see bombing system)s. They were really advanced, being equipped with dual 8 inch, 360 k floppy disk drives. We even splurged for the extra 16k of random excess memory, taking each computer to an astounding 32k of ram. To perform repetitive tasks, we had the amazing ability to tell the AES 880C computer "Bell QStore" and it would recordour keystrokes (subroutine) and that we would tell the computer to repeat those instructions any number of times, as often as we needed.
I guess my argument is that I fully understand the virtues of what those of us who wrote subroutines for the execution of the MVP-2s driving Linoterm high speed photo-typesetting machines did.
The important point being, "why does some anal-retentive insist on driving the world's round peg into his subroutine driven, performance numbers for airplanes into square real asshole?"
Just a question from one of those not an obsessive compulsive anal retentive. Knowledge - I admit - of such terms proving how ancient and therefore how potentially senile I am.Mark Lincoln 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An observation on the problem of writing good history for Lighter Than Air craft subjects

message: This article was recommended to me but it seems to have major differences in facts to the wiki page.
http://knol.google.com/k/navy-blimps-of-world-war-ii#_ftn13
Quantity produced, speed, the time on patrol etc.
Could someone that knows more then me look at it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BerelZ (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details different 

message: The "number built" in the lead contradicts the number built in the infobox. Also, the first sentence of the "Variants" section seems either incomplete or misplaced. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple of issues

message: The ZP4K is included in the "K" class blimp article. This ignores the fact that the ZP4K is a totally different design.
The K ships control cars were Goodyear design GZ-6, while the ZP4Ks were Goodyear design GZ-12. The K ships had volumes between 404,000 cu ft (K-2), 416,000 cu ft (K3-K13) 425,000 cu ft (K-14 to K-50) with the rest having 456,000 cu ft envelopes. The ZP2K, ZP3K and  ZP4Ks had envelopes of 527,000 cu ft.
The ZP2K and ZP3K were upgrades of of wartime K Ships and retained their K Bureau Numbers.
ZP2Gs had upgrades in their electrical systems (more power for more electronics), better radios, radar, sonobuoy receivers and Loran navigation system. Pilots had new reversible propellers, improved controls and an auto pilot. There were two more operator stations.
ZP3Gs were even more radically modified. The machine gun position was eliminated. They had further upgrades to the electrical system, towed sonar, and "bubble" windows. The flight engineer was eliminated with his gauges and controls moved to the pilots position.
The ZP4Ks were entirely new airships with entirely new Bureau Numbers. There was a totally new control car with a radically changed controls. The engines were more powerful P&W R-1340-46s (550 hp).
The Navy was playing the designation game when it ordered the ZP4K and ZP5K (which served with the designation ZS2G-1). The game is to slip a new aircraft past Congress by giving it a name which implies it is just a new version of a type already in service. The Navy pulled the same stunt with the F9F-6 which had a designation that would lead one to think it was just a new version of the entirely different F9F-5. The two examples of promoting a new design as if it was just an upgrade of an old design occurred during the same time (post-Korean war period).
The question is do we leave the ZP4K in in the K Class article or we to create a new article for what was really a totally different airship?
Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Necromancing the topic, I feel like the ZP4K and ZP5K deserve their own articles. Kamnet (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The ZP4K Dilemma

message: The ZP4K (ZSG-4) airships were not ZNPK, aka ZPK, (Goodyear GZ-6) or a modification of ZPKs as were the ZP2K (ZSG-2), and ZP3K (SSG-3 albeit a larger envelope. The ZP4Ks (ZSG-4) and ZP5K (ZS2G-1) were entirely new construction and were in no way K-class blimps. The designation similarity was an not uncommom ploy as a deception to fool Congress for budgetary reasons in the late 1940s and early 1950s. As in renaming the YF-95 the F-86D, or naming the XF-96A the F-84F despite drastic differences between the F-84 and XF-96A. The ZP4K (Goodyear GZ-12) had a similar envelope to the ZP2K and ZP3K but the cars were different in every way including structure (Magnisium vs. Alumunum). The ZP5Ks (Goodyear GZ-15) were entirely different from the ZPK in every respect. Not only did the ZSG-5 have an entirely different control car, it had entirely different control surfaces (3 instead of 4 arranged in an inverted Y instead of a + configuration) and a much larger envelope 670,000 cu. ft. vs 527,000 cu. ft.). Thus inclusion of the ZP4K (ZSG-4) in an article about the K-class blimp inclusiom of the ZP2K and ZP3K (ZSG-2 & ZSG-3) is entirly appropriate. Inclusion of the ZP4K (ZSG-4) is extremly inappropriate to reality. Including the ZP5K (ZSG-5) is absolutly wrong.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two errors, one extreme.