Talk:Hybrid airship

Untitled

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

Cleanup / Contradiction

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)

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)

The Dynalifter hybrid airship design deserves a mention on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.206.146 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Other way to take off

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

Engineering Considerations

A new editor, User:Cronkurleigh (talk), has added some criticisms of the idea, with a couple of references. Some of this seems unwarranted - it is obvious that a hybrid has the qualities of neither a pure airship nor a pure aeroplane. But it is far less obvious that the hybrid has both their disadvantages in full measure, as the critique claimed. There must be a counter-argument that by reducing these disadvantages one can find a niche where hybrids are practical. So I have edited it down. The article needs a bit of reorganising, but meanwhile if anybody can come up with some useful references (whether for or against the concept or, preferably, neutral in tone), that would be good. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An old editor doesn't understand that these are real engineering aspects and limitations of hybrid airships, from real sources, and deleting these comments was the real unwarranted act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronkurleigh (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the page was decidedly pro-hybrid without any basis in engineering fact; that my simple addition of some factual details gets derided, and that the editor Steelpillow proceeds with a lecture about presenting both sides of the argument regarding controversial issues, etc., when there is no controversy. If Steelpillow has facts that contradict the scientifically supported data presented, then he should do so; to label the results of wind tunnel studies and sound, basic aeronautical engineering as "criticism" is creating controversy, not increasing understanding - the latter being the goal of any Encyclopedia (which editor Steelpillow clearly has negative thoughts, given his practice page deriding Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steelpillow/test1

Cronkurleigh (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I will be removing the inclusion of the history of rigid airships operated by the US Navy from the history section tomorrow, as it is not a part of the history of hybrid airships. Any objections?

Cronkurleigh (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I further propose that the section "Current and Proposed Designs" and "List of Hybrid Airships" be replaced with a list of hybrid airship projects/programmes, their dates of activity, and status/outcomes - given that the this is topic is "out of date".

@Cronkurleigh: Wikipedia requires its editors to remain civil at all times and to make No personal attacks. Please respect our community rules - I see there is a useful set of links to the basics on your user talk page, so I will not labour the point here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

My comments to which Cronkurleigh refers may be found [1] - if there is any derision in there I must apologise, I sought only to inform a new and inexperienced editor, and to seek a balanced presentation of the issues. I did not delete wholesale as implied, but worked the thrust of this editor's comments in with the existing material - which was indeed biased the other way. I asked Cronkurleigh to discuss any issues over the article here, and it is good that they have done so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

On a technical level, Cronkerleigh does not address the key point with which I opened this topic, that the opposing PoV is believed by some to be tenable. It is beyond belief that flying prototypes such as the HAV-3 would be being invested in so heavily and by big guns like Northrop Grumman if the idea were universally accepted as debunked. At least we are both agreed that the article currently lacks references supporting the positive view of the concept, meanwhile, mere repetition that "the bumblebee cannot fly" is not adequate proof to the contrary.

@Cronkurleigh: Yes, do delete that off-topic paragraph about rigids, you are quite right to challenge it, well spotted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone personally; if adding to this page with accredited references bursts any balloons, so to speak, the facts presented are not intended as personal attacks. The technology addressed here should be done objectively, and engineering facts should not be omitted; rather, they should be included to allow the reader to ask simple questions, as to why the technology is being pursued when it is contrary to physical principles. It is a fact that hybrids are less efficient than conventional airships below a critical airspeed, and less efficient that heavier than aircraft above that speed. Just because "heavy hitters" have spent billions on the game doesn't necessarily mean they're correct, and the reader should have the facts available; however, in your effort to keep opposing PoV in play, you keep excluding facts, and when included, you deride them as "criticism" rather than simple facts. If I am perceived as a bull in a china shop, remember that the "Current" section was hopelessly out of date, and many statements made contradicted information available elsewhere in Wikipedia. So, instead of lecturing me on etiquette - which wasn't getti ng much done to improve the factual content and keep the page current - why not get involved in a constructive way? Instead of deleting my contributions outright, or editing them to re-task them to your perception, simply have the courtesy to say, "That's interesting; why did you change it to that?" Instead, you go on the attack immediately. It's a wonder anyone get's involved, given the contributions get treated like antibodies and new editors are given the bum's rush. You might want to consider your reactions to my efforts a little more carefully...Cronkurleigh (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You refer to me derogatorily as an "old editor", you accuse me of ignorance, derision, intolerance and deletionism, of "going on the attack" and so forth. Those are personal attacks, no matter what you pretend. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

here is the diff of Cronkurleigh's very first edit on Wikipedia. I think any experienced editor will agree that it needed wikifying and copyediting. And here is the diff of my subsequent post on their talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Talk about taking offense where none is intended! Slow your roll. If I'm "new" then you are "old", simple as that. I didn't accuse you of ignorance, I presented facts and you deleted them repeatedly, dismissively, and without consideration. You repeatedly renamed my contribution as criticisms when the section was on Design Principles. If you want to add a section on "Controversy" or something like that, sounds good to me; but a section on Design Principles should involve known engineering facts, which I have posted yet again in spite of your unwillingness to engage in a discussion first. You act like this is yours and yours alone, but it is not: It is a community effort, so play nice and work with me here instead of constantly hitting the delete key and unnecessarily taking offense. You've let this page languish, and Wikipedia requested it be brought up to date. I'm stepping up to the plate and doing something about that; are you in, or do you just want it to remain stagnant and with significant errata?192.119.230.234 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you are Cronkurleigh not logged in: Those are personal attacks, no matter what you pretend ("old" excepted), and you have just made a few more. FYI the accepted edit cycle is Be bold - Revert - Discuss' (BRD): You were bold, I reverted in part, it was your turn to discuss and I even invited you to do so on your talk page. Instead you started an edit war. Now that you have been warned about edit warring, I will restart the R of BRD and I trust you will now obey etiquette and Discuss not War. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, you deleted my first contribution without the courtesy of a discussion, so if you're going to quote rules, why not play by them? Cronkurleigh (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Because that's how WP:BRD works. I play by that rule, I hoped you would too. I might note that in your very first Wikipedia edit you posted a lot of stuff without first discussing whether it was appropriate. Yet you are surprised when you find yourself the wrong side of the rule book? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Page Overhaul

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)

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)

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

Criticisms vs engineering considerations

I have titled Cronkurleigh's contribution as Criticisms. Cronkurleigh insists they must be titled Engineering considerations. My view is that they are too one-sided and negative to be neutral "considerations" but must be presented as critical. and even then, they need editing down for a more balanced presentation. What do others think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Per WP:BRD I am reverting Cronkurleigh's bold edit, ready for this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are simple engineering facts inadmissible here? Engineering, like any branch of science is the most neutral thing in the world: It deals in measurable facts. It is a measurable fact that adding wings to an airship is less efficient than simply increasing the volume. It is similarly an engineering fact that a flattened airship hull has more surface area, thus more drag for a given volume, and as a wing is very low aspect ratio and thus very inefficient. The net result is that below a critical airspeed, use of aerodynamic lift is inefficient compared to aerostatic lift, and above that critical airspeed aerostatic lift is inefficient compared to aerodynamic lift - which is why hybrid airship have never progressed beyond the concept and prototype stage. So, are you against facts on Wikipedia? It would appear so, because you have constantly deleted, complained about, and re-edited to suit your conclusion that hybrid airships are good; but engineering says otherwise. Cronkurleigh (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit, as noted in its summary, merely removed detail: the main point was not contested. Don't get hysterical, and don't sling offensive allegations about.TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it was not me who removed the offending content, it was GraemeLeggett (talk) in I think this edit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was mine. I was aiming for a simpler text that was more accessible to a less schooled reader. To break down the edit these are thoughts I had in mind:

1. the statement "it has been demonstrated" was not something that was directly said by Burgess, and ambiguous such that a reader might expect from the phrase an empirical/practical demonstration rather than Burgess' mathematical demonstration in the text.
2. Burgess goes into a level of detail that is not required, the numbers were in imperial units only, and - if they were retained - by the time metric units had been added for more modern readers - most of the sentence would have been numbers.
3. in aiming for an encyclopaedic entry rather than a textbook, the summary rather than the detail is key, and it made sense to take from Burgess book not the specific (and was he talking of He or H2 airships) but his own summary, and rather than put it as a single quote in the text but in the citation.
4. specifiying an author (or even his credentials) is unnecessary if there large direct quote is not used, and possible even if it is. Direct attribution is more common when describing differences of opinions "A says X, while B says Y" but the opinion is taken as fact that is not disagreed with. I accept that "aeronautical engineer for the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics" may give context, as does the time of writing (leave aside for the moment that changes in materials science etc may have dated his calculations such that an modern envelope might be even more efficient over a plane) but he has been accepted as a reliable source, and is not an "Argument from authority"
5. Lastly, and this is rather more subjective, while physics and mathematics deal in direct facts, the application of them in engineering - and the skill of engineering - is the compromises that are made. "less efficient than increasing the volume of the airship" does not actually specify the inefficiency in easily understood terms (and the inefficiency might be acceptable in the context of the engineering solution attempted).

So that is why I made the trimming to get the key point over in a few easily digested words.

Not the most telling arguments possibly, but I hope you now understand my approach. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Have to say I pretty much agree with you. Since Cronkurleigh rants at me whenever they get edited down, to the point of blaming me for every edit they don't like even if I didn't make it, would you be willing to restore your version yourself? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation Style

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)