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)

Theoretical criticisms

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)

And your implementation of it is harsh, rude, and insulting. I would also point out that I added a section of new information, and corrected factual errors - which you fought and deleted and re-named every step of the way. You need to discuss whether hard facts on subject matter are appropriate? Really? No wonder the page was all fluff and no content! Cronkurleigh (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want an unadulterated copy with all of the errata, Wikipedia notices of needing attention, and sans my input, you can readily walk it back based on the version here: http://web.archive.org/web/20131211074653/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_airship Toodles! Cronkurleigh (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Direct link from article history the page as it was of 14 March 2014.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:31, 24 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)

While I stand by the intent of my edit, and (most all) the words I used, there's no rush, and I'm not here to get someone's back up by trampling over their sensitivities. If my words can't win over another editor, can I trust them to inform a reader? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Burgess tried to do a Carl Sagan and dumb it down to an example that those not skilled in the art can apprehend. I thought that was a good thing. I will resign from contributing here and leave you to your academic treatment of the subject matter, and I seperately will treat the subject matter in its entirety in the manner used in articles such as Airspeed. On one point above, I must entirely disagree: Engineering is not about compromise, it is about optimization. I apologize for the incompatibility of our views, and I shall put my efforts into an objective treatment of the technology from the engineering perspective with non-dumbed-down analysis accompanied by helpful lay examples; it's a shame you can't see this all from the prospective of my colleagues in aerospace engineering, who see your methods as non-inclusive and, to quote one colleague, downright laughable.

To quote another colleague directly in the field: 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)

It is a pity this page and its editors can't honestly report in a manner less acidic than Mr. Wood's that this technology needs to be questioned critically rather than discussed lovingly - but to each their own.

Peace out!Cronkurleigh (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh heavens to Betsy. This is not worth taking seriously.20:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC) - (comment posted by User:TheLongTone (talk).)

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)

All Hat, No Cattle...

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)

What, no takers? It's a simple challenge... all you have to do is edit knowledge into existance - as opposed to do what you've done to me. I've had contributions on this page edited out of existence in less time than this. You are so used to being editors, that you don't know how to research anything, apparently. Proove me wrong. Pick up the gauntlet. Let the real game begin...

A chap by the name of Paul Nyland warned me about this - long before this sort of exchange was possible: He warned me that so many people in the world mistake "being" for "doing".

And the grand fault of Wikipedia is that everyone gets to be an editor, but no one does the hard work of reaseach and considered writing. Why? The contributor gets shouted down.

So:

Pick up the gauntlet, and accept the challenge! You "editors" left a page derilict, wanting of Wikipedia standards to the point they noticed and notified you, and a chap with the willingness comes along and say he'll pick it up because you don't care to get it accurate or up to date. I'm just a messenger, skilled in the arts you squabble over; get busy, or get out of managing publication to the point of vanilla uselessness.

Again, I say: Any takers? Announce yourselves! Keep your edits to yourselves; no need for sandbox efforts, as you are so experienced in the "business". Bring your game - in factual known terms that can be judged based on reality and knowlegeable sources.

Still no game? If you're not ready to rumble in this pathetically small arena, what are you? If you can't engage, other than by being obsinant and quoting the rules of engagement over known facts, what are you? This is not a game of whist! And Bruce Dickinson will never make it once around the world in 80 days - let alone twice unrefuelled.

Cheers, "sweeties"! Cronkurleigh (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So. You have replaced the preferred picture of Santos-Dumont's water-wings effort to build an heavier than than air craft. With what? Something that can be built, but should it be? The No. 14/No.14 bis. started as your image for this page - and I added the reason why Santos-Dumont strapped his first airplane under a gasbag.

Now, more importantly, don't you think people need to know that? And you push that out there as a supportive effort until called out - only to replace it with a fanciful picture of what should be debated... Was it worth the cost? But wait! Could the physics have been so well known as to make this venue a place of knowledge instead of worship of what is printed in the news?

You do not only know the process of sharing knowledge amongst those who have eared the right, you simply cannot be polite and say, "Gee! That bit is interesting!", which is what real human beings with investigative precepts pursue.

They do not exclude. They do not explain "method". They examine the detail of information presented and offer in return a scientific evaluation of the failings of an idea.

That is scholarship. That is science. That is being human.

You? You are frightened. as well as frightening. You are a version of inhumanity that is so self-absorbed that a simple quote from and engineering book can be excluded from discussion. Are there things you cannot be bothered to read or study? What I quoted was from the Ronald Aeronautic Press, preserving preserving pieces of knowledge you are no willing to discuss. What would you have done if I had referenced the Durand books that came to the same conclusion? The Daniel Guggenheim papers.

What will you do when I offer up simple information with full references, that must be included? Will you attack it like I'm a virus yet again?

All I did was say, "Hey! Buddy! Look over here! Here's a bit of information that you might want to look at!

...and every bit was substantiated, per the "process" that you claim to adhere to, and yet use to exclude.

If "Wikipedia" was meant for (as it was, a source of information from knowledgeable sources, but expanded to the masses) is supposed to educate, please... get out of the way when facts are involved. Is that so difficult to request?

If not: What are you defending? A guy, who happened to earn an engineering degree and build things (Have you built a blimp? A zeppelin? A hybrid airship?), who also worked in wind tunnels, with metals, fabrics, and took the time to write it down in a book... "You" (the collective you because a certain editor couldn't get the contextual difference, hence:) haven't taken the time, and yet "you" ("y'all) like to dispect knowledge from those that didn't have computers that made it all too easy...

Again, I challenge you: If amongst your dramatist personae you have a single person, or the collective ability to defend the proposition that "Hybrid Airships" are anything other than a thing to write about lovingly without any basis in fact - newspaper articles, magazines, etc. should be called out for what they are... Please. Please. Please. Shut up. You have nothing.

Scholarship is defending an idea with knowledge; it isn't "running home to mama" to report someone for presenting information you disagree with; nor is it spending hours chasing a person you disagree with for having "bad methods" when your facts are wrong.

The process of scholarship is brutal: It is about knowledge. It is about measurable knowledge. It isn't about some sort of "feel good" about a topic. It's about, "go look at my references and read what I offered you for consideration" before deleting me because you worship a thing.

Moreover, if you're not about delivering what I am about to offer - a basic treatise on the aerodynamics of airships, which anyone with training can substantiate, which should call into question what you "went home to mama" to seek to ban me with a DR/N...

Get over your suppositions; stay true to independently verifiable facts; and don't you dare "contribute" to my efforts to bring knowledge to people that want to look things up. They just want to know things; and they want the right to know, without your perceived abilities to shout things down as laymen to attempt to use supposed rules and regulations to suppress information they have a right to know. Cronkurleigh (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Process or Knowledge?

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)

Oh. And the references? You can readily "Google" them. Jon Wood has commented on many a thing over the last several years; and it doesn't surprise me he has felt unwelcome here. Seems to me, if you bothered to "Google" his name and find out what he had to say about these things you consider yourselves to be so worthy of pontification as the higher echelons and gate-keepers of available knowledge, you might just pause and take some time to listen and think when someone referencing knowledge you never heard of, and correcting you when you've gotten simple, basic aeronautical engineering history so terribly incorrect...

Rules Wikipedia never told you about: Read. Look at references. Read again. Look at references again. "Shut up" (a.k.a. don't type), and "listen". Then, and only then, say, "Why did you say that?", when the guy re-posts it for the n'th time after you delete it, modify it, and yell at him for bothering to take the time to say anything... Cronkurleigh (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

American Skyship Industries

After jumping about a bit Cronkurleigh's new article, as promised somewhere in all that word salad above, seems to have settled down at American Skyship Industries. Not bad for a beginner, I have seen much worse. The user claims here to be a former employee of the company which might be used to establish an unacceptable PoV, but I am prepared to let that ride. (Mind you, it is perfectly obvious how to remove all the air from within the envelope without collapsing it or wasting lifting gas, perhaps I should take out a patent and start a company .) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Little technical detail, many shonky references and at least one very POV & unsourced statement.TheLongTone (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Snarky, snarky! April Fools! The technical content comes later, in an engineering article. Meanwhile, munch on a typical snake-oil bit of the history.

And what's to "jump about" in? Just read it straight through!

And while it may be "perfectly obvious", how to replace the air with helium - just as it was to the designers of the ZMC-2 - it is an expensive, impractical, time-consuming process, and if you had a lick of practical engineering sense you'd realize that instead of sniping. So you'd better be "prepared to let that ride" because it's a fact.

It's not supposed to have technical detail, TheLongTone. It's a history.

As usual, your replies are saturated with irrationality and superiority typical of helium-hugging fanatics. Your passion creates an automatic bias. There is no room for passion in analysis of science and history. Cronkurleigh (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why is there technical detail about other machines?TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"jumping about" refers to the article title not the content, as the grammar of my comment makes clear. And the fillers of ZMC-2 were not clever about it. My patent, my gazillions, no clues offered until then. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Its a work in its early stage of progress; after all its only been available for (constructive) criticism for a few hours. It's neither libelous nor a lift from a book nor a bunch of trivia about Transformers - which puts it head and shoulders above many a new article and several extant ones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but after all the noise made about solid references & scholarly sources I would have expected something better refwise, it really looks like the result of scrabbling around on the internet. Flight seems not to mention the company, altho there's a fair bit on Wren.TheLongTone (talk)

Time for an article on Thermo-Skyships / Wren Skyships/ Advanced Airship Corporation then? Or should it be an article about Wren himself? Or neither. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that Airship Industries produced the only ones from this bunch to even fly, never mind go into production, I think there is a strong case for keeping the whole sorry business saga in that one article (outside of the business story, the actual Skyship 500 aircraft should probably have its own article just as the Skyship 600 does). The American Skyship Industries article currently has precious little that is all of notable, verifiable, relevant and not already covered (the main thesis stated in the lead, that it is a "typical" scenario, is uncited and almost certainly unverifiable) - if it expands constructively over the next few weeks then fine, create some more like it, but otherwise it is best pruned and merged into the Airship Industries article - a beginner's effort that can be built on is one thing, a beginner's effort that cannot is quite another. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I did find myself looking at Skyship 500 (and the AD500) and thinking an article is warranted. Perhaps a general article Airships of the UK could cover the history of airships in the UK from the beginning and the various (phoenix?) modern companies? But we are discussing this in the wrong place as we have strayed from Hybrids... GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the ASI article, unless this expands considerably I'd say that (since there is no football player or Bollywood playback singer involver) it probably would fail the Wikipedia notability guidelines... An article on airships in the UK would be thoroughly distresing both to write and read. Back on topic, I'm appalled to see that the UK government are chucking 2.4 million in the direction of Cardington, admittedly a pitifully small amount of cash in aerospace terms, its pobably about enough to pay for a new logo and a paint job for the shed.TheLongTone (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Graeme, TheLongTalk, &c. Stop. Just stop. Knowledge isn't a first person shooter game, but that is how you're treating it. I got a "citation needed" regarding the Slate airship being produced via "rotisserie" - and all the inquisitor needed to do was Google it and add.

Steelpillow, stop all the more! Airship industries promised a new transportation technology, squandered the capital of its (repeated) investors, and its airships were rented during incarnations and sold of as scrap to become advertising airships. The only company that was on target was Jim Thiele's "American Blimp" - and Thiele got it wrong using nylon on the first A-60, which has no creep rupture limit; a lesson he could have learned both from Navy blimp history and his own experience at ILC Dover. You had the audacity to call my post to this talk page "word salad" - but it contained the experienced commentary of a founding partner of Airship Industries who clearly said stop this insane carousel. Word salad indeed.

Of those discussing this issue, this is my wheelhouse. You would achieve more productivity and perceived as tolerable if you showed respect to one who has been a part of it - and bothers to attempt to contribute in spite of the self-absorbed video game approach you present yourselves to be, hiding behind a mask of "rules" and "process". I don't know how the process works, Steelpillow? No, I know _excatly_ how the process works; and I also know how it becomes dysfunctional - which is exactly what I found here with an out-of-date, "fix this!" out of date Wikipedia page...

"Word salad"? I think not. Instead of spending so much time bitching, put a shoulder to the wheel. I've gone to the trouble of re-learning LaTex to express equations. What are you doing above and beyond the call of duty to get an idea across?

Dare I say, "nothing"? Seems like it. All you do is bitch. Great way to work on the presentation of knowledge - let alone learn something new that you clearly don't have a handle on. Cronkurleigh (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All Hat, No Cattle - Mark II

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)

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)

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)

"The essence of scholarship" - to use your phrase - is to to do research and contribute. You treat your "editorship" allowance from Wikipdeda like you earned a professorship from an on-line university! And of course we all type a little too fast from time to time, but I frequently review my own posts as my own editor - perhaps you should have bothered to do so after spelling research as "researche".

Oh dear! I'm sorry that references that you can go to your local library and request for free in the United States are such a hindrance to scholarship! A paper printed after peer review in a professional journal isn't good enough for you! No, it has to be on line and for free!

You're going to absolutely whine as I complete my sandbox for the world's consideration - because it includes proper references from scholarly papers written by professionals skilled in the art.

Meanwhile you whine about not getting it for free...

And just so you know, TheLongTone, I don't run around calling people "sweetie" except as a repost to those treat what should be a professional environment with disrespect. You called me "sweetie"; I called you that back because you are a disrespectful moron when it comes to real scholarship.

What next? Do I have to do a primer on basic engineering regarding Reynolds similitude and parametric engineering design? Cronkurleigh (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Gliding under gravity

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)