Talk:Hot air balloon

Infobox?

Should this page get the "Infobox Aircraft" template? —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 'Bold text'23:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion about why a balloon isn't sealed at the bottom

The text reads "Unlike gas balloons, the envelope does not have to be sealed at the bottom, since the air near the bottom of the envelope is at the same pressure as the surrounding air."

This sentence is incorrect (or at least misleading) and should be removed. The pressure is not a relevant factor - the pressure of *all* air inside the balloon is at the same pressure as the surrounding air. The reason for the hole at the bottom is to allow more hot air to be added to the balloon during the flight, to compensate for the steady cooling of the existing air in the balloon. Gas balloons don't have the same requirement, so they can be closed all around. But in theory a gas balloon could have a hole at the bottom like a hot air balloon (although it would serve no purpose, and would likely lead to unnecessary loss of gas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:fa00:9:210:ac03:62a3:d726:8fc3 (talk • contribs)

 Done I've removed the sentence; my quick skim of the article, specifically the Generating lift section, does not seem to substantiate the line. NiciVampireHeart 13:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hold up a second.

• First, the details that "the envelope does not have to be sealed at the bottom" and "the air near the bottom of the envelope is at the same pressure as the surrounding air" are correct and should remain.
• Second, 2401:fa00:9:210:ac03:62a3:d726:8fc3 already explains why gas balloons are closed
• Third, I am skeptical of the equally-unsourced assertion by 2401:fa00:9:210:ac03:62a3:d726:8fc3 that "the pressure of *all* air inside the balloon is at the same pressure as the surrounding air." If the pressure inside the top of the envelope were the same as the pressure outside the top of the envelope, the top of the envelope would simply sink under its own weight. The difference in pressure may be small but not negligible.

I've tried to edit the article to reflect these details. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

Modern hot-air balloons, with an onboard heat source, were developed by Ed Yost, beginning during the 1950s; his work resulted in his first successful flight on October 22, 1960.[18] The first modern hot-air balloon to be made in the United Kingdom (UK) was the Bristol Belle, built in 1967. Presently, hot-air balloons are used primarily for recreation.

Change “developed by Ed Yost” to “developed by Ed Yost and Jim Winker, beginning during the 1950s; their work resulted in the first successful flight on October 22, 1960.”

I would like to change this section to include Jim Winker along with Ed Yost, as he was a part of the creation of the modern hot air balloon. Ed Yost didn’t do it alone. Here is one article for more evidence.

If you need more I’m sure my family will find you plenty of proof. 2601:446:8200:2B70:31F8:E077:BCE5:F356 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What article did you intend to link here? Cannolis (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon – Looking through the sources and external links here and Google, Google News, and Google Books results, a significant majority spell this without the hyphen. This includes the FAA, AP, LA Times, and others. I recognize that there are also sources that use the hyphen, but it seems without is the WP:COMMONNAME. The title of this page is inconsistent with pretty much all related pages, including Hot air ballooning, List of hot air balloon festivals, and 2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash, etc., so if this isn't moved, they should be moved instead to match this article. Reywas92^Talk 03:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Reywas92^Talk 03:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. I would also note that Encyclopedia Britannica uses the hyphenated form for their article title, as does Webster's Dictionary and Dictionary.com. Also, Move Hot air ballooning → Hot-air ballooning and List of hot air balloon festivals → List of hot-air balloon festivals and 2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash → 2016 Lockhart hot-air balloon crash, as well as any others that are currently unhyphenated. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rreagan007: could you elaborate on how you see MOS:HYPHEN as supporting the current name? Colin M (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"To link related terms in compound modifiers". In this case, "hot-air" is a compound modifier. This article is not about an air balloon that has a high temperature. It's a balloon filled with hot air. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom and the names of the other pages ('Hot air ballooning', 'List of hot air balloon festivals' and the entries on its chart, etc.) and many of their sources and External links. Looks like no-hyphen is the common name among the hobbyists themselves, but I may be full of hot air. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It appears the most frequent usage by a decent margin is to omit the hyphen. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Reluctant support per nom and subsequent comments. I do think Rreagan007 is absolutely right, but there is a massive weight of usage against what appears to be the correct punctuation. Yes, you do see both, but the nonhyphenated one (or is it non-hyphenated?) seems to dominate. I looked at the CAA, the BBAC, and a load of UK commercial operators, including the company owned by my personal favourite pilot (yes, OR, sue me) and I saw a lot of hot air, less hot-air, and that last visit clinched it. Even Cameron in Bristol, who are pretty diehard about the hot-air usage on their site, still manage some inconsistencies. Sorry, I would love it to be right, but I think we are really a bit stuffed on the usage. Finally, the joys of hypertext do mean it doesn't matter that much anyway, even if it is annoying to purists, and whatever the outcome I think the lead should contain both versions, bolded, so we acknowledge the alternative rather than claiming One True Way. Best to all DBaK (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add "Brazilian-born" before "Portuguese priest" when referring to Gusmão

Bartolomeu de Gusmão is born in Brazil and did most of his baloon work in Brazil. He is known as a historic figure of Brazil, and it seems quite eurocentric (and even racist) to treat him as Portuguese without any mention to Brazil.

I was planning add it directly (because it is anyway the way his own Wikipedia article describes him), but the article is protected... so I am adding this here in the talk. 2A02:8071:B82:6760:A5FB:F8E4:DD92:7D56 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)