Talk:Zeppelin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article Zeppelin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 15, 2004.

Contents

[edit] older entries

I removed the reference to the Hindenburg operating profitably. They were barely breaking even and only because the Americans offered the use of Lakehurst at a heavily subsidised rate. As well, the artile indicated that non-rigids "generally" do not have multiple cells. The reality is that they never have multiple cells.

I reverted the changes by 80.148.17.33. They consisted of removing contents (two images, some headlines, last sections of article, links to foreign language versions) for no apparent reasons and without justification. J.Rohrer 10:55, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed this from the article: "all Zeppelins have a no smoking rule."

— Matt 15:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] David Schwarz

The mention of Croat/Jew from Zagreb David Schwarz in this article is great. As most people NOW know he was the inventor of the airship and made a few prototypes. Upon his sudden death his wife sold the plans to the Germans. The Germans for many years made no reference to David Schwarz as the inventor and passed the invention as German. Good to see the truth come out and he has finally got some recegnition for his work. It also says alot about the Jewish community in Eastern Europe who have always been outstanding citizens to which ever counrty.

Evergreen

The Germans have no monopoly on nationalistic tendencies when writing history. Just look at the Wright-brothers/Santos-Dumont controversy vis-a-vis the first airplane flight. Most histories of airships that I've read (in English) do mention Schwarz's work. However, none of Schwarz's designs ever flew successfully. So it is a bit over the top to say Schwarz was "the inventor." There were lots of folks who had similarly limited successes. And, although popular historians and the press can't seem to resist, it is an oversimplification to label any one person as "the inventor" in most cases. For example, without the talent and contributions of Durr and others, the Count's ships might never have been successful either. Rather than a particularly strong technical vision, what Zeppelin brought was a driving focus and the ability to work the levers of public sentiment and government to obtain the resources necessary to move the work forward. Blimpguy 11:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schütte-Lanz

The section Technological progress should really include a mention of Shutte-Lanz, as many innovations were copied from this company. An aerodynamic shape and simple cruciform empennage (tail) are good examples. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to mess up a featured article (I'm new to this).

13:43, 14 July 2004 (UTC)

You are right, Schütte-Lanz (sic!) deserves to be mentioned there, so I put this on my to-do list (though you should not feel too intimidated by the featured status). They should, however, be treated rather briefly as the article is already quite long, so the focus should remain the "actual" Zeppelins. By the way, I intend to translate de:Schütte-Lanz (after some expansions there) when I find some time, but I cannot promise that will be soon. --J.Rohrer 22:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Done. If you are a native speaker, please check my additions for syntax and grammar, because I am not. --J.Rohrer 00:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, so I can't spell. ;) I've changed the ventilation shafts slightly. I hope you like it. 12:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to some sources, LZ2 was first flown 30 November 1905. 17 January 1906 would have been the second and last flight.

[edit] Zeppelins were used extensively by US during the IIWW

Seriously. See 'Zeppelins in the Second World War' section. And to think this got featured with such a serious factual error claiming IIWW was the death of zeppelins... :> Enjoy :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that section is badly broken. The biggest problem that I see is the inclusion of information about non-rigids as "pressure zeppelins". This information belongs elsewhere (perhaps it's time to create an article on US Navy Airships during WWII) and the discussion here focused on rigids -- particularly those produced by the zepp company. Blimpguy 23:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was translating this from Polish article and I admit I didn't know the right English terminology. Based on Polish wiki article, there are three types of zeppelins: szkieletowe (skeleton?), półszkieletowe (half-skeleton?), ciśnieniowe (pressure?). They have their stubs on pl wiki but no linkage to English one, so I couldn't base my translation on that :( If this artcle is getting to long, it would be a good idea to create a subarticle you mention. I'll leave it up to you - my main goal was to correct the mistake that zeppelnis were not used in IIWW. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gimme them WW2 zeps! I'd love to know more, being a buff of both. Trekphiler 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The last two rigid airships (the Zeppelins LZ 127 and LZ 130) were wrecked 1940. In World War 2 there were only US-non-rigid-airships in service.

[edit] I edited the WWII section

I cleaned up the language, although there is still some unusual terminology in there. I'm familiar with the technology and history, but not about the specific facts of the WWII service.

Much tnx. I was dead tired yesterday so you saved me the trouble of doint this myself now :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not a prob. I think this section needs more research and discussion because I suspect it is inaccurate in the United States references. There seems to be a lot of confusion in terminology between what is a Zeppelin, Airship, Dirigible, "Pressure Zeppelin", and Blimp. While the US did have some Zeppelins at the start of the war, most of the patrols and reconnaissance were performed by Blimps which the Polish reference seems to call "Pressure Zeppelins". I'm not sure how these should best be split but most of this should be moved to Airship, if not Blimp. It may have been accurate that Zeppelin-Zeppelins were not actually used in WWII but only in the immediate prelude to the conflict by LZ130.
The section is based entirely (so far) on my translation of a Polish article from magazine 'Lotnictwo' 3/92, Sterowce w drugiej wojnie światowej by Andrzej Morgała, member of Wingfoot Lighter Then Air Society. I think it is factual accurate (otherwise I'd have not translated it for Wiki), but I admit my lack of specialized terminology might have resulted in some errors. You are right, however, that most of this section (about non-German airships) should be moved. The lead sais Due to the outstanding success of the Zeppelin design, the term zeppelin in casual use came to refer to all rigid airships. This article, however, focuses on Zeppelins in the narrower sense of the word. - seems that I have missed it before. I will take care of moving it in a few hours. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
WWII section on non-German aircraft moved to aircraft article. Part of the Recent Developments section may be moved as well, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. If some of the external links are reliable sources and were used as references, they can be placed in a References section too. See the cite sources link for how to format them. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DELAG

Can somebody with better German than me translate it? Is it Ger Airship Mfg Inc? Trekphiler 15:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to translate DELAG - Deutsche Luftschifffahrts Aktiengesellschaft? German Airship Shipping Stock Corporation. It was the first Airline of the World. Hadhuey 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] planned use of helium on Hindenburg

70.121.164.118 - Every history of the Hindenburg discusses it's initial design assuming Helium. For example Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine page 249. The LZ128 design was cancelled after the crash of R101 because it had been designed with to work Hydrogen. Please provide a credible reference for your position that Hindenburg was expected to be Hydrogen ship from the outset. Regards. Blimpguy 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mooring

Anyone know where these were moored in the alps?

[edit] Led Zeppelin

Someone deleted the disambiguation link to Led Zeppelin. I went and read Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and it seems to fit just fine (I can imagine a Zeppelin fan simply writing Zeppelin, or someone who is not quite a fan forgetting just how to spell "Led"). If you would like to delete that link, please let us know why. Thanks. Ted 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, it would be different if Wikipedia had a decent search engine. It doesn't, so we are stuck with adding redirects when useful. Ted 15:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an insanely small number of people you're helping out, compared to the large number of people who at the very least have to skim over it to make sure it doesn't apply to them. The search engine isn't as bad as you claim. --Dtcdthingy 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That can be applied to many of the disambiguation lines I've seen, although I do agree with you that Zeppelin fans are probably insane. In any case, I'll move on. Do what you want.

As for the search engine, I can only think that you really haven't used it. In most cases, you are better off using an off-site search engine. For example, try to find Led Zeppelin without being able to spell it correctly. "Led" leads to LED, and you get nothing for "Zepp*" or "Led Zep*". Its embarrassingly awful. Cheers! Ted 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirigible

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I believe that dirigible includes non-rigid airships, such as blimps, so it isn't a synonym for rigid airship. If that is the case, the first sentence should be re-written. Correct me if I'm wrong. Please. Phil 07:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided not to be a wallflower about it and made the change. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. Phil 07:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

references

I have just finished reading "i know you got soul" by jeremy clarkson who devotes an entire chapter of his bestseller to the airship - in particular the zepplin - I know that you people are the best authority but there are some good references in there Ericmakesthree 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving cultural influences to a separate article

This article is quite large. We should consider moving distinct sections to their own articles. I propose creating an article "Zeppelins in culture" in the spirit of the existing "airships in culture" article and moving the entire contents there. Thoughts? Blimpguy 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

technical error: "powered by three Maybach motors of around 400-550 horsepower (300–410 kW) each, thus reaching speeds up to about 80 km/h (100 mph)." MPH must be less than km/h for equivalent speed. If 80km/h is correct, then 50 mph should be used. If 100 mph is correct, then 161 km/h should be used.

[edit] Sing what?

"calypsonian"? Trekphiler 11:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/p/Talk%7EZeppelin_1836.html"