Talk:K class blimp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

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

[edit] Fun and games with designations. Why the ZS2G was originally called the XZP5K.

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)

[edit] An observation on the problem of writing good history for Lighter Than Air craft subjects

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)