Contents

Talk:Blimp

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Bad info

[edit]

"Interestingly, Blimps are the only permissible air-borne vehicles in The United States in which wearing a seat belt is not mandatory for the pilot or Co-pilot." First of all, it begins with blimps r fun dey can go in d air nd make good times "Interestingly, ..." which is already a red flag. And the grammar, syntax, and capitalization are very clumsy. But more to the point, it's simply not true. Seat belts are not required in hot air balloons in the USA. Besides, USA-specific trivia like this would not belong in such an encyclopedia, even if it were true (which it's not). So I'm deleting the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about hotships? Hotships are basicly a combination of a blimp and a hot air baloon. // Liftarn 17:16 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

The overview information about other types of airships should be moved to the page for 'dirigible'.

A user at 209.90.162.12 added text saying that a hot air airship might also be referred to as a 'montgolfiere.' I think this is stretching it a bit. Perhaps this is true for French speakers, but in English I have heard 'montgolfiere' is used only to refer to hot air balloons. I've never seen a reference to a hot air airship. So I'd rather not expand the meaning of the term. But if somebody can point to an outside English language source that uses the term, then it is worth reconsidering

Blimpguy 19:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there a relationship between blimps, hotships, and zepellins?

Yes, the various categories of airships are described in some detail that article. Although 'hotship' is a fairly rare term so it isn't discussed much in either article. It's included more for completeness Blimpguy 23:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand calling a hot air airship as a "hotship". I've never seen this term used anywhere except in Wikipedia. Unless someone can produce a reference to the term in a different context, I am inclined to remove it. Blimpguy 13:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.myairship.com/hotship/ uses this term partially. Maybe it was just a shortcut for the editor of this webpage? I never read it somwhere else. There was a similar question on the german talk page for blimps, but not answer in spring this year. I will put the question on the talk page to the german hot-air-airship-article. I know that a member of GEFA-Flug will take a look on it from time to time. Maybe he will give an answer. Hadhuey 10:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I know the fellow behind www.myairship.com. I'll contact him about his use of the term. Blimpguy 13:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be merged into the article for Airship? I don't see why it's a separate article. Suntzu3500 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You would have to ask User:DavidLevinson that question, assuming he remembers why he set it up separately, 4 1/2 years ago. Wahkeenah 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think they should be merged. Airship is already too long as is. Merging in blimp specific info, such as where the term came from will only make the matter worse. A better choice would be to flesh this article out more by adding non-rigid specific info from airship. Blimpguy 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blimps to swim through the air like fish 17:30 23 March 2007 NewScientist.com news service

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11453-blimps-to-swim-through-the-air-like-fish.html

A team from the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research in Dübendorf have developed a 6-meter-long blimp steered by electrically-driven "muscles" in its rudder. Silvain Michel, head of the electroactive polymers department at the laboratory, hopes to fly a blimp that is not only steered but also powered by artificial muscles within two years. The blimp's tail would wriggle like a trout to propel it through the air.

--Wfaxon 17:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do they heat the helium on bigger blimps like the Goodyear and such? (Question removed from main article and placed here. Unknown author). 207.43.79.22 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, if helium were heated at all it would be in smaller airships. The ratio of cabin:balloon:helium in a large airship hypothetically be something like 1:3:9 in a small ship it would be 1:2:4 (I am no expert this is just a theory. none of the numbers are accurate just hypothetical) Craobh sidhe (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this article seem a little like a stub? It's kind of short, and I also think it's a little confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.145.55 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of fuel for flying is now a major issue. What are the basic facts about energy efficiency, for modern heavier-than-air vs. lighter-than air flying, of goods and/or passengers? -69.87.200.75 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add information about blimp passenger services. -69.87.200.75 (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be loacated at Blimp? Blimp is the commonly accepted name, and the context of the article refers to them as "Blimps" throughout.-Brougham96 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iboldly moved it there. -Brougham96 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A long discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Blimps has failed to support the contention that "Blimp" is the authoritative term. I am moving this article back. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "recreational blimp" picture appears to contain a non-dirigible tethered balloon. Trainbrain27 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blimp perishing in a ball of flames--78.49.192.212 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:8 class airship.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 27 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain George Meager was a pilot at the airship station at the time of the incident which created the word "Blimp." He even narrows the incident down to one of two sheds for the SS ships which was too low to fit the blimp so a trench had been dug to accommodate the BE.2C car which explains how the envelope was within reach. The various other spurious claims, involving for example a B-Class Limp which never existed, are totally bogus or pure speculation. All other derivations should be removed.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we know Meager's account is the only accurate one how? Has it been thoroughly investigated by a neutral third party? - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep the explanations, even the "B-Limp" sort. They're widespread misnomers and it's part of an encyclopedic role to explain and debunk the misnomers, as much as it is to explain the real ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blimp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091219054702/http://www.metlife.com/about/advertising/metLife-blimp/index.htmltohttp://www.metlife.com/about/advertising/metLife-blimp/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a history section. 67.209.130.90 (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article states there are 25 blimps left. Based on a recent single article which has an off the cuff comment stating : it is widely considered there are 25 blimps left. But without any data whatsoever to back it up. 114.160.210.161 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the article linked is using a Washington Post article which says about 25. The WP article also says that blimps have been replaced by semi-rigids/Zeppelin NT type airships. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't bother to check the number of active FAA registrations as well as other sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_airships_in_the_United_States Jbgfour (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says there are 7 ships in existence, and Airsign operates 8 of them 2603:6011:B523:1929:9D72:2C28:C58D:D435 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]