Talk:Hybrid Air Vehicles
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hybrid Air Vehicles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aircraft and designations edit
There is a lot of confusion between this article and the one on the Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV-3 as to which designs were actually built and flown and what they were called. Here is a scenario which may or may not fit the facts:
- The HAV3 was a sub-scale demonstrator, decommissioned in 2010.
- The larger HAV306 was built for the US LEMV project, returned to the UK, reassembled and subsequently renamed as the Airlander 10.
- Hybrid Air Vehicles have not built any other aircraft.
Can anybody confirm whether this scenario is true or, if not, what else might in fact be the case?
The reason I ask is because I am thinking or reorganising these articles to create a new one for the HAV/306/LEMV/Airlander 10, but I need to be sure which name attaches to which craft. (technically this would be a move to take the metadata with it and then rebuild the old page just for the sub-scale prototype) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [Updated 08:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)]
- Articles now restructured. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is my counterargument - I wasn't aware of this discussion until yesterday. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_HAV_304_Airlander_10#Recent_Page_Renaming Philbobagshot (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Removal of Airlander 50 Section edit
Hello, I've noticed that the section about the A50 has been removed from this page without prior consultation with the editing community, which I would have expected for a significant change like this. I would like to start a discussion about reinstating it as I believe it is useful information for researchers. If you use the reasoning given for the removal then the Lockheed LMH-1 should not be mentioned on the Lockheed Martin P-791 page as it is not yet built either. I am not suggesting that mention of the LMH-1 is taken down as it is relevant and interesting information to those who want to learn about hybrid airships and future plans and developments. Thanks Philbobagshot (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I owe an apology here. It is indeed OK to give it a mention in this article, as I found when I went and refreshed my memory of WP:NAIR just now. Please put it down to a thoughtless mistake. I have now restored the paragraph. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)