Talk:Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10

LEMV status
At 2012-5-6, we're 4-5 months beyond 18 months beyond 2010 June. What's the status of LEMV?

I've looked at NG's LEMV site ... no info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.49.3 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 7 May 2012‎

It's supposed to have the first flight within the comming weeks, but will only believe once I've actually seen it. http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/northrop-grumman-army-spy-blimp/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/massive-spy-blimp/ Pherm (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.airship-association.org/cms/?q=node/140 The Airship Ass. reports, that a photograph on a social networking site has been showing the LEMV outside the hangar. Does anybody have seen the picture, yet? Pherm (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Does someone speak italian or can someone confirm this picture? http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/politica-mondiale/usa-pronto-megadiribile-per-lafghanistan-1289898/ Pherm (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is certainly talking about the Northrop Grumman LEMV, but the photograph is equally certainly neither of the HAV craft we know about. I don't know how reliable a source the Blitz Daily newspaper might be. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing |RSS|twitterfeed|FG_Aircraft& had arms restrictions, but they have been lifted so it can be commercialized, and its features can continue onto the bigger model. TGCP (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Runway independant requirement
How can the Long Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle meet the "runway independant" requirement if it needs no less than 1000' of runway in order to take off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.213.23 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 30 August 2012‎

HAV-3
Is this the same aircraft as described in the HAV-3 article? If so, they should surely be merged. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some sort of merge or transfer of content is warranted. It could be said that the LEMV programme is - so far - the one instance of HAV-3. . Until more than one HAV-3 is built and flown, I would say that LEMV and HAV-3 have a similar relationship to Fairey Delta 2 WG774 and BAC 211. Ought we rename HAV-3 to the longer form "Hybrid Air Vehicle 3" or something like that. Propose a merge of the two together with the final article name to be decided in the discussion? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * HAV-3 is the same. It is the largest aircraft in the world - something the article should note. Also notably it was developed by HAV, not by Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman were prime contractors to militarise the aircraft for the US armed forces.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Two airships?
This list suggests that two airships have been involved in the LEMV project, the HAV-3 and subsequently the HAV304. Can anybody clarify? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * the "Scale model" G-OHAV - 2011 BBC News with video shows it not much more than twice as tall as a man.
 * HAV 304 - [Wikipedia won't let me link to] the cached copy of HAV's website pre re-working which identifies with the LEMV.
 * Now it could be that "304" means a specific iteration (or size) of the HAV-3 design, but can't find anything to support such a guess. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So as far as I can make out we have (sic) the HAV-3 scale model, subsequently submitted to the LEMV project and a larger HAV304 built as the LEMV demonstrator but then sold back to HAV and sold on to a rock star (tho' not a Led Zep member) who currently keeps it at Cardington. But before all that is merged into the single holistic article it deserves: Lockheed-Martin were also LEMV finalists - did they ever produce a flying airship? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lockheed Martin P-791 seems to be the contender, or a related vessel. Article very stubby. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge the HAV-3 article into this longer one Long Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle, then move it to Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV-3. We could keep the other page's history at HAV-3. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention
requested (on the wrong page ) a renaming to HAV-3. As I started to do this move, I found in the logs that this article was previously moved from that name as follows: I therefore did not complete the move. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10 April 2014 moved page HAV-3 to Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV-3 (conform to WikiProject Aviation naming conventions)

Aircraft and designations
There is a discussion at Talk:Hybrid Air Vehicles. Your input would be welcome. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent Page Renaming
Hi, you have all gathered I am new to this side of Wikipedia so apologies for my earlier mistakes concerning posting in the wrong area and thank you for your guidance. You will see from my talk page that I currently work for Hybrid Air Vehicles and a number of glaring misinformations were brought to our attention (such as the wrong location, etc.) I made some minor edits and set about creating a new page to outline the Airlander 10 (which is a separate aircraft from the HAV-304) but yesterday it was redirected to this page before I had even finished and with no explanation. A discussion followed, which you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steelpillow#Airlander_10

The problem is that a number of journalists and students look to these pages for information and as we are garnering so much interest we want to be sure that the correct facts are in the public domain. This page currently is not entirely factually accurate or easy to follow - I asked those in-the-know here at work to review it this morning.

Here is my suggestion for pages following Fayenatic's very helpful guidance regarding page naming conventions:
 * Hybrid Air Vehicles - this is the name of the company
 * Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 - this was the aircraft that flew in the US
 * Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10 - this is the current aircraft that is due to fly. It is no longer the HAV 304 as so many modifications and additions have been made. (you will see my full page with explanations and citations in the history for the page of that name before it was redirected)

My reasoning for the distinct pages above is because it means that people will be in receipt of the facts in the least confusing way possible and embedded links will lead them on a logical journey through the history of Hybrid Air Vehicles and their aircraft to date. You will see from my neutral and well-cited Airlander 10 article that I have no other agenda than to ensure the facts.

Please do let me know if this discussion is better served somewhere else - as I said, I am new and a little confused by Wikipedia at the moment! Many Thanks. Philbobagshot (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's got the same envelope, then isn't most of it the same aircraft? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for opening this discussion. The guiding principle for Wikipedia editors in cases such as this one is to establish that the facts are verifiable. This requires the finding, representing and citing of reliable sources. What has been written to date is our best shot at doing just that. Curiously, a manufacturer's own web site is not always reliable because marketing issues can take over from encyclopedic content, however it can often provide valuable factual information. Similarly, any editor cannot stand on their expertise as such but can only use that expertise in the background to guide their use and representation of reliable sources. Your expert knowledge is valuable to us, but please forgive the wider editing community here if we filter it through Wikipedia's editorial policies.
 * Now to the naming issue you raise: Note this from your company's own website; "LEMV First Flight Take Off. Airlander 10 takes to the sky in 2012, Lakehurst, New Jersey, flying successfully for 90 minutes on its first test flight." Now, I didn't believe that Company statement that the LEMV and the Airlander 10 were one and the same because it contradicted some reliable third-party news sites. Several other usually reliable sites, including the Royal Aeronautical society, gave confused and sometimes self-contradictory accounts, so I had to discount those. Sufficient sites did tell the consistent story of the one machine being renamed that I decided your company site was in error. Since the HAV 304/LEMV and the Airlander 10 are essentially one and the same airframe, they would normally be presented in the same article as two variants of the same aircraft - unless and until internal encyclopedic issues suggest a division into separate articles. So it seems I did the right thing in discounting that Company information.
 * In all this, nowhere have I found a definitive account of the "HAV 304" usage after cancellation of the LEMV project. Sources all conflict and there is no verifiable definitive usage, not even on the Company or RAeS web sites. For example a pdf you cite in you reverted article has the caption, "Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV304, now renamed Airlander 10, on its first flight in August 2012", but why should I give that any more credence than the other information on your web site? So I hope you can see the problem from our end now.
 * If indeed the HAV 304 build is no more and the Airlander 10 is the only official type designation still current, then this needs to be backed up via reliable sources. Might I suggest that the Company produce a fuller account of the changes made during reconstruction, why the HAV 304 designation was abandoned, and including the particular technical features in which the two builds differ? If third-party authorities such as the RAeS, FlightGlobal and so on can be persuaded to update their accounts accordingly, that will also help enormously,
 * Meanwhile I will try and find the time to revisit your reverted article, which may still be found here, and see if I can rescue some of it.
 * Hope this helps. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I have added the correct data for the Airlander 10 under the technical area to ensure readers have the correct facts at the moment and I am looking into the other points you made. Cheers. Philbobagshot (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is coming up as "Retired 2010" on Google searches that quote Wikipedia. (https://www.google.co.uk/#q=airlander) Can you explain why that is? Many Thanks. Philbobagshot (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For a long time the HAV-3 scale demonstrator and the HAV304/Airlander info got mixed up in the same article. Google will need a while to catch up. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring tag
As there has been only a single minor edit in the past week, I'm removing the Restructuring tag.Sario528 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for separate HAV 304 and Airlander 10 pages
Hi all, I wanted to restart previous conversations (see 'Recent Page Renaming' above) as the name and some information here is still problematic. I took time out to try to accumulate technical documents to prove what I am trying to put across but the issue is that there are not detailed documents out in the public domain to be sourced due to Intellectual Property, which I’m sure you are all aware of. My motivation for sorting out the naming conventions and misinformation in the article is from wanting to maintain the truth and integrity of Wikipedia and Hybrid Air Vehicles. Lazy journalists are currently using this site and perpetuating misinformation and students will always refer to this site during their school projects.

We are about to be very much in the global public domain because the Airlander 10 is due to take its First Flight in the coming weeks – many eyes will be falling on this page and it is currently wrong. I spoke with lead engineers here and their response was that, “Anything [the Wikipedia authors] get from any other source has come from us and been filtered by whoever has published it. Nearly all of the sources quoted are media articles which can only be based on information from either us, DoD or NG.”

Carrying on the conversation about the difference between HAV-304 and Airlander 10, here is another technical explanation from the lead engineers, “The internal software, electrical, optical, gas control and fuel systems are very different in hundreds of details. The payload area is also completely new so that instead of being designed for a specific US Army uncrewed mission it is now a bigger flexible space available for many different civil or military tasks. It has been re-registered in the UK and has been (and will continue to be as we expand the flight programme) subjected to a rigorous all-new engineering evaluation by EASA before being issued with its civilian Permit-to-Fly. The number of modifications runs to more than a thousand.”

Here are a couple of pictures to show some of the external changes but IP prevents me from showing you the majority on the inside. You can find other pictures online to see further comparisons.





These are my suggestions for separate pages to clear up the current issues:
 * Hybrid Air Vehicles - this is the name of the company
 * Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV-3 – this is the small-scale prototype
 * Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 - this was the aircraft that flew in the US in 2012
 * Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10 - this is the current aircraft that is due to fly.

I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts and I’m hoping we will easily resolve the matter as a community. Philbobagshot (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The information in these articles seems to agree with what you write. I have made some small clarifications to the airframe's change of persona. If there are still specific inaccuracies in either article's content, please do detail them on the associated talk page.
 * How these pages get divided up is more of an encyclopedic issue than a technical one. In essence, we use the minimum number of pages necessary to create readable articles. In an ideal past, the company article would have been created first and everything put on there. As that article grew too big, an HAV-304/LEMV article would have been spun off. As Airlander 10 information begins to appear, it falls naturally in as a new addition to the HAV-304 article. Since the Airlander 10 has not yet flown and there is little of encyclopedic value to find about it in reliable secondary or tertiary sources, by rights it does not merit its own article yet either, and if someone were to change this article's name to Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304, then strictly speaking I could not argue against them. However we are not all sticklers for the tick boxes and we often will give some leeway where we are confident of the direction in which the real world is moving. Hence the nod to the Airlander 10 in the article title. OK it's not ideal, and once the new incarnation has garnered sufficient reliable coverage then we can rename this page the Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10 and relegate the HAV 304 to a History section or somewhere like that. Because the two incarnations are the same airframe, we really do need an article that covers all aspects of the airframe and, certainly for the present, there is not enough HAV 304 material to justify a more detailed standalone article. One option might be to put a slash in the current title to make the distinction a little clearer, as Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304/Airlander 10. While slashes in article titles do cause some odd consequences on Wikipedia and it would not be ideal, it should also be fairly short-lived. Would that be a significant improvement for you, or would you be happy to wait for the news to hit the streets? After all, this is an encyclopedia and not Wikinews.
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. As you will see from the recent official AAIB document, we are in fact officially recognised as "HAV Airlander 10". The name of this page is still creating confusing articles from journalists who are defaulting to this page for their information so I would like to once again request that this page be renamed. Thanks. Philbobagshot (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonsensical location
" ILC Dover in Kent County, USA (airship manufacturer and designer) ". This is a nonsense location. Where is this supposed to be ?Lathamibird (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's Kent County, Delaware, near Dover, where that company is located. None of the 5 locations in that list are formatted correctly, especially in using "USA", as it seems to have copied that format of its source. The whole list would probably be better in paragraph form, with some of the details left out. - BilCat (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

More accessible introduction
I read the introduction without finding out what kind of aircraft this is. Only the picture gave the hint that it's an airship (a buoyant balloon body). Please, somebody, write an intro that says what makes it "hybrid", at the least specifically stating what makes it stay up in the air and what makes it move, without having to turn to another page, Hybrid airship, which itself is jammed with technical terms that (a) explain nothing except to experts and (b) leave unanswered the questions I raised. Please think of that legendary "general audience". Thank you. (By the way, the rest of the article explains little to a non-expert; it is full of technical specs and excessive detail about logistics and programs.) Zaslav (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to both article leads, I hope you find this an improvement. I'll try and mention the ducted-fan propulsors if I can find some sensible source information. We can only base articles on published sources and so far these also reflect the bias you have noted, so there may be little we can do there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Gas, helium or hot air?
It's almost supposed to be so obvious that it isn't mentioned. Well, it isn't. What gas does this use for the envelope? B137 (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Helium. The word is mentioned twice in n passing in the WP article, but it isn't explicitly stated that helium is used. - BilCat (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Engines
Under the tech sction the engines are given variously as 325 and 350 hp. Which is correct? Ericoides (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ericoides, as you will see from previous conversations above, the HAV 304 and Airlander 10 are separate aircraft. The HAV 304 was 350hp and the Airlander 10 is 325hp. The data for Airlander is taken directly from the Hybrid Air Vehicles' website. You will see from my talk page that I work there so I can confirm the engine size of this Airlander 10. Hope that helps! Philbobagshot (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does, thanks! Ericoides (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would have assumed the engines were part of the repurchase deal and would be the same on both designs. Have they been replaced, or just derated for civilian use? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I said Steelpillow I work here and I can only report the facts straight from the engineers. The point I keep making is that the HAV 304 and Airlander 10 are different aircraft because of the hundreds of modifications. The engines were one of them. Philbobagshot (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you therefore confirm whether the modifications which led to the change in power rating involved a derating of the existing engines or wholesale replacement by engines of a different type? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The original supercharged engines must have been replaced with a different type because on the Airlander they are shown as turbocharged. 49.151.117.14 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Powerline contact denial and admission
@MilborneOne and @SteelPillow - Please explain why we should wait to mention the powerline contact and denial even if it was not the cause. It goes to the credibility of the manufacturer. Even if another cause is established it will still be notable. But until then it is especially notable. Also this is not like the common crash speculation that often turns out to be untrue. The fact that they denied contact and the fact that there was contact are established and there is not significant likelihood that those facts will change. Please restore my edit or reply promptly. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * HAV later acknowledged the contact so there is no question of a credibility issue. They also said that it was unrelated to the heavy landing, which we may take as indicative of why they dismissed the original suggestion. So any speculation that they may be connected must wait until we know for sure. That's two non-issues, at least for now. Please also be aware that many Wikipedia editors do not hang on their watchlists' every twitch but have other lives to live too. "Promptly" is not always an option. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The credibility issue is that they would dismiss an eyewitness account so readily. And it's not like this was a wild eyewitness account, it was a correct one. They should have checked it out first. It suggests they may have a problem with reactionary denial of responsibility. That could influence how much trust investors, regulators, and others put in their root cause investigation and their financial claims. Even if we know for sure that the power line contact did not cause the crash, it is still an interesting and confirmed factual detail, especially in light of the false denial. But until we get some hint of why the crash happened, the confirmed factual detail of the power line contact will be particularly interesting and relevant. If the company is reading this, I'd suggest the company leak something soon to take the focus off the powerline contact and its false denial. We don't know that it did not contribute, but we do know it did happen. Notice that my edit did not speculate that the contact caused the crash. The power line contact is similar to details included in other cases, such as clipping a treetop on approach after an engine failure. Even if it clearly wasn't the cause, it can still be significant to the storyline. The mention of it in multiple secondary sources confirms the notability of it. It's notable, interesting, and confirmed true, so there should be no objection to including it right? This is not like much crash cause speculation where reports contain facts of questionable truth. This is a confirmed fact.


 * You've stated that there is no credibility issue and I think I've addressed that. You also stated that "any speculation that they may be connected must wait until we know for sure." But that just restates in different words your edit comment that it is "too soon" to include that detail. You haven't answered why we should wait to include this possible cause or interesting detail. It is common to include information about possible causes in Wikipedia crash articles even before a final determination is made.


 * Since MilborneOne reverted my edit just three minutes after I re-posted it, I figured he would probably be around for a prompt reply. I requested a prompt reply because I was planning to alert administrators to what appeared to be whitewashing of the article by the corporation, and to get my edit restored without delay. Then I saw that MilborneOne is an aviation enthusiast and a heavily contributing administrator rather than a likely sock puppet, so I figure I'll wait 24 hours for him to respond and for the three revert rule to expire before I repost my edit - if there are no further objections.


 * If there are further objections, then Wikipedia guidelines suggest we establish some common ground, so I would ask the following questions:


 * 1) Do Wikipedia aircraft crash articles usually or often, include possible crash causes mentioned in reliable sources, even when those possible causes have significant uncertainty?


 * 2) Does a confirmed hasty and false denial of true facts generally contribute significantly to evaluating the credibility of a source?


 * 3) Do the following headlines show that many notable news sources not only thought the power line contact was notable enough to mention in an article, but notable enough to state in a headline!?


 * "Airlander 10: Longest aircraft hit power cable before nosediving" BBC News
 * "Airlander 10 mooring line hit power cable before crash" The Guardian
 * "Airlander 10 collided with power lines before crash, says manufacturer" Newmarket Journal
 * "Residents left without electricity after Flying Bum Plane 'nose-dived ..." The Sun
 * "Rope attached to Airlander 10 hit power line before it crashed says ..." Daily Mail


 * I often find people dodge my questions or assume they're just rhetorical, so I'd like to state that I hope you will actually answer all three questions, preferably with a clear yes or no if possible, and maybe with a short explanation of your answer if you feel the need. Of course if you don't object to me restoring my edit then you can just ignore this without comment. Mindbuilder (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read WP:3RR a little more carefully. I have said my bit and feel no need to repeat it. I will add only that in answer to 1); usually only in cases involving loss of life. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry we dont respond immediately to your questions some of us have other priorities in real life that sometimes means that users dip in and out of editing, in my case check for new changes and see if anybody needs any admin help, then carry on with real life. So immediately in wikipedia terms may be days not hours. That said your edit was challenged by two users so you need to gain a talk page consensus to add it again. Also just note that to wait for the "three revert rule to expire" is not a clever thing to do and can still get you blocked for disruptive editing so please take care. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer to 1) is they may or may not, depending on circumstances. We need to wait for the AAIB to publish its investigation report to be fully aware of the significance of the event. The answer to 3) is that The Sun is not a WP:RS, and the Daily Mail is not the best of sources to use. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

New Navigation Template Addition
Hi all, a Navigation Template has recently been added to the base of this article but I do not agree with the relevance of the content or the layout. As someone very familiar with the company and story I find it confusing and misleading - not everyone who has ever been involved with airships is related to this particular aircraft. If you look at Boeing or Airbus their boxes are much easier to follow and more relevant. If it is deemed necessary I would say Airship Industries should be in the "Related" line as it is a defunct company. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and explanations. Philbobagshot (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been a long chain of companies acquiring their predecessor's assets, and the idea appears to be to condense them all into one template, named after the current company. This template was created by, apparently as part of the Companies WikiProject. In theory the template content and use should be discussed on its talk page at Template talk:Hybrid Air Vehicles, but I think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies and Jax 0677's own talk page might be better places to start with. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10. 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/20140407082008/http://www.airshipmarket.org/?q=node%2F98 to http://www.airshipmarket.org/?q=node%2F98

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Blatant error
The Airlander 10 is not the largest nonrigid airship ever built. The ZPG-3W was 42,500 m^3, not 28,700. The ZPG-2W was 28,700 m^3. Fnj2 (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The article does not say the the Airlander 10 is the largest nonrigid airship ever built. The article says the the Airlander 10 is the largest nonrigid airship flying today. Also, do you have a source for the envelope capacities you've listed? Sario528 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * According to brittanica "Navy’s ZPG-3W airship—403 feet (123 metres) long, 85 feet in diameter, with a capacity of more than 1,500,000 cubic feet (42,450 cubic metres)—" Greglocock (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Article title
I have just moved the article to a new name, inserting a forward slash to help indicate that it refers to two different incarnations of this craft. At present it has spent more than half its life as the HAV 304 and there is more coverage of this incarnation in the article. Once that changes and the Airlander 10 material comes to dominate, then we can discuss whether to move the article again to Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10 (which is currently a redirect). I hope this is all OK. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304/Airlander 10. 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/20140204014427/http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ab16d951c-82be-42df-a54e-48ff6318442c to http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ab16d951c-82be-42df-a54e-48ff6318442c

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Page rename debate regains momentum

 * Airlander 10: World's longest aircraft gets full-production go-ahead | BBC — 13 January 2019

As this plane tilts into production, I would shocked if the Airlander 10 does not quickly become the dominant name in the press. From that perspective, we can rename this page now, or we can rename it later. I'm in no particular rush myself, I just wanted to note the key inflection point. Note also the logo on the photograph in the BBC article. &mdash; MaxEnt 17:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that too. So far the production run is just vapourware. I would suggest that the key point will come when there is another example in the air, and that will likely be years away. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tilts into production ... – you've been watching that crash video, right?  I agree that it will need renaming sooner or later, perhaps sooner, but maybe when there is a bit more published about it under the civilian name. And as you suggest there's no rush, and it's findable, even if the current title seems a bit odd/compromisoid ... Cheers DBaK-photo (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it's possible that by the time it does enter production/service the name will have changed. Or the design such that it differs in spec from this one. Renaming sounds premature. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Aerostatic vs aerodynamic lift relative contributions
"aerodynamic lift while the airship is in forward motion; generating up to half[dubious – discuss] of the airship's lift" is not inconsistent with "between 60 percent and 80 percent of the aircraft's weight is supported by the lighter-than-air helium". 60-80% of "Gross weight: 20,000 kg" [i.e. 12-16,000 kg] can still combine with half of "Max takeoff weight: 33,285" [i.e. 16,643 kg]. The 'aircraft's lift' needs to support the payload as well as the gross weight. e.g. (in theory) a total lift of 33,285kg can be provided by aerodynamic lift 16,643 kg, aerostatic lift 16,000 kg, and vectored thrust 642 kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:8885:9F00:1092:5E71:F713:6B81 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)