Talk:LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin

Much of this information is included in the Zeppelin article, but I believe this should be pulled out and given its own separate article. While the second Graf Zeppelin was not as famous as the first Graf Zeppelin or the Hindenburg, she was significant both in the demise of the era of the great Zeppelins (since she was the last) and in the buildup to World War II. German Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article on the ship Willy Logan 00:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The End of the Airships
There seems to be some confusion between sources as to the author of the order for the destruction of the surviving airships and their sheds. German Wikipedia gives an order from Ernst Udet (even going so far as to quote it verbatim), while the main Zeppelin article on the English side, and at least one literary source (When Giants Roamed the Skies) says it was Hermann Göring. I've stated the latter in this article. Willy Logan 23:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The direct order to wreck the ships in written form were given by Udet at 4th and 6th March 1940. It is known, that Göring was no friend of the Zepplins. He an some other Gernerals visiteted the the Frankfurt airport on the 1st March. At this point the decision to wreck the ships and hangars was alredy made. While visiting the airships G. Milch (in the vsistors group around Göring) mentioned that both airships and the hangar will be wrecked. The Book of LZ 130 includes also a protocol of Görings talk to Max Pruss at that day. (Source: German Book "LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin und das Ende der Verkehrsluftschiffe" p.189-195) Hadhuey 09:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The End of the Zeppelins
The section needs to be called "The End of the Zeppelins", not "The End of the Airships" because the term "airship" is vague and Zeppelin is much more descriptive. In-Correct (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Most advanced?
The article states the "LZ 130 can be regarded as the most technologically advanced rigid airship ever flown". A citation from one of the major books on the subject is needed. The U.S. Akron/Macon twins were in many regards more advanced yet, with a simpler internal structure and inboard mounted engines whose propellers could swivel to power the machine both up and down.

Not a good idea...
I don't think it's right to have merged LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin II with Hindenburg class airship. The LZ 130 deserves an extensive article the same way the Hindenburg has. If you look at the German article, it's very extensive. Frankyboy5 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then please go ahead and write that article! An article on the class in general can stand side-by-side with articles on the two individual aircraft - there are many many such examples on Wikipedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Support the split but query the infobox cut
I don't want to start a long discussion, but while I welcome the splitting of the Hindenburg into the airship and the disaster (makes the main article easier to deal with), and the creation of the class article (keeps common parts in one place), I think cutting the infobox makes things slightly less useful to the reader.

Each airship built was usually unique, or in a small class of two or three similar designs. For example, far as I can make out each of the Parseval airships was different. The Zeppelins did get built in small classes (the Dutch list here shows the supposed grouping). However each ship had its own equipment, its own crew, and of course its own history and fate. So, not very logical maybe, but having a small box with name, maiden flight, fate, cannot be so bad. If the infobox is really for classes then what about an info box for individual, notable, aircraft? (Wright Flyer, Spruce Goose, Spirit of St. Louis, Heinkel He 178, etc.) 84user (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Individual aircraft sometimes have an infobox because they are the sole examples of a type of aircraft (like every example in your list). Other famous, individual aircraft don't: Southern Cross, Bremen, Memphis Belle, G for George etc.


 * Similarly, airships that are the sole examples of their type (like the Parsevals you mention) should get individual articles and have infoboxes. Where airships are part of a recognisable class and are referred to as such in the literature, they should first and foremost be grouped under this class and share an infobox, and any particularly notable members of the class get individual articles.


 * I agree that there's often a great deal of variation even within a class of airships, but this variation is no greater than the variation between, say a Messerschmitt Bf 109B and Me 109G or a B-17E Flying Fortress and a B-17G; yet all the subtypes of these highly-notable heavier-than-air types share an article, an infobox, and a specifications section.


 * I guess the aim here is to de-emphasise individual aircraft and emphasise types. In the case of these two ships, I'd say this is an especially worthwhile aim, since I think there's a tendency for people to think of Hindenburg to be somehow unique, when as we all know, she had a near-identical twin... --Rlandmann (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Adjusting translation - Funkbeschickung
I am adjusting the German to English translation (from Babelfish I assume) of the flights section. The word Funkbeschickung was not in my largest German dictionary (to me it appears to mean "sending radio examplars"), however I found it it is a form of calibrating radio direction-finding equipment. The technical level is outside my expertise, but this document describes it in detail with pictures and diagrams:

In case any radio-experts have a better translation... -84user (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Grabau, Rudolf. Geräteausstattung zur Ver- messung von Peilplätzen, Funkgeschickte Nr. 176 (2007). www.radiomuseum.org. (German) last accessed 2008-08-02

Strangest Babelfish translation so far: -84user (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Babelfish: "Those drive on by more badly becoming weather one made more difficult to turn around from there after some time decided."
 * Original German: "Die Weiterfahrt wurde durch schlechter werdendes Wetter erschwert, daher wurde nach einiger Zeit entschieden umzukehren."
 * My free-translation: "Worsening weather hindered further flight, therefore after some time it was decided to turn back."

Possible Czech source
This Czech link has all 30 flights detailed in a table with start and landing times, kilometres covered, commander, and all the overflown towns. However, it has typos. I did not add any information from this table, but I did use it to resolve some ambiguities (such as Eger which could be one of three or more places, but is infact Cheb). Also the Czech source has Würzburgfahrt on August 6, as do some philately sites, but the German wikipedia has August 5. In the spirit of Verifiability I did not change this as I have cited the German article! There maybe other inaccuracies. -84user (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin II. 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/20070927223849/http://www.luftschiffharry.de/doku/LZ_130_Spionagefahrt.pdf to http://www.luftschiffharry.de/doku/LZ_130_Spionagefahrt.pdf

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) 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Better references
This article as exsted for almost as long as Wikipedia has, but it is poorly referenced and full of misunderstandings and bad writing. Would there be any appetite to improve it? --The Huhsz (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

ICI Explosives Factory, Ardeer
It appears LZ 130 on its spying mission also overflew the huge ICI Explosives factory at Ardeer, a local Saltcoats photographer Robert Brown taking a photograph of it Bohun (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)