Talk:R100/Archive 1

Statistics
The useful lift stated here is wrong. The figure given is the gross lift, ignoring the weight of the hull. If you subtract the weight from this figure you get 114,242lb, which comes to just over 51 tons, the useful lift. Nevil Shute Norway, in _Slide Rule_, states that the useful lift of R100 was 54 tons.

Designation reality
The article title seems to me to be wrong. I'm looking at R-100 painted on the airship and cannot understand why the written material refers to R100. Has anyone got an excuse or reason for the anomaly? Lin (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC) The designation of British rigid airships (with the exceptions of No.1 and No.9) were R.XXX. R.100 is the proper designation. The pattern for painting the designation on airships was to use a space instead of a period thus HMA R.101 and R 101 painted on it's sides. I have never found any explanation as to why R.100 had R-100 on it.

The title of this article is most emphatically wrong. The airship was R.100. Nevil Shute Norway, who was chief calculator and second only to Barnes Wallis in the design of the R.100 used R.100, not R-100 or R100 in his autobiography. Capt. George Meager who was the R.100's First Officer (second in command) always used R.100 in his book "My Airship Flights 1915-1930.

There are many more sources I could cite but I think the writings of two men intimately involved in design, construction and flight of the R.100 are sufficient to support the argument that this article should have it's title corrected as well as all references in the text.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have pursued the R. vs R- issue to the point of checking advertising. In 1929-1930 the common usage as well as official usage in the UK was R.100 while in North America, both Canada and the USA the usage was R-100. The exact reason for the NA usage is not clear. It might be because photos show the airship with R-100 or it might be that the hyphen is common usage in North America to separate letters and numbers in designations. Witness how often Jet and Rocket engines are so often mislabeled, JT-8D instead of the proper JT8D, or LR-87 instead of LR87.

R100 is certainly later usage and the name of this article is flat out wrong.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether a dot, hyphen, space, or no space is correct is really a relatively minor issue, as the R-100 painted on the side plainly illustrates. On Wikipedia, titles are determined by the common name (format in this case) as found in reliable published sources. If you can show that "R.100" is the common format, then the article can be moved. - BilCat (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

And exactly how might I do that? Must I purchase second copies of Slide Rule and My Airship Flights and send them in? The authors were the #2 man in design and oversaw construction as well as testing through the Atlantic Flight. The other was the second in command and was with the ship trough construction and all test flights and the Atlantic Flight. Both works were published after deviant versions had become common especially in North America. Air Ministry Records are considered source material which for reasons unfathomable to a historian are considered inadmissible. Some piece of drivel about the worst aircraft is ok but Norway and Meager are not?

Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC).


 * Reading WP:COMMONNAME is a good place to start to understand why WP prefers common names over official names, and briefly covers methods for doing so. You can follow other links from there. Also, it would be helpful if you'd not post the same questions in more than one place, as another user has responded to the same question below. I agree with his comments there. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

First Flight
There is a mistake: the maiden fligh cant be done in 1916. It must be 1929 or 1930. Hadhuey 19:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The correct date is 16 December 1929 Source Meager, George "My Airship Flights."

Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch.
I changed it to 1929. The Atlantic voyage was in the summer of 1930 so I assumed the December maiden flight date to be correct so I changed it to 1929 rather than 1930 based on that. I will research it further to make sure though. Thanks. William13 :)

Airship R100 or just R100?
Should we call this page R100 like most of the airship pages or move/rename it back to Airship R100 like the Airship R101 is named. I actually like the idea of HMA R100 which is the full name though most people know it by R100 which is how it is designated in manifests, history texts, and on the ship itself. This same question applies to the R101. Could be renamed HMS R101.

The dining room panelling from R100 was salvaged and used in the Crown & Kettle public house on Oldham Road Manchester. Some still there but molst destroyed in recent fire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhglen (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It was never Airship R.100. Some documents have it H.M.A. R.100 as it was ultimately property of the government, but that was never common usage.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Civil registration
The airship had a civil registration. I was going to add it to the List of aircraft by tail number but it is not mentioned in the article at all. I think it was G-FAAV but I'm not 100% sure. Can anyone confirm? Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The CAA's G-INFO database confirms G-FAAV. I've added it to the list (but not the R100 article—I'm unsure where it should go, particularly since the R101 article lacks its registration, though articles on civil Zeppelins seem to put the registration in parentheses after the ship's LZ designation and name). Grover Snodd (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was G-FAAV just as R.101 was G-FAAW. The registration was painted on the hull between the F and G girders between frames 7 and 8. It was also on top of the ship though I cannot tell where given the photo of the top of the ship in Meager's book.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Designation?
Why is it the R100 and not R100, see other articles, notably R101. FWiW, it isn't the Concorde, simply Concorde Bzuk (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Possibly because there was only the one, coupled with its tragic end, it falls naturally to talk of "the R101" (the arr-one-oh-one). Flight at the time referred to it as "R101" without the definite article, though also reporting its proper name as "H.M. Airship R101". That makes it "HMS R101" in short form c.f. HMS Ark Royal, (though as Royal is an adjective to "Ark", one can naturally talk of "the Ark Royal" so bad example), or HMS Hood. The Airship Heritage Trust refer to "the R101" Parliamentarians of the day are mixed: with some using "the" and others omitting it before R101 (Hansard search, in this rather interesting debate, the Under Sec. of State for Air F. Montague uses both forms.) Perhaps in some sentences it is more euphoneous (sp?) to put in a "the", it certainly helps at the start of a sentence, as if the "airship" is elided: "The airship R101 was..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And why the italics? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
 * General usage seems to generally drop the article. It's surely not necessary, because there was only one R.100 & practise see sto have been to give each airfram a number of its own. Which makes R.100 more like a ship's name than an aircraft's type number & hence suggest italicisation. However italicisation is not generally used in print. I'd write "R.101", although I agree that "the R.101" sounds better. (It's a bit like the aircrew, a mixture of Air Force, Navy & civilians)TheLongTone (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the general direction of the above conversation, shouldn't the article now use R100 consistently rather than R101 or "the" R101? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I'll have a go, unless anybody else is eager to do it or violently objects. (but it's bedtime now) Interesting reference from Hansard, Graeme.TheLongTone (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The designation of British rigid airships (with the exceptions of No.1 and No.9) were R.XXX. R.100 is the proper designation. The pattern for painting the designation on airships was to use a space instead of a period thus HMA R.101 and R 101 painted on it's sides. I have never found any explanation as to why R.100 had R-100 on it.

The title of this article is most emphatically wrong. The airship was R.100. Nevil Shute Norway, who was chief calculator and second only to Barnes Wallis in the design of the R.100 used R.100, not R-100 or R100 in his autobiography. Capt. George Meager who was the R.100's Executive Officer (second in command) always used R.100 in his book "My Airship Flights 1915-1930.

I think the writings of two men intimately involved in design, construction and flight of the R.100 are sufficient to support the argument that this article should have it's title corrected as well as all references in the text. Contemporary articles in Flight use R.100.

The first use of R-100 aside from on the ship itself is in US publications Aviation (Aviation Week) and NY Times. There are also later uses of R 100. But contemporary British sources use R.100. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have pursued the R. vs R- issue to the point of checking advertising. In 1929-1930 the common usage as well as official usage in the UK was R.100 while in North America, both Canada and the USA the usage was R-100. The exact reason for the NA usage is not clear. It might be because photos show the airship with R-100 or it might be that the hyphen is common usage in North America to separate letters and numbers in designations. Witness how often Jet and Rocket engines are so often mislabeled, JT-8D instead of the proper JT8D, or LR-87 instead of LR87.

R100 is certainly later usage and the name of this article is flat out wrong.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That The title of this article is most emphatically wrong is most emphatically hyperbole. "R.100" is a format that has fallen out of use over the years and is functionally indistinguishable from "R100" and therefore changing the article is pointless. That said Flight contemporaneously used both "R 100" and "R 101" as well as "R.100" and "R.101" GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also found that the Hansard transcriptions of parliamentary debates use both "R 100" and "R.100" GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

propulsion & the R101
There seems to be a lot in the propulsion section which is not really about R100, and is simply trotting out the problems with R101 in an inapropriate place. I don't have Gilbert's Worlds Worst Aircraft, used as a ref for a note about the R101 design team wanting to change to petrol engines but imo it's guff. There isn't anything in Masefield about this, and the R101's severe weight problems only became apparent when lift & trim trial were done: it may have been briefly considered but there was certainly no fiat from the Ministry vetoing a proposal. As for Shute's amazement at the idea of using one engine for reversing only, I think this is a matter where Shute is blowing bubbles o' guff. It was a stop-gap measure, and its difficult to think of an alternative. The reversing gearbox fitted to R100 was no featherwight, btw: weighed around a ton.TheLongTone (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a defence of Worlds Worst Aircraft, from three contributors who have read it, at Talk:R101; it's quite useful—much better than it sounds. Doesn't affect the relevance (or otherwise) of including too much about the Beardmores here, of course. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I think I sparked that one off. But in this case I'm pretty sure that it's wrong, or making an exaggeration Apart from not recalling anything about seriously considering not using the Tornado in Masefield (now back in the library), I dont see such a drastic change with the inevitable delays involved being seriously considered with a project as behind shedule as the R101. And as above, it was only when they floated the thing that they realised the extent of the weight problem.TheLongTone (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a look at Gilbert and imo as far as R101 goes its  poorly-researched and unreliable, basically swallowing everything Shute says as being reliable, which it is not. I think I'm gong to write a bok called The World's Worst Aircraft myself: currently on the list are the Wright Flyer, the Sopwith Camel, the Spitfire and Concorde.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

...I've removed the R101 stuff. Firstly, the cited source says nothing about when Richmond wanted to change to petrol engines. Shute's 'astonishment' at the decision to use one engine for reversing is highly disingenuous. Firstly, it ignores the fact that this was only an a temporary solution to the problem: fly it like until a better solution is found, or don't fly it. And he does not come up with a better solution. Actually his major criticism is the way the engine thrust was applied, with a thrust bearing on the propeller hub connected to a steel cable leading to the airframe. He describes this as primitive, but again does not offer a better way of doing it. In an case none of it is actually relevant to this articleTheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

'Fastest airship in the world'
I've cut this claim because, cite notwithstanding, its not true, or not according to Masefield & Hugo Eickener: LZ 102 Bodensee managed 82.5 mph in 1922. (The FIA don't do homologated airship speed records)TheLongTone (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

'Neville Shute Norway'
Made a couple of edits to credit Neville Shute Norway under his full name as I re-read Slide Rule, Autobiography of an Engineer a couple of days ago and I realised that while Neville Shute Norway is better known under his pen name as Neville Shute, he used his full name while working as an engineer which the credits in this article relate to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart264 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on photo R100 over Jacques Cartier Bridge
This comment was added to the actual article text and made no sense as it was a comment pertaining to the validity of the photo so I commented it out of the article and have added it here:  (Andrew ranfurly (talk)) This is a composite image of a ship passing under the bridge with the R-100 added in the darkroom. Airships are two axis control vehicles and do not bank as three axis control airplanes do. In a sharp turn inertia will cause the heavier lower portion to swing outward slightly, but not to this degree. Close inspection shows the rudders amidships she is not in a turn. The light angles on the ship and bridge are the same, on the airship quite different. This type of image was common in Canada at the time, it seems everyone wanted a picture of the R-100 with their ship or landmark. So as not to mislead readers, a real image of a real event should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew ranfurly (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Emperor of Canada?
I have never in my life ever seen the appellation "Emperor of Canada" in reference to any airship much less the R.100. R.100 is the correct legal name for the airship as per "Airship R.100 designed and constructed by the Airship Guarantee Co. Ltd., Howden,, Yorkshire, July 5, 1928." A brochure by the manufacturer which was described by Dr. Higham as "propaganda" on page 380 of the bibliography of his book "The British Ridged Airship 1908-1931. The brochure was a publication by the manufacturer who most certainly knew the aircraft's name. I recommend deletion of the appellation "Emperor of Canada" as it is most certainly spurious as no British rigid airship ever had an official name other than it's alphanumeric designation. Not even HMA NO. 1 which was waggishly deemed the "Mayfly" (it didn't). If someone can offer proof that the designation "Emperor of Canada" was ever officially used by whom ever please document it with a proper citation. Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just gone through Barry Countrman's fine account "R100 in Canada." It is an excelent account by a Canadian drawn largely but not exclusivly upon Canadian sources. At no place in the book did I find the name "Emperor of Canada" mentioned. It seems if it was ever applied to R.100 it would have been mentioned by Mr. Countryman. His book even includs a 45 RMP Record containinng two different renditions of "The R100" by Harold Leonard and Glenn Adney performed by the Windsor Hotel Orchestra. It seems Mr. Countryman would have at least mentioned the name "Emperor of Canada" in his book. As I have many books on airships, and have never seen the name "Emperor of Canada" associated with the R.100 I can only assume it it sperious. My enquirering mind is driven to find out where it came from. Before I delete it as spurrious I again ask who included it in this article and where did they come up with it? Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)