This is an archive of past discussions about LZ 129 Hindenburg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The picture that keeps mentioning it's a rare part
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Come on, if it's from the Hindenburg, a once only made aerocraft, then chances are it is rare. Seems to me like someone trying to pepper up on antique selling with a nifty link to Wikipedia showing the objects rarity and oh so high price. 68.5.97.182 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Cost to manufacture
The cost to manufacture is not currently given in 1930s USD or inflation-adjusted USD. Someone knowledgable please add at least one of these to the appropriate section. 74.132.209.23102:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
huh?
"Thirty-six people (exactly 2.77 of the people on board) perished in the accident..." <-- What is this supposed to mean? Is there supposed to be a % symbol in there somewhere? 2.77 of the people on board? Does that mean that 32.23 of the people who died were not on board? LordAmeth20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"The airship flew 308,323 km (191,583 miles) with 2,798 passengers and 160 tons of freight and mail during the season" <--I thought the airship held only 72, not a few thousand. Please clarify. M, 22:25, 5 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.24.113 (talk)
Besides being written in an intelligible language, this article needs to have some serious citation added to its narrative. Good as it sounds it needs to look like a college term paper with loads of footnoting. It should not be unthinkable that this article could go 40 - 60 deep on notes (citations). All these stories poured in as facts need to be referenced to some sort of documentation. It will not pass a GA, A, or FA rating without some serious citation. Someone needs to pull out a few library books and reference this thing. Rule of thumb should dictate a note per paragraph or at least per major topic or factoid. And I, for one, after having read it all, believe it deserves to be a Feature Article.
"Someone needs to pull out a few library books and reference this thing." - Agreed... I nominate you :)
BTW, for anyone who is not bought in to the section on Incendiary Paint Theory, in this article its good reading and is worthy of all that has been said about it whether it happened or not. Pros and cons are well developed. For a disinterested reader, I found it interesting to read.--Magi Media03:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I really liked the color photo of the in-tact Hindenburg at Lakehurst that was the first on the page. Can that one be returned?--Magi Media03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As soon as someone can substantiate it as being anything other than blatant original research, sure. But it isn't going to be the lead image in this article -- it's entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia to feature what amounts to speculative art when discussing the factual aspects of a vessel, especially when un-doctored photographs are available.--chris.lawson04:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not up on my color photography history, but is this to say that there were no color photos of the Hindenburg at all. That one I am speaking of looked very good and authentic, but I'll have to admit the colorized ones of the H on fire were pretty cheezy. Kodachrome was available as early as 1935.--Magi Media14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Colour film was available even earlier than that, but it doesn't change the fact that these two images are doctored B&W photographs.--chris.lawson17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
And stop changing the second picture "The Hindenburg moments after catching fire." because its at the bottom of the page allready.
--Pediaguy1618:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh and a nother thing the german wikipedia has "The Hindenburg at Lakehurst" picture on their wikipedia they think its authentic so why can't we.--Pediaguy1618:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above and over at Talk:Trinity test, these images are, at best, original research and at worst an outright lie. Colourised images in general are certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about their subject, and definitely should not be used in lieu of original, un-doctored photographs. If someone can substantiate these photographs as being from a reliable third-party source, and [[:WP:CITE|cite that source, they might be appropriate elsewhere in the article, but they are absolutely NOT appropriate, in ANY encyclopedia, as the lead images.--chris.lawson20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, as the uploader of the files, Pediaguy16 is far from an unbiased observer. I have no dog in this fight, as it were. And finally, the colour image of the Hindenburg burning does not qualify for this article under fair use criteria anyway, so it can't be here even if it is a genuine photograph colourised by an expert.--chris.lawson20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok well this was not a problem until you and yath came to this page. look i'm not trying to fight but it has been there for over two weeks everyone thought it was fine like I was telling yath its so much nicer to see some of these picture in color because it give you a better idea of what it looked like and it feels more real.--Pediaguy1623:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That may be true. It does not, however, address the problem of the colourisation being 100% undeniably original research, and as such, it cannot be here.--chris.lawson23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A couple of quick points for Pediaguy...
You have added information that did not exist in the originals. People might mistake your artistic modifications for reality, but even if they don't, it's harder to see what was originally in the photos. Worse, there is no indication that your changes came from anywhere other than your own imagination. That is why the term "original research" has reared its ugly head.
Just because things hang around for a period of time doesn't mean they become permanent and unchangeable. Granted, there are some wikipedians who balk at changing things that have hung around for a couple of years, but many don't. And two weeks is a very short period of time.
Pediaguy added the picture again, with the caption "What The Hindenburg would look like in color." I have removed it as original research. Absent an original color picture, we don't know what the Hindenburg would look like in color. This picture shows what its creator thinks it would have looked like, and I think that's original research. - EronTalk19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the colorized version of the Hindenburg in the Box. It appears tastefully rendered and it doesn't insult the imagination to think that's what it looked like in color. I did clean the edges off the photo and updated it.--Magi Media03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not has no bearing on the fact that it is still original research and cannot be used here as such.--chris.lawson03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Quick question- Does this mean that the pictures of the inside of the Hidenburg have been changed to have colour? I wasn't sure if they were or not, they don't say.66.223.150.104 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The interior images are supplied by the Bundesarchive. "The German Federal Archive guarantees an authentic representation only using the originals". Color photography existed at the time, although it was painful to set up and was expensive. For what was undoubtedly advertising copy, they almost certainly did arrange for color photography for those images. News photographs, on the other hand, were almost entirely black and white, because expense and speed were dominant requirements for reporters. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt...
I highly doubt that Morrison said, "Haha!". So I changed it to a more famous line of "Oh, the Humanity!"
That doesn't make any sense at all! What makes you think he said "Oh, the Humanity!" as opposed to "Haha!"? Who cares if you doubt it? Wikipedia is about factual and reliable information, not personal opinions. And besides, both quotes may or may not be true at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.145.55 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If you ever watch the footage of it, he says " Oh the humanity!" not haha, genius.
In my opinion, the article is too heavily weighted toward various theories regarding the accident, not the ship or even the accident itself. The successful first year of service is only briefly discussed.
One particular episode that I believe especially deserves treatment in this article is the Wahlreise (election tour) undertaken by both the Hindenburg and the Graf Zeppelin to encourage "ja" votes on the referendum to annex the Rheinland into Germany. In haste, Captain Lehmann brought the Hindenburg out of the hangar in a crosswind, damaging the tail. Dr. Eckener reprimanded him publicly. This particular event and the whole Wahlreise are significant for a number of reasons:
The Rheinland annexation was one of Nazi Germany's significant pre-WWII territorial expansions. (It was recently referenced in The Colbert Report, after all).
Dr. Eckener's criticism of Captain Lehmann led to a falling-out between the two airshipmen, who had known each other for decades.
Dr. Eckener's criticism offended the Nazi party and caused him to lose his status in the Zeppelin company and German society.
Also worth discussing in this article are the "millionaires' flight" over New England, the various flights to Brazil, and the tests of mounting a biplane beneath the ship's hull. The account of the accident itself should be expanded, and the more recent theories should be trimmed down, or perhaps given an article of their own.
Eckener did NOT lose his status in the Zeppelin Company as far as I know, but he was not allowed to be mentioned in media. Frankyboy504:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
How long does it take to fly from Germany to New Jersey with a Hindenburg?
The article does not give any information about this, making comparison to modern aviation technology difficult. The top speed is given as 135 km/h, but the ship would not travel in full speed at all times. Even assuming this, the article does not mention from which city it took off. Assuming further that it took off from Frankfurt and landed in Lakehurst, the distance would be 6280 km, which, divided by 135, gives 46.5 hours. So it is safe to assume that the flight took 3 to 4 days to complete. --Mbalelo12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The decisive factor here is the prevailing wind across the north Atlantic, which generally flies west-to-east. So flights to North America take longer than flights in the opposite direction. Additionally, storm fronts, which the ship had to avoid, often prevented the ship from taking the shortest great circle route. According to Captain Lehmann's book Zeppelin, of the ten outbound flights from Frankfurt to Lakehurst in 1936, the average time was 63 hours, 42 minutes. In the reverse direction, the average time was 51 hours, 46 minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willy Logan (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
It was very interesting to read in this article the way that Morrison's reference to "the humanity" (which I had never really understood in the context of his commentary of the disaster) related to his earlier descriptions of the ground crew - I have never seen that point made anywhere before.
However, on the subject of his actual words I must take issue with the comment that "Although there is some speculation as to whether his actual words were, "Oh, the humanity," or "all the humanity", — the radio recording is unclear — it was most likely "Oh, the humanity," as the complete sentence is "Oh, the humanity and all the passengers..."
I would have thought myself that, on the contrary, "ALL the humanity and all the passengers" would make just as much sense, if not more so. He was most likely suggesting that neither the ground crew (the humanity) nor the passengers could have survived. Maybe this is a trivial point and not worth making any alteration to the article, but I thought it worth mentioning as an alternate view - the trouble was that Morrison was obviously so overcome by emotion that he became momentarily inarticulate and it is perhaps unfair to analyse his exact words too closely.
Hm, I just listened to it, and it does rather sound more like he is saying ALL the humanity, instead of OH, the humanity. Someone else listen to it.
72.147.127.12103:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Oh, the humanity" was a common expression at the time. It was NOT "All the humanity", although you might think that with his 1930 dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.81.156 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a really classic quote, one of the most recognisable phrases of the 20th century, and so it's picked out as a quotation. Personally, I quite like the effect. Vashti09:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The following paragraphs were in the section on incendiary paint, but don't specifically address incendiary paint at all. Also, there are citation needed tags from last month on them, I don't know if this qualifies as "a reasonable amount of time" but certainly anyone who can find a citation can put this back with the citation whether I take it out now or a year from now. Also also, I find these paragraphs confusing and contradictory. We have a citation that Bain supported the idea that the paint had a thermite reaction and yet he thought the fire burned without being noticed (in the presence of hydrogen?) and then it says "opponents" and "proponents" without saying who or even making clear what they are opposed to.
"Bain also claims that the fire most likely burned for a while without being seen by most witnesses.[citation needed] He suggests that the fire broke out on the starboard side behind the upper fin, which blocked the view of all but a few on the starboard side of the ship as well as a crew member in the lower fin. Opponents argue that the crew member mentioned actually reported that the fire started in the axial catwalk and spread mainly to the starboard side.
Other proponents claim that while the hydrogen in the Hindenburg was "odorized" with garlic[citation needed] so leaks might be detected, no garlic odor was reported prior to the fire.
Proponents also point out that after the fire started, Hindenburg stayed aloft for a relatively long period instead of immediately tilting and falling as it would have if the hydrogen cells were ruptured. [citation needed]"
66.41.66.21304:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the Air Commerce Bulletin, published by US Dept of Commerce, dated August 15, 1937, within which is found the report of the accident investigation, describing the landing maneuvers: "At 6:08 p.m. [E.S.T.] station commander sent last message . . . " recommending earliest possible landing. In Part IV. - The Fire: "Ship was first observed afire at 6:25 p.m." [E.S.T.] Housed at the American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, are the Denis J. Mulligan papers, (call #09121). Mulligan was Chief, Regulation and Enforcement Division, Bureau of Air Commerce, at the time of the investigation, and was designated as part of the committee to investigate the accident. There were a number of copies of this report in box 1. Interestingly, in a letter from Mulligan's wife, she mentioned how he had been "a passenger aboard the last safe flight of the Hindenburg from Germany to Lakehurst, N.J." O father please help me (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Mythbusters
The "Mythbusters" section should be moved to the "Cultural References" section. Mythbusters is an entertainment program and should not be cited as if its findings were scientifically relevant. Slayte114:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree. The fact that it was from mythbusters doesn't help, but its findings do help explain the disaster. It should probably be rewritten and the current part moved to cultural references. Is that a good plan? Mattbash19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. "Mythbusters" does attempt to apply some rigor to their experiments. There's no law that says science can't be entertaining also. Wahkeenah23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the mythbusters part probably shouldn't have its own subtitle, but instead be mixed into the hydrogen theory as support. The part about moving it to cultural references still stands, though. And yeah, science can be entertaining. In the early ninties, did you ever watch Bill Nye the Science Guy? ;) Mattbash01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Bill Nye also has a degree in mechanical engineering, has worked in the aeronautics industry, holds several patents, and has been a university professor. Phaethon 013001:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Mythbusters program is NOT a dependable source of data. Their 'experiment/demonstrations' are flawed, at best, and they admit that they are NOT scientists.
I thought the episode was quite well-done and seemed fairly sound, but I agree that Mythbusters is not a science show. They always mention that the hosts have "special effects" experience at the beginning of the show, not scientific experience. Distribute the Mythbusters section between Cultural References and the Incendiary Paint Theory sections. Phaethon 013001:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about you guys, but to me, the Mythbusters experiments DID show that the dope had some correlation to the rate of burn, with the doped fabric burning, in flame tests, significantly more quickly than the undoped fabric. In fact, the large-scale burn test with the hydrogen diffused throughout the model looked, to me, to rather accurately replicate both the appearance of the fire, and the distribution of burn locations throughout the envelope.
My personal guess, based on that, would be the following:
A small fire starts smoldering in the airship's skin near the rear of the envelope; it goes unnoticed for an extended period, even as they're landing.
One of the rear hydrogen cells begins leaking, either due to the fire, or as part of the venting operations. (I suspect there may have been a slow lear in an aft cell, anyway, since the ship was inexplicably tail-heavy on approach to Lakehurst.)
The smoldering fire ignites the leaking/venting hydrogen.
The burning hydrogen spreads the fire to multiple points of envelope fabric ignition throughout the envelope, causing the multiple burn sources seen in the newsreel footage. The dope on the fabric helps speed the envelope's consumption, but is not the root cause in and of itself.
The rather healthy supply of diesel fuel onboard for the ship's engines further helps spread the fire, and actually kills most of the victims (as the hydrogen fire would just float up and away from the ground).
In other words, it wasn't JUST the fabric or the hydrogen that caused the disaster; it was, like most major disasters, a combination of many factors (including both of those) coming together in just the wrong way that turned a minor fire into a cataclysm. Thoughts? Rdfox 7611:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Two things that reject the incendiary paint theory: There is no evidence it could be ignited by a spark. Addison Bain just cheated by using a continuous eletric machine. He also had to orient the fabric in the proper way. Second of all, while Mythbusters did make the fabric burn like the disaster, all the other tests show that the fire shape is not consistent with the fire. It is far to triangular shaped. Plus, this is a scale model. Had it been the size of the real hindenburg, it would not burn as fast. While it may seem like the hydrogen would burn the same way but a bit faster, there are so many cells of hydrogen and 7 000 000 cubic feet of it!
A small blimp burned because it was painted with dope. This is cited as an example of something helium filled that still burned, but I can reject this as a proponent of the IPT. First of all, the fire would look like it spreads more because there is less surface area. Also, because it is non-rigid, it instantly deflates.
Even if the fabric was the first thing to be ignited by a spark, hydrogen would be required to increase the speed of the burn. Had the shipe been filled with helium, I would imagine that it would be the funniest airship disaster ever! Why? The fabric would not burn fast at all, and then the ship would land and they don't notice the fire until someone looks and says "there's fire!" Then the crew would extinguish the fire and they may want to repaint the ship.
Mythbusters showed that with hydrogen, the fire could go to the nose and skip the center section of the fire. That is alot like that of the real disaster when the flame went out of the nose like a blowtorch.
The disaster is far more complex than hydrogen.
I believe that the sharp turns (yes there were two) had played a crucial role in not only ripping one of the gas cells, but also weakening the structure. An inward dent appeared immediately behind the passenger decks the moment the fire started, later on, as the ship's tail collapses and the a fire bursts out of the nose, this part collapses inward and I believe the cell exploded from this (it seems like there is an explosion in that rear cell). The keel was also weakened so when the ship burned, as shown by the bow facing upwards while the stern is still in trim. Not only that, a water and a fuel tank bursted open. The inquiry mistakenly labelled both as water tanks, but according the ship's plans, one of them contained fuel.
So, I believe that the puncture theory is the most logical theory as it explains why the ship burned with so many cracks and dents.
However, I cannot rule out sabotage. Spectators took whatever they could before guards had taken over the wreck. One spectator may have indeed taken a bomb and there was also that Luger Pistol that one crew member salvaged from the wreckage.
The fabric remains crucial in collecting the spark and making it jump onto a piece of metal which ignited the hydrogen. The materials made it a poor conductor, but did not necessarilly make it the cause of the disaster.
I always believe that regardless if what started the fire "The Hindenburg burned because it was filled with hydrogen." (LZ 129 Hindenburg by Douglas Robinson). Frankyboy504:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
you know this may 6th is the 70 year annaversery of the event, and it hasn't been metioned in the 2007 article or the May 6th article. have people forgotten about the Hindenburg??? Tu-4921:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I know. On Sunday, it will be the 70th anniversary. Il will certainly be in the "on this day" feature on the Main Page. The reason why it's not in the May 6th article is that it's useless to mention anniversaries on date articles, because it creates a repetition. For example, the May 6 article would say "1957: 20th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster - 1962: 25th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster - 1987: 50th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster, etc." It just wouldn't make sense.Themat21III19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Taking it a step further: "May 6, 2007 - 20th anniversary of the 50th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster..." Wahkeenah03:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a mention of a misleading theory that was mentioned in the article (exaust sparks, rejected by Hugo Eckener) and there is a brand new documentary (Hindenburg: The Untold Story) that was aired on Sunday. It was so real and featured realistic animation and renactment combined with actual footage. I almost thought I was witnessing the real documentary. It clearly supports the puncture/hydrogen theory which was supported by modern day historians, and engineers, such as Graham Dorrington. It provided a detailed renactment of the disaster and the investigation after it, where witness testimonies clearly supported the puncture theory. Also supporting was that the stern of the ship looked so heavy by the end of the landing manuever. Nothing done to correct it worked. It even seemed to drop more when the ship just finished the sharp turn. I believe there must have been some massive leak of hydrogen.
Frankyboy523:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Small Note - Indiana Jones
Unfortunately I pressed "enter" before finishing my comment on the last edit.
I removed the bullet point under "Cultural References" about the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I feel as though simply having a German zeppelin in the film does not constitute a Hindenburg reference. Phaethon 013001:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In the original theatrical version it was actually named as the hindenburg but this was editied out in rereleaes because it didnt actually crash until a year after it was set —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this movie in the theater and would have noticed if it had been identified as the Hindenburg. It was NOT. Furthermore, the original shooting script is available online and the name Hindenburg is never referenced anywhere in it. It's merely called a Zeppelin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrab1 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Too much on disaster, moving the parts about it to a separate article is a good idea
I believe that the whole article focuses FAR too much on the disaster. I believe that a separate article for the disaster would be a good move. To me, the article deserves a lower rating for its overfocus on the disaster. Frankyboy501:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph of the article states that one dog died in the incident. However, further down, under the Death Toll section, it says that two dogs died. So which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.148.10 (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Something I remember, but can anyone find a reference?
About 10-15 years ago, there were several news articles I remember hearing, but I don't remember enough of the exact details. The gist was that someone (I believe a crew member) had just died, and on his deathbed he had confessed to causing the Hindenburg to blow up/catch fire. I know the articles gave the person's name and reputed station in the ship, and also described in general how he had described causing the disaster.
Now it is entirely possible some old nameless nobody died and invented a confession to try to claim some unentitled fame. Or that a next of kin invented the story for the same general reasons. Or, perhaps, there might have been some truth to the story.
Can anyone find any references or rememberances of this event? Given that there are references to movies and news stories about the event given in the article, it seems to me that this "deathbed confession" episode at least deserves mention, whether the confession may be true or not. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have come across this article from a redirect of The Hindenburg film. I am about to rewrite major sections to remove cruft and POV. I am willing to discuss all changes. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
Weasel word cleanup
Bob notes in a recent cleanup of one of my cleanups: please alter "some believe," widely remembered," "critics point out"- these are all able to be challenged as unverifiable.
I fully agree with what he is saying. However, I don't have any source references for this article (I've just been doing copy editing on the existing text) so can't help get these cleaned up.
If anyone can supply a reference to where these lines came from I would much appreciate it. I suspect one of the references cited in the article was the original source of these phrases, which are pretty much all in one paragraph about whether the disaster took 34 or 37 seconds. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops! Mea culpa. I guess that's what happens when I only look at your talk page once, and that several weeks ago, and then think I remember what I saw.
(BTW, I find the entire concept of "controversy" over 34 vs 37 seconds to be just plain silly, given that the event that is "the start of the disaster" has not being clearly defined; and even if it was clearly defined in this context, there were no witnesses that could be trusted to spot this event to a fraction of a second. I would be in favor of ripping the entire paragraph and replacing it with "in less than 40 seconds".) Loren.wilton (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
New infobox
Although the other infobox was in place for awhile, a new infobox has been substituted, what do people think? Personally I liked the older version.
Greetings, friends! I've been working on revamping the sources for hydrogen. There are several statements in hydrogen relating to the Hindenburg and airships in general. All of the current sources are personal webpages and the like. I noticed that this article has several book sources. Can someone who is more familiar with the subject and those book sources take a look at hydrogen? References 13, 14, and 74 all need to be replaced. Thanks! --CrypticC62 · Talk01:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Largest flying machine?
it was the largest atmospheric flying machine of any kind ever built.
Someone added "(by dimension)" after largest flying machine of any kind. Is there another kind of larger or should I delete it? Rsduhamel (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"by dimension" does seem redundant, but I assume it is a poorly phrased attempt to distinguish things that might have larger payloads, passenger capacities, etc. I think we could drop the "by dimension" and people would understand, but if not something like "while x may carry more passengers or x may, etc, etc, nothing has exceeded blah, blah, blah" You get the idea.75.177.47.137 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Infobox
I think a case can be made for an exception to a general practice of not having an infobox for individual aircraft, especially when the aircraft/airship itself is an iconic one- see Spirit of St. Louis for an example. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
I'd see it the other way around - the article shouldn't carry the standard infobox because the aircraft is so iconic and could easily mislead people into thinking that this was a unique machine (especially with the Number built = 1) field.
Since the "vital statistics" of an individual aircraft are going to be different from that of its stablemates anyway, perhaps we can come up with an infobox to use in cases like this one? I'll put it to Wikiproject Aircraft --Rlandmann (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand of the disaster, most of those who were killed died from jumping to their deaths, while those who remained inside the burning airship rode it safely to the ground. This might be a useful bit of information to add, when comparing the flaws of airships to the flaws of airplanes. - 68.97.132.22 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Overall, I like the current article's balance. I would like to recommend an Epilogue section, it would be appropriate -- what were some of the immediate consequences of the disaster? What happened to the airship program? Second, was there ever an "official" report of the cause -- something done by the airship makers, perhaps?
There were a number of statements regarding a 1936 "election" where Hitler received 99% of the vote. That's simply a gross misrepresentation of the 1936 vote, which was a plebiscite on the remilitarization of the Rhineland. There was also an election in which the voters were asked to approve a single slate of Nazi representatives in the Reichstag. There was no vote for chancellor or president. Although the plebiscite can be interpreted as support for Hitler, in fact, in 1936 the electorate were not given the opportunity to vote for their leader. I have made appropriate corrections to the article. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: The following posting was made to the talk page of anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 which he/she immediately deleted apparently without reading, so I have reposted it here as it directly relates to the LZ 129 article.
I gather your sudden interest in the LZ 129 Hindenburg article stems from seeing a request made on my talk page from another editor seeking my assistance on that subject, and not from some previous or abiding interest in the topic on your part. Presumably you are now editing this mature article to change its "tone," remove what you consider to be "excessive detail," and save its readers from having to be assaulted by what subjectively strikes you as "atrocious writing." In doing so, however, you have also introduced changes rendering some material in the article to no longer conform to the sources cited which I gather that you have not consulted. Unfortunately you have also introduced blatant errors such as claiming (for a second time now) that the Hindenburg left for Rio on its first commercial flight on March 4 (actually the first time you had it as "4 March" which also violated the date style used throughout the article) when in fact that flight departed Germany for Brazil on March 31. (March 4 was the date of the airship's first test flight which lasted just three hours.) I will again correct any factual and contextual errors for you that you have inadvertently or unknowingly introduced, however if you are going to make wholesale changes to long standing, well researched and sourced articles on subjects about which you are apparently not well versed (although as you are completely anonymous I have no way of knowing that for sure), please be careful that your changes do not contain false information and that they continue to accurately reflect the facts in the sources cited in the footnotes.
As are most of the major articles on Wikipedia, this is one which a number of editors (myself included) with strong interest and/or expertise in the subject have been working on for several years and had brought to a level when it become quite stable. The language and facts which you apparently personally consider to be "too much detail" and "POV" have actually been carefully worked out by the group over time to provide context to the story of the airship, and are all fully supported by the sources. I'm sure, for instance, that you would not be happy if one of our group or some other editor were to "parachute in" and make wholesale changes to the Charles McCarthy (American football) article, for instance, purely to make it fit the tone, level of detail, and style of writing that would please one of us. That, of course, would be counterproductive and unhelpful. Wikipedia is designed to be a collaborative project with its articles "built" over time on reliable sources and with the consensus of the contributors who develop them. Please therefore respect the many hours of effort that the primary editors of this article have put in over the years to develop it as we will do for the work and effort that you have put in on those articles which you have helped develop. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(Came here by way of WQA). Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. New users are encouraged to be WP:BOLD. The argument above seems to be claiming ownership and is inconsistent with WP:CCC. (As I'm editing this, there's a notice below that clearly says: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. ). If you disagree with 75's edits you should certainly revert them and begin a discussion here per WP:BRD. The arguments should be focused on the edits, however, not claims to expertise or speculation about the other editor's motivations in editing the article. Gerardw (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
"WARNING" (Actually a difference in views of the relative meanings of "enquired" vs "inquired")
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article LZ 129 Hindenburg has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.
In other words, don't claim to be making "corrections", when what you are actually doing is edit warring about wording that has nothing whatsoever to do with historical accuracy, and don't claim to be making "grammar tweaks" when all you're doing is changing the wording. Professional writers make a distinction between word choice and grammar. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As I noted in a posting I placed on your talk page on May 6 which you immediately deleted apparently without reading, your sudden interest in the LZ 129 Hindenburg article appears to stem from seeing a request made to me on my talk page from another editor seeking my assistance on that subject, and not from some previous or abiding interest in the topic on your part. Presumably you are now editing this mature article to change its "tone," remove what you consider to be "excessive detail," and save its readers from having to be assaulted by what subjectively strikes you as "atrocious writing" which were complaints you made about a three sentence paragraph I had added to the Stephen Ambrose article about inaccuracies in his book, "Nothing Like It in the World." (You also added six tags to the Ambrose article questioning both my "neutrality" and "motives", and claiming the paragraph included "excessive detail", constituted "debate", that its cited references were from sources that were "not reliable", and that the section required "authentication or verification by an expert".)
Some of the changes you have made have also caused some material in the article to no longer conform to the sources cited (which I gather that you have not consulted) as well as blatant errors. Among these was your claim (inserted twice) that the Hindenburg left for Rio on its first commercial flight on March 4 (actually the first time you had it as "4 March" which also violated the date style used throughout the article) when in fact that flight departed Germany for Brazil on March 31. (March 4 was the date of the airship's first test flight which lasted just three hours.) Your also changed a Wikilink for Friedrichshafen to that for Friedrichshafen Airport which was also incorrect as the six March, 1936, trial flights of the LZ129 took off from the Zeppelin dockyards in Friedrichshafen, not the airport which is located in nearby Löwenthal. I will continue to correct any factual and contextual errors that you or any other editors inadvertently or unknowingly introduce to this article which I have been working on now for two years. As far as I can tell, the majority of your other “complaints” seem to stem from you personal views on word selection, grammar, and context. A fair number of your changes seem appropriate and I have not reverted them. Others, however, have made meaningful changes to the content and/or distort the context of facts as they relate to each other which I have corrected.
If you are going to make wholesale changes to long standing, well researched, and extensively sourced articles on subjects about which you are apparently not well versed (although as you are completely anonymous I have no way of knowing that for sure), please be careful that your changes do not contain false information and that they continue to accurately reflect the facts in the sources cited in the footnotes.
You have now also twice accused me of “vandalism” -- the first time relating to whether and/or how to use academic titles within text, and the second time over my choice of the word “enquired” (which means to have asked for a piece of information, i.e., the name of the airship) instead of "inquired" (which implies a more formal process for seeking information such as used in an investigation). Neither of these instances in any way constitute "vandalism" which is defined on Wikipedia as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW)."
As are most of the major articles on Wikipedia, this is one which a number of editors (myself included) with strong interest and/or expertise in the subject have been working on for several years and had brought to a level when it become quite stable. The language and facts which you apparently personally consider to be "too much detail" and "POV" have actually been carefully worked out by the group over time to provide context to the story of the airship, and are all fully supported by the sources. I'm sure, for instance, that you would not be happy if one of our group or some other editor were to "parachute in" and make wholesale changes to the Charles McCarthy (American football) article, for instance, purely to make it fit the tone, level of detail, and style of writing that would please one of us. That, of course, would be counterproductive and unhelpful. Wikipedia is designed to be a collaborative project with its articles "built" over time on reliable sources and with the consensus of the contributors who develop them. Please therefore respect the many hours of effort that the primary editors of this article have put in over the years to develop it as I will do for the work and effort that you have put in on those articles which you have helped develop. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Spelling
Is it just me, or do I see about 8 "Adolph" Hitlers'? I was starting to think it was another person 'til I searched it up and got "Adolf" Hitler! Jeez, people! It's a blooming "f", not "ph"!
Nitrate cellulose "may" be flammable?
I am not good with editing Wikipedia articles, so I will leave that up to those who are better at it. But I notice in the article near the bottom a line which says "The covering also contained material (such as cellulose nitrate and aluminum flakes) which some experts claim are highly flammable.[48]" The article on Wikipedia that discusses nitrate cellulose notes that this substance is known by another name: Flash paper. "May be flammable?"
The Logotype image that is shown in the article does not even remotely render the appearance of the writing of the airship's hull. See picture of Logotype (by Centpacrr) comparing it to a section of the photo taken at Lakehurst in January of 1937.
The Hindenburg'slogotype as it appeared on the airshipThis image has been updated with a version reconstructed from multiple photographs circa 1936-1937. The previous version appears to be that of the Revell Hindenburg model kit decal which was not accurate. I can provide a scan of the decal sheet and/or a listing of the photographs I used if desired. SistineKid (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed the caption on the image you constructed of the logotype—it is noticeably different from the name painted on the Hindenburg in the image shown in section 4 of this article, starting with the 'h', which, on the 1936 image, has a wider junction between the first horizontal and first vertical stroke. In general, where original images are available, modern recreations should not be used for encyclopedic purposes. In this case, no image would be better than the current or the image replaced if neither are accurate representations. An image of a contemporary document containing contains the logotype would be best. — Neonorange (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Neonorange. I updated the logotype--I had interpolated it from a different image. It's difficult to tell, especially with low-resolution photographs at different perspectives/angles. I re-traced from the logotype here. [1] Maybe linking one of those photos would be better? I'm not sure what the copyright restrictions would be... I'm open to suggestions. SistineKid (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Had a look at the article on what is an important subject but found a lot of issues with it. I can understand why it is only a start/c-class article. Hope to try and improve things as it has lots of omissions and some of the sections I think have the wrong emphasis. The development of the Hindenberg before the first flight is missing! I will try and work on some improvements so we can at least claim it is a b-class but I may need help of others. First question about the name Hindenberg, the article makes much of it being revealed by radio in an early flight when in fact the name was well known before the first flight. I am also sure that the name was carried a lot earlier then the article states. Anybody have any reliable references ? MilborneOne (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Dates
After voluminous amounts of dialogue/diatribe on the issue, most editors in the WP:Aviation group would assign D/M/Y dating to this article to recognize the subject's national origin. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
Probably my fault for posting what seemed a similar (but separate) issue under this heading. On dates, the project discussion seems to point to using dmy on articles like this, as Bill says. On spelling, it was definitely written in UK English. Sorry for the confusion. --John (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
DMY has never been a consensus position for this article; please don't reopen this can of worms. In order to avoid language conflict issues, I've always aimed at keeping its English as neutral as possible in my many writings and edits over the years. Centpacrr (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The article currently states that the airship's gas cells were made of goldbeater's skin (a standard on airships), but a fairly well researched site (Hindenburg--Design and Technology) indicates that it was actually a new method, layers of cotton brushed with gelatin. Anyone have any corroborating info?
Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Reason for export ban on Helium from US
I just made an edit correcting an error on the reason why Helium was banned from being exported from the US. Originally the article had indicated that this was due to the Neutrality acts. While those acts do pertain to Helium export, the Neutrality acts did not take effect with regard to Germany until after the first flights of the Hindenburg. Instead, it was the earlier Helium Control Act in 1927 which prevented export to all foreign nations from the federal Helium reserve. The Helium Act was amended in 1937 after the destruction of the Hindenburg to lessen the export controls on Helium to commercial, non-military companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.199.232 (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Pressure altitude?
This: To avoid such a catastrophe, the crew raised the airship in search of counter-trade winds usually found above 5,000 feet (1,500 m), well beyond the airship's pressure altitude. makes little sense. Perhaps this is some airship-specific sense of the term pressure altitude rather than the usual (and linked) meaning? --catslash (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason it ignited
I saw a program on perhaps Discovery Channel (Canada) about six years ago, that made a credible case that the fire originated from static buildup on the vessel's skin. I was surprised to see no mention of such a hypothesis here. Are we sure that everything here is up to date? Cheers. Vranak (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Goebbels wanted it named the Adolf Hitler?
The article states this and gives its source as a 1972 book by Michael MacDonald Mooney. However, the very next source used for this article, airships.net, states, "Contrary to a popular misconception, Hitler never wanted the ship named for himself; he was strongly opposed to having his name attached to a vessel which might crash or burn." My own opinion is that Hitler personally wanting the airship named after him seems dubious. It is well-documented he didn't want any battleship named the Adolf Hitler for fear it might sink and he was well aware that a number of Zeppelins were shot down during WWI. Perhaps, Goebbels mentioned naming it after Hitler in passing and Eckener later exaggerated the situation. Regardless, we have two sources used in this article directly contradicting the other and I'd like to hear comments on it.TL36 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. The German Wikipedia doesn't mention the naming (or Hitler) and I couldn't find any other evidence to support the anecdote. I removed the text.
If the story is true, it could well have been exaggerated, as you said, and Goebbels could have been expressing his own opinion without having actually asked Hitler. Or perhaps Goebbels wanted Hitler to politely refuse and suggest naming it Hindenburg. Roches (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on LZ 129 Hindenburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
The article does not mention the ship's maximum range (which I am told was 8,000 miles), not even in the specifications. It might also mention how long it was until this range was matched by heavier-than-air passenger aircraft. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe there was a set range; it was a complex trade-off between ballast vs fuel vs payload vs venting lift gas (as more fuel was burned, gas had to be vented to avoid rising too much) vs speed.
On a separate topic, I notice you are flagging statements as citation needed; in some cases, you're probably better off flagging an entire section as needed better citations rather than interrupting every couple of sentences with a [citation needed]. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.