Talk:R101/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article had a "citation needed" on the text: "In contradiction of reports received from the airship about cruising height, observers both across the UK and in France were amazed and alarmed to see the airship flying so low. Even though the weather was foul, observers reported that it was so close they could see people at the windows of the airship." My mother clearly remembers seeing faces at the windows when she saw it passing over Liverpool when she was six years old. So I removed the "citation needed". PrufeReeder (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we move/rename this article from Airship R101 to just R101 like most of the other airship articles or leave it as it is? -- William13 10:03, 5 Feb 2005

move it Hadhuey 21:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur, we should be consistent. I'll do the move. Noel (talk) 15:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is this entry linked to the category 'airborne aircraft carriers?' I am not aware of the R101 ever having carried or launched a smaller aircraft (such as the Akron and the Macon launched biplanes from trapezes on their hulls, for example). Furthermore, the weight and balance issues which plagued the R101 from the outset would have made any experimentation in that line pretty much impossible, I'd have thought. Unless someone can come up with a reference or citation for this, I suggest that this category link should go.

You are correct. I have removed it.Malcolma 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the R.101 was intended to act as an auxiliary to the armed forces much as the ocean liners partially funded by the government (for example the RMS Lusitania). During the design period there were plans drawn up to operate it as an aircraft carrier as well as a intercontinental transport of military forces. There were experiments conducted towards the use of R.101 as an aircraft carrier by the R33 in late 1925 involving a de Haviland DH53 being launched and retrieved on a skyhook. In 1926 a final experiment was conducted involving the launch of two Gloster Greb fighters from R33. Information may be found in Robin Higham's "The British Rigid Airship 1908-1931." Of course the incredible deficiency of R.101's static lift led to abandoning any such delusions. Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

New Airship Infobox

I've created a airship infobox template and inserted it in the R101 article. Please make any changes necessary - either to the info in the infobox or to the template itself. Wikipeterproject 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Category query - accidents and incidents on commerical airliners caused by bad weather

I'm not sure about the appropriateness of this category, because you couldn't really argue that the R101 was a commercial airliner. It was built with taxpayers' money and never carried any fare-paying passengers. As its design and construction was not financed by the private sector and it was never operated on a revenue earning basis, I don't think the R101 could be described as commercial. The argument for keeping this category is that the R101 was a prototype for what was intended to eventually be a class of commercial airliner, and there have been other airliners developed and built by governments (the Concorde, for example, though that was operated commercially, albeit with massive subsidies). --LDGE 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Picky Nomenclature Point

Isn't R101 properly referred to simply as R101, not "the R101"? I think the use of "the" is an Americanism. Same also for the page about R100 (or "the R100" as it states). Compare the article on Titanic (not "the Titanic"), the other kind of ship. -- JoeBrennan 03:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, changed! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of verifiable references

Hello all, I came here after reading Slide Rule for the second or third time. I was interested to read versions other than Shute's. However, I was hoping for some references, but there are virtually none. I would say the article could be tagged 'original research' as there is so much material that is not backed up with verifiable references. This is really important for WP. It's not meant to be someone's ideas - it's an encyclopedia. Can anyone provide the references? If not, then I imagine a lot of this article will have to go. The statement 'Shute later admitted that many of his criticisms of the R101 team were unjustified, and that he had been piqued by the scrapping of R100 following the crash of R101.' is a good example - where did he say this? When? Did he actually say it at all? Can I find the source and read it for myself? Wodawik (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Shute Norway's later contrition, see Masefield, P. G. (1982). To Ride the Storm: The Story of the Airship R101. pp. 204-205. For comments on Shute Norway's account, there is a criticism by a former British airshipman Sinclair, J. A. (1959). "Slide Rule - Comments." Wingfoot Lighter than Air Bulletin. 7:2. pp. 5-10. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There are several references listed in the References section. Are you saying that this article cannot be checked against them? Or that there are not enough citations to link statements to these particular references?GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how much value this adds as I'm having trouble getting hold of Masefield's book, however an (admittedly biased!) review at the Nevile Shute foundation queries it's neutrality as well as raising issue with the Norway's supposed disavowel of his previous views ([1]). Masefield has obviously done a great deal of research in this area, however does appear to have been very sympathetic to Lord Thomson, and this may make it a litte unreliable. Pegacat (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume that Wodawick means the latter. Out of interest, anybody know what relevance "The Crime of R101" has to this article? --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I've linked it see what you make of it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I was referring to the need for in-line citations, especially where the statement contains an opinion ('the newly appointed R101 design committee at Cardington was very weak' and 'by all accounts an excellent administrator.' Encyclopedias don't use phrases like 'by all accounts'. I'll try to find and read the references given and see if I can put in links to them, although if someone else can do it before me that would be good.Wodawik (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Wintringham, do we really need a point of view written by an R.F.C. mechanic, Marxist, guerilla, journalist who took a Modern History degree at Balliol? If he was an engineer or an airshipman, I could understand his opinions being represented in the article. But since they're not even incorporated in the main text ... --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, he does provide some pertinent information about the fitting of equipment and testing of R.101. I would consider his information as a contemporary source, albeit laced with rhetoric. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

All I see is a layman giving his opinion on the Court of Inquiry and certain assertions in the press. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, read beyond the incendiary talk, and you will find that the author is quoting from reports and submissions made at the Inquiry, for example, he states that the engines were a prime concern and quotes the source of the information. In another instance: "The gas-bags were of a material never previously used in Britain they were fixed in the vessel by a novel method an inspector reported that they fouled sharp projections in the framework and “there are now many holes in them” (letter of F. McWade, read in Court of Inquiry on November 7, 1930). He reported to the Air Ministry that padding these projections was unsatisfactory; the Air Ministry wrote back that it was necessary to see the projections were properly padded (letter of Major Bishop, read same day)." These succinct points provide a background of information on the design and development of R101. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

I noted what you wrote, thank you, but I disagree. A background of information on the design and development can be found in actual books on the subject and the Court of inquiry itself. All Wintringham has to offer are some selections from the Court of Inquiry and material culled from the Letters column of the Telegraph. Why should his piece be included in the article over God knows how many other journalists who wrote on the loss of R101? Just because they're succinct doesn't mean they're authoritative. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Likely, we are at an impasse, although not my submission, I see the value of one source that is available in contrast to relying on a diverse group of possible sources. Since I really have no horse in the race, how about a compromise? Let's relocate the material into the "external links" section and have it available as another source that, at least, is readily available and let readers make their own evaluations of the worth of the material. Since it is not cited as a primary reference source, it can still be relevant but not considered essential as most bibliographical notations will imply. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, I don't know how to do a virtual carriage return. The Wintringham document is interesting because it tells one much about how some people felt at the time: what it says of the ship or the disaster is boathooks pure and simple: he gets events in the wrong order, is clearly talking nonsense in other cases. (he has obviously read the book by Spanner). He does pick up the highly significant letter sent by McWade but gets the context wrong and merely uses it to contribute to the general hand-wringing about how the thing was falling to bits and fails to pick up on the fact that here was a clear failure of the organisational structue, in effect making Cardington effectively a self-regulating organisation and by the failure to refer the concern upwards exonerating Thomson from the whole 'I've made my plans' schtick.TheLongTone (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Links

Back again. Could someone in the know check out these links that didn't work.

• RAAF Air Power Development Centre Publications Catalogue - Pathfinder',
• Biography of Michael Rope'
• R101: The Kesgrave Connection (Essay)' Wodawik (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Now all items in the list are fixed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Popular culture

I can't see anything worth keeping in this section. Before I delete it does anyone else have an opinion? Malcolma (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

To start with, the section is now known as "Notable appearances in media" and under this supposition, none of the entries can be considered especially noteworthy. Give this request a few days to fester, then go to it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

The deletion was reversed, with a new comment on the article history page "take it to the talk page". It's already here, with the beginnings of a consensus. Concur with the broad-brush trim called for above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the crux of my concern that only two editors, now three, have weighed in on a major change in the article. I would rather see that the section remains as is until more interested editors participate in a discourse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

After two weeks the consensus seemed to me to be two editors saying delete and no-one else caring so I deleted it. I still think the section is nothing but trivia and like so many others should go, but someone else can delete it this time. Malcolma (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say delete it. Quite frankly, the whole article needs an overhaul - there's too much idle, unreferenced information in it. Apart from Chamberlain I've a copy of Deighton kicking about somewhere, though God knows where. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced of the need to remove the entire Popualar culture. I've removed the two items that seem least mainstream/notable. The Chris Barries machines is probably not that important. there is also the possibility of shifting it to Aircraft in fiction, and retaining a link to that under the "See also". As to not referenced, the article has sources but lacks specific citations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The R.101 has continued to be of some import in popular culture. I cannot recall any rock albums base upon the U.S.S. Akron a disaser of more fatal toll. The R.101 remains a subject of particular cultural substance to the public of the United Kingdom. There have been intelligent disputes over the cause of the disaster in the last few years. Unlike all other rigid airship issues the R.101 remains subject to both engineering, operational, and political comment as well as artistic endeavor. Whether scholarly such as "Control, Response and Crash of HMA R.101" by Bryan Lawton or popular such as Iron Maiden's "Empire of the Clouds." There is even a movie being touted of "The Millionth Chance" over 60 years after the publication of that fine book. R.101 is as curiously an active issue in the interest and imagination today 90 years after its demise. Certainly that warrants the inclusion of the subject of the influence in popular culture of this ill fated, ill designed, and perhaps ill conceived airship. Anyone know of any rock albums centered upon the Akron which was a bigger disaster or even on the Hindburg the demise of which was captured dramatically at the time? R.101 was a product of political and cultural forces which still affect the world today. Interest in R.101 is not confined to mere airship junkies. Perhaps interest as a cultural phenomena shall diminish as England withdraws from Europe and the World following Brexit. The "aftermath" of the R.101 is not yet finished. Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Post crash fire

I'm intrigued to see that the article states that the reason for the post crash fire is unknown. There are quite a few clear indications of what happened, including the steward (who survived the crash) witnessing the characteristic ignition flash and calcium phosphide flame colour from the smoking room just after the impact. I have a book written by Geoffrey Chamberlain (a very airship-knowledgeable Bedford local man) in which he presents documentary and photographic evidence of the water ballast release manifold that passed through the control car, made of thin-walled aluminium. He states clearly that tearing this open above the release valves, which happened due to the great structural deformation at impact, would have released all of the rear ballast tank contents directly into the control car and around the navigator's table upon which the box of flares had been left. I will endeavour to look this out and provide concrete references soon. 193.128.72.68 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that two examples you quote are a bit speculative they dont know what caused the fire just educated guesses. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Chamberlain offered a reasoned, plausible explanation (Airships-Cardington. pp. 174-178). However, "It is not known why R101 caught fire" is still applicable. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that a mention of a theory is admissible but that definitive proof as to cause of the post-crash fire is still not available. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

Reading the Inquiry report it says probably electrical, to which end I have corrected my editing of a couple of days ago.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevil Shute

Having just read Shute's autobiography, I have doubts about 'Shute later admitted that many of his criticisms of the R101 team were unjustified, and that he had been piqued by the scrapping of R100 following the crash of R101': it's been tagged as citation needed & unless there is a good source for this I think it ought to go. Shute seems to me to be extremely fair to all the personalties involved, making no stronger claim than that they were out of their depth and subject to undue political pressure which they were unable or unwilling to resist (p146) : the only person who he is really critical of is Lord Thompson. Justifyably so IMO. Moreover Shute wrote the book over twenty years aftr the event: surely any opinions expressed are considered ones rather than written in haste & repented at leisureTheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As it's uncited I have no problem with removal, agree with your characterisation of Shute's writing on the subject in Slide Rule. His most telling comments (which ought to be attributed to him if used in the article) are 1) the expectation in both teams that whichever ship came out best in the trials, the other lot were out of a job 2) Thomson's possible political reasons for pressing for the India flight. 3) the high level of workmanship on the R101. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than deletion, why not modify the statement to reflect the source as well as accurately reflect Shute's belief that the R101 had suffered from the inevitable political malevolence that doomed the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

A citation has now appeared, which I would be interested in reading. The staff at Bristol library are getting sick of me making them disappear into the stacks in search of books from their reserve collection, which is where they keep almost anything worth reading. I might try an expansion of sorts, which I'll do on my user page pro temTheLongTone (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the feeling, the staff at the air museum library where I hang out is pretty well sick of me carting their library collection home, one book at a time... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

This is a real can of worms. The footnote cited is certainly there: although as printed it doesn't make sense, since it refers to a conversation in 1953 about a book published in 1954. I suspect a typo, probably 1953 for 1958: the book is riddled with typos. But I suspect that the author is far from neutral: a great part of its purpose is clearly to absolve Thomson of blame for exercising pressure. It is almost a hagiography of Thomson. Having read it hs modified my views: it is full of cittions about his expressed wishes for 'Safety First'. Which does not ginsay the possibility of others bowing to a perception of what was wanted.TheLongTone (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

& a couple of 'off-topic' points: should R101 & R100 be italicised or not? Either way, the article should be consistent. And secondly, does any article need a citation to the World's Worst Aircraft?. As Dorothy Parker says, not a book to be put aside lightly, but rather one to be hurled with great forceTheLongTone (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

I disagree, World's Worst Aircraft by James Gilbert book is fine. What do you have a problem with, in the admittedly slight volume? The R101 chapter appears pp. 74–92. FWiW, are you confusing this book with Jim Winchester's World's Worst Aircraft? That book is a very dicey number, indeed, with not even a passing mention of the R101. Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just posting to support Gilbert: the work seems carefully researched, thorough and not as superficial as its size (and title) might suggest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably am confusing the titles: there are (at least)three books with the title, and I've certainly seeen one which merely invites laughter or scorn without any analysis of why the aircraft were 'bad': books written very much to entertain rather than inform, and ill informed themselves. Sorry for being a dreary old pedant!TheLongTone (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It was the Winchester book I was taking exception to, a bookk that proclaims its ignorance by putting the Flying Bedstead on the coverTheLongTone (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The James Gilbert book is very good and is also quite readable by the layman. BTW, Gilbert was an aerobatic champion who also edited Flying and Pilot magazines. He usually flew a Bucker Jungmeister [2] and [3] He died in 2006 after a long illness [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisited

I've been reading through Shute, and a couple of points he made might be constructively added (provided supported by other sources)

• That having expended government money on various experiments and developments, the results of that epxenditure had to be seen to be incorporated into the final product eg the novel valves and diesel engines
• that the structure of the organization prevented it from reacting promptly to circumstances - the antithesis of Vi9ckers where they went through three engine choices.

Thoughts? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Regarding the innovatory features of R101

• The use of heavy oil as fuel was seen as a necessity of operating the ship in tropical conditions. Maybe unecessary with hindsight but at the time pretty much a given, I think.
• The valves apparently operated well enough to satisfy McWade, the AID officer in charge at Cardington: their only problm was a tendancy to vent gas under extreme rolling movement. They may not have been hugely successful, but I don't think they were an unqualified failure.**They did delete the servo mechanisms for the control surfaces, as a response to the weight/trim problems.
• The other major innovatory features were the gasbag wiring and the principle used for the primary structure of having the ring self-supporting without wire bracing. The gasbag wiring certainly seems to have been unsatisfactory, but I would imagine that redesigning this would have been impossible without substantial delays to a programme that was already behind schedule. The former (primary structure) was irredeemble.

I rather think that Shute misses the point that the R101 was intended as a research project: some ideas have to be tested to prove them bad.

I'd agree that commercial enterprises are more flexible and responsive than governmental institutios. I don't know how you would cite it though: just seems like a fact of life to me. But IMO the real organisational shortcoming of the R101 was the fact that both construction/design and airworthiness certification were in effect handled by the same organisation, a state of affairs highlighted by the handling of the letter which McWade wrote regarding the state of the gasbags & the padding issue in the summer of 1930. To me this seems like a clear organisational failure and although gradual loss of gas was not a primary cause of the crash the failure of the Simon report to make more of the matter is the most outstanding example of the difference between contemporary and modern accident investigations.

On the subject of Shute, does Slide Rule contain a cite for the fact that the new stressing rules that were introduced meant that all lifting loads were to be transmitted directly to the transverse frames? As a stress engineer he might mention it, if it's there could you bung it in? I can't track down a cite in Masefield (infuritng book, it has no trace of a narrative structure) & the only other suspect is Morurpugo's biog of Barnes Wallace, which I don't have to hand. Might cycle into town & borrow it (my copy suffered a catastrophic structural failure), but Bristol's only copy of Slde Rule is out on loan at the moment.TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nailed that one, it was in Morpurgo on Wallis. I knew I had not made it up!TheLongTone (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For any one reading this I would highly recommend Nevil Shute's autobiography "Slide Rule", goes on a bit about the benefits of the landed gentry to business and the difficulty of finding risk capital, but highly readable none-the-less and certainly of interest to anyone finding themselves on the Talk Page of R101. To the point however: I think a bit could be made about Shute's own thoughts for the reason of the crash. While certainly not official and raised in his autobiography some 20 years after the event I think they are valid. Britain had very few technical experts in the field of lighter-than-air craft at the time and that number was reduced even further because of the crash. Shute was directly involved with the industry at a senior level and had some glimpses into the R101 construction. He clearly details being shown a piece of the fabric from the R101 which when he turned it over in his hands fell apart like some parched, baked paper, this caused by the mentioned dope and rubber solution overlaying. The key point is that when he asks if it has been removed he is told that they "claim" they have. He clearly thinks it's dubious and writes what he believes occurred. I think I recall correctly he writes something along these lines: A failure of a large section of said fabric during bad weather while travelling at high speed (in an airship that had never had full-speed trials) resulting in buffeting of the gas bag and ending in rupture of said gas bag because it had been rubbing against the frame because it had been overinflated. Poorly written by me I am afraid but I don't currently have the book to hand to refer. Any thoughts on this?A Taxed Mind (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it “Neville” Shute? There appears to be no evidence he spelled it this way? Is this a typo from the original Advertisement in Flight magazine? Is this misspelling worth keeping? Signinstranger (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevil Shute Norway, aka "Nevil Shute" is perhaps my favorite fiction author. The first book I read concerning airships was "The Millionth Chance" in 1958. I have long possessed a copy of Masefields excellent history "To Ride The Storm." Another book I shall recommend is Robin Higham's "The British Ridged Airship 1908-1931." Higham researched and wrote his extensive book circa 1960. He interviewed many surviving persons important in the 1926 program well as the subsequent accident investigation. Any discussion of Norway's biographical book "Slide Rule" must consider his personal involvement in the airship program. A program which was cobbled together for the promotion of the British Empire by the likes of Burney and Christopher Thompson. Nevil Shute was writing from personal involvement as well as ideological belief. As such his work "Slide Rule" should be approached carefully but by no means disregarded. Nor is there any good reason to disregard Masefield's subsequent comments upon Norway's redress of his opinions stated in Slide Rule. There is little easily readable source material available from the program which was effectively terminated by events in France. As a result his account is valuable as is Grabowsky-Atherstone's "log." It is not a matter of is Norway right or wrong. Nor is it a matter of is Grabowsky-Atherton right or wrong. As Robin Higham observed in his extensive history of the British Rigid Airship there was never any definitive explanation for the loss of R.101 and subsequent fire. Nor could there be for many reasons not the least of which was the primitive nature of air accident investigation in the early 1930s. The first airline accident report I ever read involved a Capital Airlines Viscount crash in April 1958 at Freeland Michigan. It had to be drastically revised in 1965 due to subsequent Viscout accidents revealing that the occurrence of icing on the horizontal stabilizer better explained the aircrafts behavior than pilot error. (Civil Aeronautics Board SA-331, File 1-0031). Masefield's book is largely excellent history. Yet it was admittedly written to exculpate Lord Thompson as well as dwelling much upon his romance with a princess. As Higham observe the exact cause of the R.101s demise and subsequent immolation remains unknown. At this point they are unknowable. It is not a matter of either Norway or Maesfield being right or wrong. They both have their opinion and objective which is evident to any careful reader of both. Norway was a participant and Maesfiled a historian and must be considered as such. One need only read how selectively Grabowsky-Atherstons diary is cited by various authors to see how bits may be used to endorse almost any conclusion an author might wish. The precise cause or causes for the R.101 impacting the ground is most uncertain. The actual source of ignition is utterly unknown and unknowable. The R.101 remains the only airship disaster still at issue and the reasons for that curious situation is another matter. Nevil Norway made his opinion known in Slide Rule as did Maesfield in To Ride The Storm. Consider their writing as both fact and opinion where each is evident. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As an engineer he should be referred to as Norway, not Shute. Grassynoel (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Fins and valves

This article as it stands is both disorganised (much repetition of material and stuff generally not in sensible order)& full of seemingly unreferenced claims, particularly with respect to the ship's tail surfaces/pitch stability and also to the valve design. (I have read most of the cited material) I'm attempting to clean it up a little: any thoughts welcome.TheLongTone (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve the article and thanks for letting watchers now as we do get upset when large scale changes are made to articles without notice. Certainly the design and development section could do with some work it has the appearance of being copied from somewhere else and is not in the normal style. You are certainly right about repetition and the article could flow a lot better. Not sure if the actually accident may be better as a separate article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the disaster has to stay in this article: it doesn't make sense as a stand-alone story without including both the technical and political elements of the R101 story. As regards italicisation, I am certainly all for consistency within the article: if there isn't a policy I'd prefer non italicisation due to coding laziness.TheLongTone (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, made changes in that vein, but as Mil already said, the article needs to have more than consistency, the "magazine style gee-whizziness" has to be flushed out with some verifiable and authoritative referencing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

"magazine-style gee-whizziness", is about it. I'm going through the article from the top, attempting to restore the gasbags to a reasonable level of purity while making them less inflammatory, & can certainly reference anything I actually insert. The principle sources are in the bibliography anyway. Please excuse typos &c.TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Organisationally, I'm coming to the conclusion that the construction head is redundant, and that the material would be better divided into design and constuction dealing with the ship until it left the shed for the first time, followed by a section covering Flight testing and modifications, taking matters up to the India flight. I'm also inclined to think that a section on all the post-event argy-bargy would simplify things: all th contentious point could then be marshalled & rationally dealt with.TheLongTone (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I really can see no reason for these low-flying stories to be given more than a passing mention. The Leasor book reports s story culled from the ialy Express. Im sure that every hack worth the name salt was eager to ferret ot a good headline -grabber on this subject, and that if R101 was cavorting drunkenly at treetop height I think there would have been more reports. The only popular press Ihave ready access to are the Bristol locals: their coverage had one story from a man at Hastings and a second, reprinted from Paris Soir, which didn't make it into print until over a week after the disaster. It was a big thing that many people would never have seen the like of, and was generally flown at fairly low altitude, around 1000 ft being typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 21:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A number of issues with the chunk I just moved to the end of enquiry & aftermath. To my mind its an oxymoron to call a design elegant and flawed: elegance in engineering is about solutions to problems not appearance. Imo R101 was an indifferent craft, whose not unprecedented weight problems were made critical by the weight of the diesels: and the comparitive weights and gas volumes of R100 & R101 tell the story. Richmond and Rope were in the impossible epostion of having to design and build the ship while also being relied upon by the supposedly independant AID for judgements upon principles of airworthiness. To me the treatment of McWade's concerns expressed after the Hendon flights is probably the most telling event here. I'm not at all sure that Wallis is a reliable judge in all matters. I haven't got Morpurgo to hand, but from memory after rubbishing the structure of R101 he goes on to give a list of causes of the disaster which include the (self-cancelling)reasons that he had not been chosen to design it and "Richmond's overwheening vanity". In any case, is there a raging controversy nowadays? It seems to me that it boils down to a bit of talk & old grievancies being stirred up by Shute's book (serialised at the time in the Sunday Graphic & sensationally trailed).TheLongTone (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re the para about the state of R101/threats to workers. I don't see this as more than the rumour mill. There were about 700 people at Cardington: if there was anything of sunstnce it surely would have surfaced. One of the passengers on the last voyage was one of the Cardington foremen: surely if anybody in a works has a good idea of what is happening it is a foreman. . Leech didn't go aboard at gunpoint: the general confidence in the ship seems incontoverable & genuine. Criticism from Howden means criticism from Shute, whose most alarming observation is an account of the problem with reinforcing tape & rubber cement.

(an episode I have not got around to inserting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I've dealt with many of the recent flurry of cite flags added, but some to my mind really are superfluous, including the two i've just removed, rquestion a cite for the publication date of the Simon report (trivial imo: month is in the Report's colophon) & the second para in the section, concerning the extent of the Inquiry I could put a cite here saying "Report of the R101 Inquiry pp. 1-120" but I'm not feeling sarky enough.TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed two more, first two pars of 'Final flight: these paragraphs cited, any additionl cite would be the same or following page of Masefield.TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

clean up of wreck

Looking at the article, is there any useful info in expanding the clearance of the wreck. Aside from the 5 tons of duralimium, is what happened to the rest of the (stainless steel) structure of any significance? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck in finding anything, although the Airship Heritage Trust site says something about the clearance of the wreck site taking a long time & it becoming a macabre tourist attraction.TheLongTone (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

I've always thought this section needs work, but have never known quite what to do. The sentence "At the time, and even today, scholarly opinion about R101 varies from the best airship ever designed to an appallingly bad piece of engineering" seems extreme to me: the contemporary critics such as Spanner & the MP Frank Rose were either anti-airship (Rose) or had reservations which included aspects of the design of R100 (Spanner) & it is absurd to talk about 'scholarly' opinion at the time...imo 'scholarly' is what historians do, & does not really apply to contemporary technical authorities. Most of whom, notably Hugo Eckener, seem to have applauded the thing, and even the Howden team acknowledged that it was beautifully built. As far as modern scholarhip goes, what is there? Many books simply follow Neville Shute's opinion, the exception being Masefield who goes to the opposie extreme. The only modern book I know of John Swinfield's recently published Airship, which makes an honourable attempt to be objective, but does not really come to much conclusion other than that both Masefield and Shute are partisan. I'm not sure that I would call Swinfield scholarly, but he does quote a number of authoritative sources: form these, the modern scolarly position seems to be non-commital. Any thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

From your description it's true that opinion polarizes. Just remove the word "scholarly" from the sentence? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

R101 AIRSHIP HANGAR in KARACHI (British India)

I found a couple of photos on eBay with the R101 Airship Hanger in Karachi and another photo of the THE R101 AIRSHIP MOORING.

May be someone can include them...

Am I right in thinking the R101 never made it to Karachi, British India (now Karachi is part of Pakistan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.166.182 (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest reading the article...TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Location of Memorial

As Route National 1 near Allonne is now D1001, should this be added, as well as the coords for the Memorial? As in "Route National 1" -> "Route National 1 (now D1001, 49°24'16.4"N 2°07'18.3"E)"? HMJust (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Connection between crankshaft resonance and failure of vp propellers

I know a bit more about this than I can legitimately insert into the article since I have had a look at some of the stuff at Kew (which has in someplaces been savagely weeded) but I came across this passing ref in the Engineer, so a good solid published source. TheLongTone (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Correct nomenclature is of importance in an encyclopedic article. In the instance of this article it is important that the official legal name for the subject be used. See for example what a picky historian would would note was essentially the last official word on this matter. That may be verified by the "REPORT OF THE R.101 INQUIRY" which was the official final word on the R.101's loss. Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Confirming the correct designation of R.100 with source material took a bit of time. Mowthorp "Battlebags" page 147 gives the correct designation and is citable in Wikipedia. Being slightly fanatical I searched to find a source reference. This was found on page 380 of Dr, Higham's "The British Rigid Airship" bibliography: "Airship R.101 designed and constructed by the Airship Guarantee Co. Ltd., Howden, Yorkshire, July 5, 1928" which Dr. Higham defined as "Propaganda." If you cannot trust the manufacturer who can you trust? Mark Lincoln (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit more discussion as none of the other Rs use this format. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thus you question whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedic source or an informed gossip column? The simple fact of the official legal name of the airship must be set aside for informal mot legally true usage being more important. You have a point if one believes that slang is superior to correct usage. My first grade teacher disapproved of using contractions. Some said it ain't. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Informed gossip column - strange comment. Wikipedia uses common names as can be found in thousands of articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Civil Aviation Authority for one use "RIGID AIRSHIP R101" along with many other sources that use R101. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The official legal name for the airship was R.101. Omitting the period because such was used causally and incorrectly does not make it correct. Anymore than using the popular name of any other aircraft instead of the correct designation is proper for an encyclopedia. A secondary entry for the incorrect or popular designation directing to the correct entry may be acceptable in encyclopedic usage. This does not apply to diverse period correct nomenclature such as in the A4D which was redesigned A-4 in 1962 and was thus known to the official designating service. The designation for the overwhelming period during which it was operated by the designating service was A-4. A encyclopedia might very well list the A-4 as well as informing the reader of the legal designation used by the U.S. Navy before the Department of Defense changed the designation system for existing and future Navy and Coast Guard aircraft in 1962. Having lived just north of NAS Oceana in the late 1950s and having naval aviators in surrounding homes I was aware of the designation A4D as well as the nicknames "Tinker Toy" and "Scooter." The proper legal designation was changed in 1962 and became A-4 and remained the same for the rest of the production and service life. The same would apply to the A-6 as the nomenclature A2F applied for only a very short period of the aircraft's service. (As a contrary example I would suggest that as it was used for the overwhelming period of it's service the nomenclature AJ-1 would be preferred to the fleeting name A-2A). A search for information upon the airship R.101 reveals that both designations were used in the press but the official and legal name was R.101. R.101 was also used correctly by much of the informed press during the period as was the shortened R101. The British government only applied three designation systems to rigid airships. The first designation system applied to a rigid airships was HMA NO. 1 which was consistent with the nomenclature system for airships of the period. Thereafter the designation system became consistent from HMA NO. 9r through HMA NO. 25r. Then from HMA R.26 on through R.101 the designation format was unchanged. Just because the uninformed use a slang term does not make that slang term proper in an encyclopedia. Having the article labeled R101 but the information within it correctly addressing the R.101 seems a reasonable compromise between the popular and the truthful. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement for Wikipedia to use a "legal" name, changing the style here would need addressing at project level so all articles use the same. Clearly it not a slang term as a lot of reliable sources use R101. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thus do you believe that the Wikipedia should contain information which is incorrect simply because you do not like that information? Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice that this has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#R101/R.101. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask that people do not discuss this in two places at once? The linked discussion has wider engagement and all further comment should be made there. Also, accusations of personal bias are unacceptable; see No personal attacks and assuming good faith. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This article will be on the main page on 5 October and currently features an unsightly and unprofessional mixture of R101 and R.101, at the very least usage within the article should match the article title one way or the other. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(Unacceptable post deleted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

I have not edited this article since August mainly due to somebody close to me dying so please stop the personal attacks I have enough to deal with in the real world. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: I deleted the nonsense and posted a warning on the guy's talk page. Sincerely sorry to hear your troubles, I hope you can find some closure in these mad times. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)