Talk:R33-class airship

Identification of crashed zeppelin?

In the Design and Development section, the editor wrote, "... the German Zeppelin L 33 was brought down on English soil. Despite the efforts of the crew to set it on fire, it was captured nearly intact, with engines in working order. For five months, the LZ 76 was carefully examined ...". Are "L 33" and "LZ 76" equivalent identifiers for the same airship? If not, which one is correct? Kelseymh (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

They are both valid identifiers for the same aircraft, LZ is the production number, L 33 the "tactical" number. See List of Zeppelins. Bit like serial number and registration number on aeroplanes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"LZ" stands for Luftschiffe Zeppelin (lit. 'airship Zeppelin'), the latter being the name of the manufacturer. For the corresponding British class the "R" stood for 'rigid' to distinguish them from blimps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The German Navy designation L33 is the most commonly used designation for the airship which served as the model for the design of R.33 & R.34. Although the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin constructor number LZ 76 is also in a way correct. The correct Naval designation is no "mere" "tactical number." Anyone pursuing the subject of Zeppelins in source material, the historical record or published histories may be confused by the use of the LZ construction number as the naval designation and not the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin construction designation was and is commonly used. At the risk of venturing a guess the editor responsible for using the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin number perhaps was concerned with the confusion made possible by the similar number of the two different airships. The British number was sequential in British airship numbering and was not in anyway derived from the German airship which served as a model for the later British airship. Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wood?

I recently visited the FAA museum at Yeovilton where they have on display a short section of girder from either R33 or R34. I was most surprised to see that it was made of wood rather than aluminium or dural, and a most intricate piece of woodwork to boot. There is surely a reliable reference ot there somewhere? I note that the Airship Heritage Trust's website makes no mention of this, and indeed refers to the framework being varnished to prevent corrosion.TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

curiouser and curiouser. Not that there is much in print about airships that is worth the house room, but neither Robin Higham nor Peter Brooks mention wood. Nor do they mention metal explicitly. There is an article on R33 in the March 13 1919 edition of Flight; all this says is that the structure closely resembles that of L33. Which, being a Zeppelin rather than a Shutte-Lanz, was metal. Imo metal is the norm and the use of wood would be sufficiently remarkable to be mentioned, and that the FAA museum has got it wrong.TheLongTone (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Aha. The FAA museum got it wrong by their own admission; the girder belongs to R31 or R32. Didn't komw they were wood; one lives and learns.TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There were two British airships, R.31 and R.32 designed and built by Shorts to design information proffered by a Swiss named "Muller" who claimed to have worked for Schúttte Lanz which built airships made of plywood. The design work started in early 1916 and construction was finished on the two airships in spring and summer 1918. See: Higham, "The British Rigid Airship 1908-1931," Pgs 136-138. This Wikipedia article in the information box wrongly states that the R.33 class was developed from the R.31 which is totally wrong as is the statement that the R.36 was developed from the R.33 class. This is fundamentally wrong as the design of R.36 and R.37 of which only the R.36 was finished was based upon the wreckage of L48 which was shot down. R.36 was completed and R.37 largely completed when the British military airship program was discontinued. R.36 was converted to a civilian passenger airship which was little operated see Higham pos 198-199 Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's a photo.

https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000144155:mpeg21:a0033 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.179.121.203 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct Nomenclature.

British Rigid Airship nomenclature was of three systems depending upon the era in which the airships were ordered and constructed. First there was the HMA NO.1 colloquially known as the "Mayfly" (it didn't). Then during the late pre-war period to the mid-war the system changed to the sequential airship number followed by an r as in HMA NO. 9r and HMA 23r through HMA NO. 25r. Then starting with HMA R.36 on ALL British airships had a designation HMA R. followed by a sequential number. Examples: HMA R.26 through HMA R.101. See Mowthorpe "Battlebags British Airships of the First World War" ISBN 0-7509-0989-7. I realize that common use and misuse of the number omitting the period leaves Wikipedia in a position of reduced usefulness if the period is inserted in the article name. I also believe that an encyclopedic source should provide accurate information. I do not propose changing the article name but feel it essential to contain correct information within the article. Consider the correct nomenclature provided in many sources cited in the article and consider Squadron Leader J.E.M. Pritchart's "Trans-Atlantic Flight of R.34" which was an official technical report to the Admiralty (Higham, "The British Rigid Airship 1908-1931" pg 408). Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)