Talk:Aeroscraft
 | The contents of the Aeroscraft page were merged into Worldwide Aeros Corp on 23 August 2014 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Could someone find a picture? It would be good for this article. Scourgeofsmallishinsects 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe http://www.aerosml.com/ml866/img/top_model_left.jpg would do the trick? --Stephantom (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this the same idea as the Aereon 26?--Syd Henderson (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"Aeroscraft" - is a name of hubrid class of airsips. Not the specific model. So, this article must be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.68.0 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Aeroscraft finally debuted?[edit]
A machine very similar to the aeroscraft debuted. The article doesn't mention specifically if it was an offshoot of the aeroscraft but the design is nearly identical.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/armys-all-seeing-super-blimp-makes-debut-flight/?hpt=hp_c2 ScienceApe (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, the design is not at all identical. The LEMV is a hybrid airship. The aeroscraft is a rigid airship.
Pherm (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Can't figure out the ref thing[edit]
Added a mention of the 1964 story which uses the same technology, but I can't get the citation to appear correctly. Can someone please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.139.40 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
edit: Figured it out, I was trying to use a two word ref name which is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.139.40 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Useful links[edit]
The following links might be useful for this article:
- http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268789/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=H8tzc25U • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
dead link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.97.172 (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Contested deletion[edit]
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... ( The Aeroscraft should be a separate article as a product of Worldwide Aeros Corp. It is confusing for readers when there is so much text and not organized) --WorldwideAerosCorp (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)