This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have spent considerable time investigating the MZ-3A today. I have the following information beyond the 'facts' I have put in the article.
1. this is probably the 'you can't hide a big white blimp, so you let the local press have a good story" kind of situation.
2. the MZ-3A is, therefore, a 'hide in clear sight,' black program.
3. there is a very good chance the program has already ended after trials at Fort Dix and Pax River.
4. We - I mean the Wikipedia - would best report what is in the open press and leave it at that.
Mark Lincoln 03:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are clear technical differences between blimps and airships. This article incorrectly calls this an airship despite it's non-rigid structure, it's "hanging basket" cockpit, and the fact that the propellers are attached to the cockpit, not the balloon. Even the title of this blimp involves the word "blimp". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.27 (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What suggestions do you have for improving it? What parts are wrong?.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relax. 69.19.14.27 is talking out of his nether orifice. A blimp is a nonrigid airship. There are also semirigid and rigid airships. So what. They are all airships. The article is perfectly correct; 69.19.14.27 is wrong, period. Fnj2 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, "Blimp" has always been a subset of "Airship". There's are non-rigid, semi-rigid, and rigid airships. Rigid is further divided on the basis of internal frame or rigid skin (although in truth these have an internal frame as well)Benvenuto (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
