Talk:HMA No. 1

A fact from HMA No. 1 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 March 2009, and was viewed approximately 8,308 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1911, HMA No. 1 Mayfly (pictured), Britain's first rigid airship, broke in two as a result of strong winds before she could attempt her first flight?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/March.

Wikipedia

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 24, 2014, September 24, 2016, and September 24, 2019.

Aviation

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Name "Mayfly" given before or after the disaster?[edit]

Was the name "Mayfly" an ironic name given after the break-up or was the ship given this nickname before the accident? Please add. -- 92.230.211.132 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems before, given this contemporary report GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cost[edit]

"She was the first British rigid airship to be built, at a cost of $400,000 dollars,"

Leaving aside the absurdity of dollars rather than pounds here, is this cost cited anywhere in the article? The only figure quoted is £35,000 for the project, which is about $130-150,000 rather than the $400,000 in the lead. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

I presume the gas used was hydrogen, although this is not stated anywhere in the article.

'Left to rot' - anyone know what happened to the pieces eventually? They must have taken up a lot of space. PhilUK (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've the same question as above; what was the lifting gas? Presumably hydrogen, but this is not stated in the article. A glaring omission. Haploidavey (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that helium was not available at the time, I don't think it is necessary to specify that the craft used hydrogen. I've editerd an awful lot of airship articles and by and large the lifting gas is not specifies; only US aiships like the Macon and Akrpn used helium.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She?[edit]

Why does the article refer to the airship as "she"? Actually there is a mixture of "she" and "it". I think it would be better to stick to the latter. --John (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ships are shes. Perfectly normal English. DuncanHill (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia we accept the applicability of this for sea ships, but not for airships, aeroplanes or cars. Unless you know otherwise, I think this is irregular here. --John (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some checking and the relevant guideline definitely only applies to sea ships. No other airship articles use "she". I have edited this article accordingly. --John (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you linked to doesn't say "only sea ships", it just says "ships". Anyway, what did Emerson say about consistency? DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, ie contemporaneously, they were 'she's. And historically in terms of Wikipedia editing, some of the airships (eg USN airship articles) did use to use the feminine pronoun. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no quarrel with your first statement. I am not so sure about the second. If you have evidence that USN airship articles ever consistently used "she", I would be glad to see it. This isn't what I saw on a brief sampling; most of them seemed to use "it", not just in the present but going back some time. --John (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do have to go back a good way in article histories. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British airships were spoken of as female unlike German airships which were refered to as "he." Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in the pre-World War period and HMA NO. 1[edit]

The position on HMA NO.1 in the naval race between Britian and Germany is important. Airship NO. 1 was built as much to determine if the rigid airship posed a threat to the Royal Navy as to determine if it was of any use to the Royal Navy. Though it was a failure as an airship it was of great value as a learning experience. It may be argued it was a bit too much of a learning experience. The following British airships from HMA 9r to HMA R.34 were essentially attempts to catch up with the Germans by copying old designs. A feckless endevor. R.36 was a pathetic attempt to salvage some commercial value from the wartime program. The R.38 was an attempt to exceed German accomplishment without fully understanding the problems of airship design and operation coupled with inadequate technology. That the Americans did understand the technology is shown by the recipints of the first R.38 award. The most important airships designed by the British were HMA NO. 1, HMA R.80, HMA R.100 and HMA R.101 which were the only British examples of non-monkee see, monkey attempt to do engineeering. Thus I have attempted to expand this article a bit to ensure that a reader might better comprehend both the audacity, problems, and endevor involved. Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]