Talk:Rigid inflatable boat

change of facts

I had to change some facts in this (even though I sometimes forgott to lock in), and would be glad if anyone could read it over to clean typos and gramarmistakes, since English isn't my native language.

Thanks Janetzky 13:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PU tubes

Hi, Sorry to advise that much of what you write about polyurethane coated fabrics for RIB tubes is incorrect, at least as far as Europe is concerned, but I would expect also for the USA.

Several RIB companies manufacture tubes in PU, it is no more difficult than manufacturing in Hypalon when gluing. Welding is more difficult than with PVC but gives a much better result. Only very old PU is difficult to repair, the thing is to use the correct technique - see www.hotribs.com for instructions. European PU materials do not contain Neoprene - I sell these materials and have been closely involved with their design. PU is airtight. Internal exposed edges usually have to be sealed, as with Hypalon. PU material is not normally knife/bullet resistant. Tubes can be protected - see Special Operations Technology 2004 Volume 2 Issue 6. It does not age quickly when pigmented. All PU coatings used on RIB tubes are pigmented. However polishing with marine polish is especially recommended for optimum life when exposed to exceptionally high levels of UV - same applies to Hypalon and PVC. The Quality of European PU tube materials improved significantly about 10 years ago - life expectancy of current materials looks to be as good as Hypalon. Please refer RIB International, June/July 2007 edition.

Ian Shaw Chiorino UK 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Performance

The article states that

RIBs are generally designed with hydroplaning hulls. Due to their low weight RIBs often out-perform other similarly sized and powered boats, and can also cope with rougher seas.

While it's ability to cope with rougher seas and the RHIB's general high stability, i think that the consensus is that RHIB's are heavyer than similar sized and more common fiberglass hulls. --83.89.8.114 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RBB photo

I agree with New Hampshirite, RBBs are not RIBs, so the photo does not belong here. The RBB is a light military boat which has solid cell tubes as a collar, partly for buoyancy, partly for protection in its military context. So it is not inflatable. It might look like a rib, talk like a rib but it's not a rib in my view.

Could you tell us HoHum why you say 'the article covers RBBs also'? If you can justify that statement, ok otherwise I think the photo should go.

What do others think? TonyClarke (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• RBB is covered here because it's covered in the section "Rigid Buoyant Boat (RBB)". Someone added it here for whatever reason, probably becasue of the relative similarites, rather than creating a separate article. At this ppoint, the section is large enough for its own article at Rigid buoyant boat, assuming that is the best title. - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks, hadn't read the full article! Should the photo not belong in that section then? TonyClarke (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• As he says, there is an entire RBB section, so it seems to be in scope for the article at the moment. I included that particular RBB image in the general characteristics section since size is discussed there, and it complements the smaller example. Someone has now moved it to the RBB section, where it breaks formatting and adds no additional value. (Hohum ^@) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• That was me, and it's explained in my edit summary. That section should probably be split to its own article, so the photo issue would be moot then. Any reasons not to do the split? - BilCat (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• If someone is willing to develop it, I'm all for it. An aside - is there a wikiproject this article falls under? I tried wikiproject ships, but the reviewer removed it as "out of scope". (Hohum ^@) 23:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Split completed! I've also removed the large section on materials, as it has an old disputed tags, and is unsourced, but I'm OK with it being restored with the tags intact, if it is deemed accurate enough as-is. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have restored the section on materials, as it is useful and relevant. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unsourced, and has been challenged as innacurate for two years. Do you have reliable sources you can add to validate/correct what's there? - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that still a no on the sources? It's been two weeks since asked, so it seems about time to remove the unsourced information that has been challenged. Weakopedia (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources for what ? the material moved to RBB or the material in this article ? I had started putting in refs when i noticed this latest comment -0 have removed the tags now Chaosdruid (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Popular Culture: The Pop. culture section needs improvement, the specificity of the single popular reference without citation makes it sounds like it was added by the studio for promotion. Chalexthegreat (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rigid-hulled inflatable boat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824215105/http://www.rnli.org.uk:80/rnli_near_you/west/stations/AtlanticCollege/history to http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/west/stations/AtlanticCollege/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rigid-hulled inflatable boat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110404221446/http://www.medboat.com:80/flying-rib to http://www.medboat.com/flying-rib

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"Unsinkable"

The article lead calls this type of boat unsinkable. The article body describes them as "difficult to sink", which sounds more reasonable to me. The word "unsinkable" was added to the lead in an edit by an IP editor in 2019 where the only editing change was to add the word. Can anyone else comment on this? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)