This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have come across a forum entry which states that George Henry Challenger was the Bristol Boxkite's designer; the same page also states that he was the designer (at Vickers) of an interruptor gear for WWI aircraft machine guns (it cites "Flying Guns WW1") and a gun mounting which was a predecessor of the Scarff ring. If this information can be confirmed. it deserves a mention here.-- TraceyR ( talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This claim smells in my opinion. Firstly I very much doubt whether a boxkite could fly inverted.(!) So in all probability we're talking extreme nose-over, and even so I would have thought the front booms would prevent the aircraft remains ending up upside down. Merriam (a plain Mr. at the time) makes no mention of any such incident involving the 'spicy mud' of the 'magnetic' sewage farm in his autobiography, although it is true that the picture this gives is of a man who probably takes himself too seriously to find such an occurreance amusing. Flight does have a reference to him ending up in the mire [1], but I'm inclined to think the 'first man upsidedown' is a family legend rather an an encyclopedic fact. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Curiouser and curiouser. There's no mention in the text of Merriam's autobiog of this incident, but there is a photo entitled 'The author about to takeoff in a Bristol monoplane on the flight which ended in the sewage farm'. Anzani engined Bristol Prier. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for the change in reference format to using sfn templates and citation templates? Such changes are not required by MOS as suggested by the edit summaries, and appear contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Nigel Ish ( talk) 23:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not an expert on the quality scales but the outstanding issue for B-class was some citations required, I believe after all the good work here recently these have been cleared, can this article be promoted? MilborneOne ( talk) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
J.M. Bruce, in The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing) (1982), states (p. 151 and 158) that a batch of 24 aircraft built for the RNAS in 1915 that were previously believed to be Bristol TB.8s were in fact Boxkites, and that they continued in use until 1916. If so this would put production numbers for the Boxkite up from the usually quoted 76 to 100, and reduce production of the TB8 from 54 to 30. Is this worth including, despite the fact that it appears to contradict Barnes, with the later 1988 edition cited in the article? Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
These were built and flown under the supervision of Allen H. Wheeler - who went and wrote a little book on the subject. (A jolly good one too!) This is very informative - among other things going into why a (nominally) much more powerful modern engine was needed to power the replicas. This is actually a much more complicated thing that we really have space for here - but the text as I have edited it is now less confusing as well as more accurate (in so far as it goes). No need to raise the spectre of a larger propeller, which was of course never fitted to any of the replicas - at least while they were flying - larger "dummy" propellers "dressed" the aircraft for static shots, but these props were indeed "props" in the theatrical sense (sorry!!). The idea of this section having no reference to the Wheeler book was mildly ridiculous, and I have also rectified this. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 10:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have come across a forum entry which states that George Henry Challenger was the Bristol Boxkite's designer; the same page also states that he was the designer (at Vickers) of an interruptor gear for WWI aircraft machine guns (it cites "Flying Guns WW1") and a gun mounting which was a predecessor of the Scarff ring. If this information can be confirmed. it deserves a mention here.-- TraceyR ( talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This claim smells in my opinion. Firstly I very much doubt whether a boxkite could fly inverted.(!) So in all probability we're talking extreme nose-over, and even so I would have thought the front booms would prevent the aircraft remains ending up upside down. Merriam (a plain Mr. at the time) makes no mention of any such incident involving the 'spicy mud' of the 'magnetic' sewage farm in his autobiography, although it is true that the picture this gives is of a man who probably takes himself too seriously to find such an occurreance amusing. Flight does have a reference to him ending up in the mire [1], but I'm inclined to think the 'first man upsidedown' is a family legend rather an an encyclopedic fact. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Curiouser and curiouser. There's no mention in the text of Merriam's autobiog of this incident, but there is a photo entitled 'The author about to takeoff in a Bristol monoplane on the flight which ended in the sewage farm'. Anzani engined Bristol Prier. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for the change in reference format to using sfn templates and citation templates? Such changes are not required by MOS as suggested by the edit summaries, and appear contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Nigel Ish ( talk) 23:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Not an expert on the quality scales but the outstanding issue for B-class was some citations required, I believe after all the good work here recently these have been cleared, can this article be promoted? MilborneOne ( talk) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
J.M. Bruce, in The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing) (1982), states (p. 151 and 158) that a batch of 24 aircraft built for the RNAS in 1915 that were previously believed to be Bristol TB.8s were in fact Boxkites, and that they continued in use until 1916. If so this would put production numbers for the Boxkite up from the usually quoted 76 to 100, and reduce production of the TB8 from 54 to 30. Is this worth including, despite the fact that it appears to contradict Barnes, with the later 1988 edition cited in the article? Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
These were built and flown under the supervision of Allen H. Wheeler - who went and wrote a little book on the subject. (A jolly good one too!) This is very informative - among other things going into why a (nominally) much more powerful modern engine was needed to power the replicas. This is actually a much more complicated thing that we really have space for here - but the text as I have edited it is now less confusing as well as more accurate (in so far as it goes). No need to raise the spectre of a larger propeller, which was of course never fitted to any of the replicas - at least while they were flying - larger "dummy" propellers "dressed" the aircraft for static shots, but these props were indeed "props" in the theatrical sense (sorry!!). The idea of this section having no reference to the Wheeler book was mildly ridiculous, and I have also rectified this. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 10:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)