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 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:
"The bomber design was based naturally on geodetic construction in which Wallis was an expert having used it for several aircraft including the Vickers Wellington."... huh?!??
I can't figure out how this relates to aircraft design. Am I just dense?
Pjbflynn 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it's just confusingly worded. The Wellington used geodetic construction for the fuselage (and wings from the look of it). Here's the first relevant image that Google found:
http://www.bomber-command.info/blwimpy6.htmMark Grant 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I've re-worded that section, hopefully it's less confusing now.
Mark Grant 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The conversions "50 ton (45 tonne)", "75 ton (68 tonne) and 100 ton (90 tonne)" only work when "ton" is a
short ton. I thought the typical (so to say) non-metric ton in the UK was the long ton.
Shouldn't it be "50
long tons (51
t)","75 LT (76 t) and 75 LT (76 t)"?
ospalh (
talk) 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Come to think of it, one of the two sources is an American book. So who knows what kind of tons that are. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a difference. I think it should be at least spelled out what ton was used.
ospalh (
talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The 'tons' used in the original specification would have been the
long ton - all tons used in the UK until metrication were long tons (2,240lb). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.4.57.101 (
talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
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 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:
"The bomber design was based naturally on geodetic construction in which Wallis was an expert having used it for several aircraft including the Vickers Wellington."... huh?!??
I can't figure out how this relates to aircraft design. Am I just dense?
Pjbflynn 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it's just confusingly worded. The Wellington used geodetic construction for the fuselage (and wings from the look of it). Here's the first relevant image that Google found:
http://www.bomber-command.info/blwimpy6.htmMark Grant 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I've re-worded that section, hopefully it's less confusing now.
Mark Grant 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The conversions "50 ton (45 tonne)", "75 ton (68 tonne) and 100 ton (90 tonne)" only work when "ton" is a
short ton. I thought the typical (so to say) non-metric ton in the UK was the long ton.
Shouldn't it be "50
long tons (51
t)","75 LT (76 t) and 75 LT (76 t)"?
ospalh (
talk) 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Come to think of it, one of the two sources is an American book. So who knows what kind of tons that are. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a difference. I think it should be at least spelled out what ton was used.
ospalh (
talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The 'tons' used in the original specification would have been the
long ton - all tons used in the UK until metrication were long tons (2,240lb). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.4.57.101 (
talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply