Talk:Bristol Boxkite

Boxkite designer

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)

According to Bristol Aircraft since 1910by C.H. Barnes, Challenger drew up the plans for the first two Boxkites - however, as the Bristol Boxkite was an improved copy of a Henri Farman biplane, with the same dimensions, but more refined metal fittings, it is perhaps stretching things a bit to call Challenger the designer of the Boxkite.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

C. H. Barnes's actual words are 'an unashamed copy of a Farman' & indeed Farman sued for patent infringement but dropped the case when Bristol counterclaimed substantial improvements. The aircraft is also superficially very similar to the unsucessful Voisin-designed Zodiac which Bristol had intended to manufacture under license. And, coming from George Challenger's corner...The detail design of an aircraft is not unimportant, & Challenger deserves credit, even if the aircraft's basic design was not original.TheLongTone (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Upside down in the sewage farm

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)

Never mind true, this fails notability. Landing in a sewage farm, inverted or otherwise, is scarcely a noteworthy achievement. If it had flown from London inverted & landed there, maybe...& I'm not sure even that would make it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Are there notability guidelines for (putative) facts in articles? I'm not averse to the odd bit of amusing trivia if suitably ballasted by 'proper' content. As it stand this isn't the case here: the whole ophist sction needs a major rewrite, which I'm slowly assembling in my sandbox.TheLongTone (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised. I'd ask at the Aviation project & see. Generally, this sort of trivial happening is frowned on, tho. Otherwise, every odd wreck of every type everywhere could be (& would be!) justified by somebody who thinks its cute. Passing movie appearances alone are bad enough a headache now... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Change to reference format

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)

The citations were inconsistent crap before; now they're not. Eric Corbett 23:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The citations were in fact consistant before you changed to sfn format. After you were reverted you should have gone to the talk page, not edit warred to insert your personal preference.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

They were indeed "consistant" [sic], consistently crap. Eric Corbett 23:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Corbett's edit summaries can be most charitably described as disingenuous. As for his attitude, I think User talk:Eric Corbett#Edits to aircraft articles speaks for itself. The claque is amusing. TheLongTone (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

They do appear to be "inconsistent with the actualité" GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I was under the apprehension that there was a convention that aircraft articles used the cite format that is used by this article, but I see that there are articles using the format that the template produces. What is the situation?TheLongTone (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The convention, WP:CITEVAR, says "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page". My take is that if someone goes through and changes it, and another editor disagrees, then you are into Bold Revert Discuss territory. Specifically listed as to be avoided is "Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently". (Personally I can't remember the styles but I can remember the cite template parameters so if I add a reference using the cite template, I don't take umbrage if someone then changes the formatting to match the style used in the article.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Aviation Project B-class

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)

All the cite tags added when it was downgraded have been replaced by refs so I'll do it.TheLongTone (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Late extra production?

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)

Do you have any serials numbers for the 24 in question Nigel? MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to know what to do when two such sources disagree. I have a reference problem at the moment because I'm moving & many of my books are in cardboard boxes far away. What does that book that lists all the RNAS aircraft have to say? (Sturtivant??). I don't have the Bristol book in any case...I've simply had one or other copy out of Bristol library for the past couple of years. Which does mean that I've consulted both the first and more recent edditions. It's possible that there's no new research on the old aircraft...constructors numbers &c.. in the new editions, although the stuff on the replicas is not in the first edition. I've also come across references to a Boxkite built in 1915 at Point Cook in Australia.TheLongTone (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I was interested in the serial numbers as Sturtivant only lists 17 T.B.8s (and the Hydro) in RNAS service (15, 43, 153,916 to 917, 948 and 1216 to 1227) and 32 Boxkites (24, 35, 942 to 947, 8442 to 8453 and 8562 to 8573).

Argh the last batch 24 Boxkites (8442 to 8453 and 8562 to 8573) are given by Sturtivant as Boxkites sn 870 to 893 which Barnes lists as T.B.8s so it looks like the newer source Sturtivant agrees with Bruce and Robertson's British Military Serials agress they were Boxkites as well. So looks like we need to tweak the totals. MilborneOne (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And the date for when production ended as well?TheLongTone (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bruce in The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing) also states that 8442–8453 and 8562–8573 are the serials of the "extra" Boxkites. He says that production continued "well into 1915" and that the Boxkite remained in use with nthe RNAS until early 1916.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the individual histories most were delivered in late 1915 to early 1916 but all of them that survived appear to have been deleted from the RNAS inventory by the end of 1916. The last few were delivered to White City and were probably just used as spares. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Magificent Men" replicas

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)

I think they were probably unique and notable enough for a separate aircraft article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)