Talk:Rolls-Royce Avon: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m tag |
Assess as C class |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPAVIATION|class= |
{{WPAVIATION |
||
|class=C |
|||
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no |
|||
|Aircraft-project=yes|Engines=yes |
|||
| b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = no |
|||
}} |
|||
| b3 <!-- Structure --> = yes |
|||
| b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = yes |
|||
| b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = yes |
|||
|Engines=yes}} |
|||
The article notes "''Originally known as the AJ.65 for Axial Jet, 6,500 lbf which was designed by Alan Arnold Griffith''". This statement seems unclear to me. It could be read that AA Griffith designed the axial-flow design, which is at least arguably true. But it could also be read that it means that AA Griffith actually designed the AJ.65, which I find somewhat more difficult to believe. Would the author of this statement clarify, and perhaps cite? [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
The article notes "''Originally known as the AJ.65 for Axial Jet, 6,500 lbf which was designed by Alan Arnold Griffith''". This statement seems unclear to me. It could be read that AA Griffith designed the axial-flow design, which is at least arguably true. But it could also be read that it means that AA Griffith actually designed the AJ.65, which I find somewhat more difficult to believe. Would the author of this statement clarify, and perhaps cite? [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:39, 27 January 2010
Aviation: Engines C‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
The article notes "Originally known as the AJ.65 for Axial Jet, 6,500 lbf which was designed by Alan Arnold Griffith". This statement seems unclear to me. It could be read that AA Griffith designed the axial-flow design, which is at least arguably true. But it could also be read that it means that AA Griffith actually designed the AJ.65, which I find somewhat more difficult to believe. Would the author of this statement clarify, and perhaps cite? Maury 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
canular != can-annular?
The article says: "Early Marks had 8 canular combustion chambers where as later Marks had can-annular." but I thought canular == can-annular. I guess the former might be just "can" type. Or? --marsian 13:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)