Talk:Avro Duigan 1911: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:11, 5 September 2011

	Aviation portal This redirect 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
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This redirect is supported by the aircraft project.

rewrite

I took a look at the Avro E article for somenow forgotten reason to do with an ENV engine & there was this very fresh edit saying that the type was the work of some wunderkind who had arrived at Brooklands, learnt to fly in five lessons and designed the aircraft when bad light stopped play. So I reverted that and popped over here andreally had to gve it a workover. This, of course, is yet another book that I don't have the Putnam manufacturers book, but the article (as said in edit note) mistakes this one off (?) single seater for the E. The aircraft actually needs a full (ie lengthy) technical description, because it incorporated several major improvements. This is one of the aircraft that defined this archtype. which of course make it describable as "a two bay tractor biplane with a long skid" ("just another biplane"), so details ar important. Article also v. sketchy (ie misleading when not wrong) about Duigan. Btw the cite I referred to in edit note shoud have been the 1912 article.TheLongTone (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WPAVIATION|class=start|Aircraft=yes}}
+== rewrite ==
+I took a look at the Avro E article for somenow forgotten reason to do with an ENV engine & there was this very fresh edit saying that the type was the work of some wunderkind who had arrived at Brooklands, learnt to fly in five lessons and designed the aircraft when bad light stopped play. So I reverted ''that'' and popped over here andreally had to gve it a workover. This, of course, is yet another book that I don't have the Putnam manufacturers book, but the article (as said in edit note) mistakes this one off (?) single seater for the E. The aircraft actually needs a full (ie lengthy) technical description, because it incorporated several major improvements. This is one of the aircraft that defined this archtype. which of course make it describable as "a two bay tractor biplane with a long skid" ("just another biplane"), so details ar important. Article also v. sketchy (ie misleading when not wrong) about Duigan. Btw the cite I referred to in edit note shoud have been the 1912 article.[[User:TheLongTone|TheLongTone]] ([[User talk:TheLongTone|talk]]) 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)