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
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]
Jackson, who has a whole article about the Duigan machine, differs on the seating from Lewis. He says "The machine [Duigan] was a two seat, dual control biplane ...". Since he has over two pages on the Duigan, there are more details than in Lewis' seven lines. The comments about its limited passenger carrying ability ("confined to straights") also come from Jackson. I agree it's worth noting the similarity of design and construction of the Duigan and E, which Jackson mentions in his Avro E section but there was no confusion of the two.TSRL (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off on the bike to get Jackson, so will deal with that. I was going to drop you a line about all this (and I still owe you the airship table, done bar checking & there soon if you want it) because I don't like rewriting stuff done by people who seem to be putting up good stuff. Which reminds me, do you know own anything about the Alvaston engine? Wiki has nothing, all I can find is that the built three horizontally opposed engine types & that aircraft fitted with them do not seem to have flown very well (they couldn't have failed to deliver the advertised power, could they?). The single seat thing was from the contemporary Flight magazine, so they probably got it wrong: their sketch clearly shows a transverse leaf springs carrying the wheels & the photos look like a plain axle. The aircraft might also have been fitted with a tonneau cover to confuse people?? Lewis does give it only a few lines, but as far as the airframe goes it's all covered: by his account they are clearly two aircraft built in paralell, and this is in line with te flight evidenc. Not to mention the evidence of ones own eyes. The single forward strut is the clear giveaway if a picture doesn't make the engine visible Both the E and the 500 need attention, the D especially. TheLongTone (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)TheLongTone (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
