Talk:Bristol Siddeley/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Article improvement suggestions
It is not clear to me from the current version of the article where all the various Bristol Siddeley manufacturing/reconditioning facilities were, perhaps they could be added in the relevant section(s)? Filton is mentioned but I assume that the facilities of the merged/purchased companies were taken over (Leavesden/Brough?). I had to no-wiki the 'personnel' section as it was not encyclopedic in the format it was in, the information is still there, just needs the key information forming into a paragraph or two of text with citations. I have treated the large product list in the same way, many of the items appeared to be pure de Havilland, Bristol or Armstrong Siddeley products that are covered by their own company or individual engine articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am very aware that there was large overlap in design and development, apparent in the various company names given to engine types at the time. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Conspicious by its absence is any statement as to why Bristol and AS merged. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Very true, and blindingly obvious now you have highlighted it. It's not apparent in the Armstrong Siddeley article either but appears to be covered in the Bristol article at Bristol Aeroplane Company#Merger into BAC. Perhaps the same fate was forced on Armstrong Siddeley? The answer should be in the 1959 Flight archive somewhere. Good spot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a rough root through the Flight archive today (1959 and 1958). Working together on the "Bristol 200" project may have been part of it. That their engine ranges complemented rather than competed may also have been conducive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not an answer but in April 1958 Sir Arnold Hall who was to be chairman of the new company "explained that the purpose was to bring together the technical knowledge and skills and the resources of both companies." MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a rough root through the Flight archive today (1959 and 1958). Working together on the "Bristol 200" project may have been part of it. That their engine ranges complemented rather than competed may also have been conducive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Very true, and blindingly obvious now you have highlighted it. It's not apparent in the Armstrong Siddeley article either but appears to be covered in the Bristol article at Bristol Aeroplane Company#Merger into BAC. Perhaps the same fate was forced on Armstrong Siddeley? The answer should be in the 1959 Flight archive somewhere. Good spot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is it me or is this article confusing with all the early histories randomly added in. Do they need to big so big as they have their own articles? the history of Bristol Siddeley, which is the subject, is hidden in the middle. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know what you mean. They could do with trimming. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks better - still needs some more work. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know what you mean. They could do with trimming. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to Bill Gunston the merger was more or less forced upon the engine manufacturers by the Ministry of Supply (MoS), as it was also forced on the airframe ones, as a requirement for consideration for the TSR2 project. Luckily, according to Gunston the ASM and Bristol Engines merger was a happy one, with the two becoming a good unified team under Stanley Hooker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)