Talk:De Havilland Vampire/Archive 1

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

It would be nice if you included information about the De Havilland project and the origin of the aircraft's name. Alexandros 15:54, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The original de Havilland name for the aeroplane was the Spider Crab but when it was accepted for service the Air Ministry gave it the service name 'Vampire'.

Bang seats

The article doesn't mention ejection seats. The T11s (and Venoms) had Martin-Baker bang seats, but did any variants of the single seat Vampires have them? Moriori 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Both single seat Vampire and Venom in the Swiss Air Force were modified with hot seats around 1967-68. --Towpilot 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think no single seater Vampires (unlike Venoms) were ever fitted with ejection seats as standard. I'll dig around and see if I can substantiate that. If true, it deserves a mention. Moriori 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither Vampire or Venom, single or dual, had ejection seats as standard when they were new. All remaining aircraft of both in Swiss Air Force were modified as mention above, and it's my understanding that the same was done elsewhere those airplanes were still in military service, i.e. it became "standard".--Towpilot 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Vampire and Meteor were both designed before the development of a British ejection seat, the first production Martin-Baker seat, the Mk 1, went in to the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 jet flying boat, so the earliest Vampires and Meteors didn't have ejection seats.

It's not very clear.....

Two statements made in the section headed RAF service are a little confusing. Namely

"The FB 5 ....(had).... wings clipped back by 30 centimeters (1 foot), and longer-stroke main gear to handle greater takeoff weights and provide clearance for stores/weapons load (an external tank or 225 kilogram (500 pound) bomb outboard on each wing, and eight "3 inch" rocket projectiles ("RPs") stacked in pairs on four attachments inboard of the booms). "

But then, two paragraphs down, it says

"The RAF's Mk 5 was altered to extend the aircraft's role from a fighter to a ground-attack aircraft, the wings being clipped, strengthened and fitted with hard-points for bombs or rockets."

Same information in two different places? Or was it radically modified twice? Moriori 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, just a duplicated sentence. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

confused

"The Mk 5 was navalised as the Sea Vampire, the first Royal Navy jet aircraft. Although its short range meant that it was unsuitable as a front-line carrier fighter,[18] the Navy had been very impressed with the aircraft since 3 December 1945, when a Vampire carried out the flying trials on the carrier HMS Ocean, and 18 Sea Vampires were purchased to gain experience in carrier jet operations.[19]"

so I take it, it was only ever used for training, not front line operations?

If this is the case it could be spelt our clearer that Sea Vampires were only used for training purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want to take out is not training important, and is not to gain experience in carrier jet operations training ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

the wording sort of beats about the bush at the moment (213.167.69.4 (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

Which was first?

Both this article and the Supermarine Attacker (see also Hawker Sea Hawk claim first Fleet Air Arm service

So which was it?

Thoglette 06:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacker intro to service, 1951 (from the article), Sea Hawk intro to service, 1953 (from the article). Vampire carrier trials 1945 (Gunston), intro to service (from Fleet Air Arm article given as 'late 1940s'. Fairly safe to say it was the Vampire. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I thought that this section always followed the references, in this article it seems to have a new placing. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

You are right Bzuk ext links should be between refs and nav boxes - I have moved it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My error folks, I omitted to move the See also section after moving the External links to above the navboxes, humblest apologies! --Red Sunset 20:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We really do need to agree on a standard for this across the project. I have been following the featured articles which have 'references', 'see also' with external links last. I believe MoS recommends EL last. I have changed quite a few articles to this layout. I have rarely seen 'references' after 'see also'. Just trying to get it right in the face of seemingly many different ways of doing it. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard (or project guideline) is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content which has see also, references, ext links , navboxes, cats. (refer also to Template:Aerostart. MilborneOne (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So we have a different standard for FA? I personally prefer the layout of ref, see also, EL, boxes. Seems to be more logical. I know this has been discussed on the project page. It's becoming a bit of a pain, with reversions and questioning all the time unfortunately. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Garry, to me, the references are source documents and the external links are merely an electronic version of a source document so I see them as complimentary and should be placed together which is the standard for nearly all the articles I have seen including the WP:Aviation Group and WP:Film Group in which I tend to hang out. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

I have been scratching my head over this, I know that many aircraft articles are formatted in the style that I tend to use. I think I have found the answer, there is an 'aircontent' template that is often used at the bottom of articles. Circa Feb 2006 if this was placed after references (as it had to be I assume) then you would have the order refs, see also, external links. The template has been altered many times as I can see from the talk page and I guess what has happened is that the older articles had headers placed in this format 'unmolested' and they are still like this (and I have followed them). It was bugging me as there had to be a reason for so many articles appearing in this layout. Slightly more enlightened now. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This template rather confusingly still contains the words 'see also' at the end when it actually means 'related content'. In wiki markup you get 'see also' followed by 'external links' when editing a whole page. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard order for these "supplementary sections", as given in the Manual of Style, Guide to layout, and indeed (starting this year) WP:AIR is: See also, References, and External links. "References" can be broken up into "Notes", "References" and/or "Bibliography" if necessary. (These text sections are then followed by navboxes, categories, and interwiki links, in that order)

Nimbus227 - your confusion may be stemming from the fact that the old WP:AIR standard was to put the "aircontent" template at the very end. Actually, the Guide to Layout says that the order of these sections doesn't matter, and indeed we had many articles "promoted" to FA with WP:AIR's idiosyncratic section ordering, which confirmed this. However, there have been so many fights and so many problems with this over the years, that we now fall in with the standard. There are still, no doubt, dozens or even hundreds of articles that need to be updated accordingly.

And Bzuk is right - if a website has been used as a reference in preparing an article, then it should appear in the References section; if it's being provided as "further reading", it goes under External links.

Hope this helps! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It does a bit, are we talking about the level two headers? I am currently editing F7U Cutlass, you can see that it is in the 'old' order, I have not changed the layout. It is missing an external link header which I was planning to add to the end. I'm clear on where EL's should go, had to pull loads out of the F-104 article after failed GA review. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - level 2 headers; so the F7U article in this edit is perfect: See also, References. External links.

Is the confusion perhaps coming from the "see also" parameter within the aircontent template? That doesn't add another "see also" (3rd-level) heading; it actually just adds any general "see also" material to the top of the (L2) "See also" section. I've put a (stupid) example here cut down from the F7U article. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! I've got it right. Request permission to use this as my 'yardstick' article! Yes, I think that 'see also' text in the template could be changed as it probably was 'throwing' me and other editors. Marvellous! Nimbus227 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean use the cut-down version? If so, please go ahead and move it into your own userspace - you're welcome! I'll see what I can do about getting the "see also" parameter renamed: should be easy for a bot. It used to create a level 3 heading called "See also", but that was when the level 2 heading above it was called "Related content". See? :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just whizzed through and fixed most of the articles I have been involved with, one of them was the Spitfire. The text entered at the 'see also' line of the template (which is at the bottom) actually appears at the top (Australian?)! Much fun and we should be able to get on with adding facts and promoting some of these articles now. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally, "See also" was a level 3 heading under the "Related content" level 2 heading. When we decided to fall in with convention and needed to rename the level 2 heading "See also", the problem arose with what to do with the level 3 heading of the same name that now contained the most general links. Rather than create a virtually meaningless new level 3 heading like "general" or "other", these links were moved to the top of the new level 2 "See also" section without any level 3 heading at all. This is possible because the order that template inputs appear in within an article is completely irrelevant; it's their order within the template that determines their place in the output. That having been said, most new articles (Feb 08) onwards have their "see also" parameter at the top of Template:aircontent, if only to reduce editor confusion. The software doesn't care. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Preserved Example

there is another preserve Vampire T11 at 2214 (Usworth) ATC in Sunderland, Tyne + Wear, UK. Its not in good shape and has no avionics or engine, but the cadets are currently restoring the paint job. not sure of the Aircraft number but i could find out. 81.141.221.111 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Details of combat/service in the Middle East needed

I have just created a small section describing Vampires' belated combat service with the Indian Air Force, in 1965.

However, there is a more glaring absence: the type's most extensive and successful combat service, in a ground attack role with the Egyptian Air Force during 1955-56.

It also saw extensive service with other Middle Eastern air forces, including Jordan and Iraq.

Grant | Talk 11:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is a work in progress and never claims to be finished or complete. You are welcome to add any relevant and properly cited information related to the types operational history. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

6 Jun 09 Crash

On 23 Oct 2009, Ken Keisel added the reference to the forced landing at Rochester NY in the "Survivors" paragraph. He identified the owner as the Wings of Flight Air Museum of Batavia NY. I have not been able to identify this museum on the web, and the link to the newspaper article now fails. However, on 23 Sep 09, 62.194.48.176 appears to have hijacked the reference by inserting a reference to Wings over the Rockies Air Museum of Denver CO. Their website makes no mention of Vampire amongst the collection.Lexysexy (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of comment, I'll revert the entry to the original.Lexysexy (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos

The header photograph is of a T11 under the banner of DH100 Vampire. This is not strictly correct, as, of course, the T11 is a DH115. I suggest that the photo of the FB5 with a T11 behind it should be swapped into the header position (or another more suitable replacement put there). Comment?Lexysexy (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox name banner of aircraft articles is intended to cover the whole article, it does not exactly describe the lead image (that is done by the caption below it when used), see Template:Infobox aircraft begin under 'Parameters'. We would be very busy correcting many articles if the banner name had to describe the exact type in lead images. We could, at a push, add 'DH.115' in brackets to the caption but that would probably be excessive detail for what is just supposed to be a 'quick glance' summary of the subject. The alternative image mentioned is a ground image and does not give a clear view of the aircraft (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Images). I believe that it's fine as it is. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Function dictates shape?

Starting late in 1943, the German Airplane builder Focke-Wulf designed several jet and rocket powered fighters with an overall appearance close to the DH-Vampire: twin booms for an horizontal tailplane above the fuselage, with double rudders, named: Focke-Wulf P.V Flitzer, Focke-Wulf P.VII, that was proposed with triangular and rectangular air intakes for the single HeS 011A axial turbine of 1'300 kg thrust installed in the fuselage. A Focke-Wulf P.VII photo in a stage of full sized wooden mockup can be seen in "German Jet Genesis", by David Masters, Jane's 1982, ISBN 0 7106 0186 7.--Jgrosay (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The twin tail boom design exists because the exhaust jetpipe has to be short, for materials reasons. Another way to avoid this is to use podded engines, which was the favoured German technique for their axial-flow compressors. As the Allied engines used centrifugal compressors, these were large in diameter and so couldn't be used in these pods. The short bifurcated 'breeches' exhaust was used too, but not successfully. The Meteor used pods, but these had to be mounted mid-wing because of their large diameter and this was only workable for a large, heavy twin-engined fighter. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

When the Spider Crab (Vampire) was designed the Halford H.1 was in the early stages of (low powered) development and so the aeroplane was designed so as to minimise the thrust losses due to a long jet pipe - the skin friction of the jet pipe walls reduces thrust somewhat. As the actual static thrust of the engine was increased due to development over time the thrust losses became less important, and so it became possible to use a longer jet pipe, and a more conventional design, e.g., the Lockheed P-80. But when the Vampire was on the drawing board, the engine was not yet known to be able to be developed to give greater thrust, or rather how much greater.

I should point out that the Halford H.1 was considerably more powerful than previous British jet engines, and it was this extra power that made a single-engined fighter possible, the Meteor needing two 1940-era engines to get reasonable performance. This low power of the early engines was also why the Me 262 and Heinkel He 280 were also twin-engined, as was the Bell XP-59 - with the low power of the early engines (~1,500lb st/t) you needed two to get performance on a-par with the best piston engines fighters, preferably better. The Goblin (Halford H.1) with well over 2,000lb changed that, at least for the Allies.

Reference format change?

Where is the consensus for the change in reference format?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

De Havilland DH.99

DH.99 redirects here and is mentioned in the text as the original designation of the project (reference Gunston 1981). A J Jackson's DH aircraft since 1909 gives two different projects that use the DH.99 designation neither of which have any connection with the Vampire (the first was a Napier Sabre powered scaled up Mosquito and the other a light civil twin. Anybody have any other refs for the DH.99, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Rhodesia

User 118.148.184.76 changed the name of a user country from Rhodesia to Southern Rhodesia. I have reverted that change. During the time it deployed Vampires, the name of the country was Southern Rhodesia, then the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, then Southern Rhodesia, then Rhodesia, and lastly Zimbabwe. Predecessors of the Air Force of Zimbabwe never ever had "Southern Rhodesia" in their names. Moriori (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)