Talk:James McCudden

Passenger 57
While I don't doubt he scored high, the 57 is a very dubious figure, since RFC (& RAF later) didn't keep official records, & WW1 attribution wasn't exactly rigorous. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  01:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference for McCudden's 'score' comes from the 'Above the Trenches' by C. Shores, N. Franks & R. Guest (Grub street 1990). This information is in turn obtained from Combat Reports and Communiques held on file at the Ministry of Defence- the nearest to 'official records' we are going to get. I agree care needs to be taken in simple direct comparisions with French and German ace tallies, hence I am trying to split out the totals listed in the Wikipedia RFC/RNAS/RAF ace biographies, in order for the reader to get a little perspective on how aces 'totals' have come to be. Thanks Harryurz (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This thread is ancient history, but FWIW McCudden specialised in knocking down high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, many of which fell on the Allied side of the lines, so a lot of his victories can be confirmed regardless of any corresponding German loss record - he was also notoriously modest about claiming victories about which he had the slightest doubt. Some writers even consider he is likely to be the top British ace of the war, in the sense of actual aircraft, "really" destroyed. In any case his score is certainly not inherently LESS likely than anyone else's. But this kind of speculation, even when it has some basis (e.g. Bishop's score) is a bit like trying reconstruct what a century old cricket match would have been if they'd had the third umpire. NOT very productive, when all's said and done. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Does it make sense?
Hello, about the sentence: "James McCudden was born in Gillingham, Kent to ex-Sergeant-Major William H. McCudden and his wife Amelia of "Pitlochry", 37 Burton Road, Kingston-on-Thames, London. Two of his brothers Willie (killed in 1915) and Jack (killed in 1918) were also military pilots." I'd say it doesn't really make sense at all. I got confused with the "37 Burton Road, Kingston-on-Thames, London" Doet it refer to where were they living at the moment, or what? --Mezod (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like this was taken from hereKernel Saunters (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * true, but it still won't make sense for me (not a native english speaker tho).
 * what about this one: ..."leading to an unsurpassed total of captured enemy aircraft kills..." captured kills? aren't those opposite? :P --Mezod (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What about the Werner Voss fight?
McCudden was the main combatant in one of the most notable air battles of World War I, and it is not even mentioned in this article.

Long story short, McCudden led B Flight 56 Squadron in its attack on Werner Voss. 23 September 1917 over Langemark-Poelkapelle. Voss sent down four out of eight British machines before he was killed and his flashy new Fokker Triplane augered in.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Death
The passage describing M's fatal accident had got a bit cryptic. An engine failure just after takeoff was (remains in fact) a dangerous situation, as airspeed and altitude are both very low. If he thinks he has enough altitude a pilot may be tempted to turn and land (downwind) from where he has just taken off - it is usually safer to put the nose down for an immediate forced landing. "Spin" is a funny verb - as a transitive verb (meaning "to spin something") is is sometimes strong (spin, span, spun) - as an intransitive verb ("to spin around") it is always weak (spin, spun, spun). In fact Wiktionary calls "span" archaic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything about his death, and criticism of making a beginner's error, seems to be somebody's opinion - there is no source. Pol098 (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No problems, I'll add one now, although this was witnessed by a number of people and has never been a matter of controversy. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing the content! (Nor am I blindly endorsing it - I have no information of my own.) It's just that Wikipedia should in principle have a source for everything, but particularly major points covered in particles. A related comment: the text was originally "...trying to turn back to land rather than proceeding straight on"; I changed that to "rather than continuing", which I thought (rightly or wrongly) expressed exactly the same thing a bit more concisely; I have no knowledge of the facts. It was then changed to "rather than gliding straight on to a forced landing". I expect this is correct (again, I don't know), but it's a significant change to content (as distinct from wording), and the sort of thing that requires a source, as did the original text.  Despite these comments I'm not too concerned with pedantically sourcing every sentence. Pol098 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The subjects on which I have "no information", and even those about which I would have to admit that I "do not know", are many and varied. Generally I find it a very good idea to refrain from editing articles on these subjects - limiting myself to those things about which I have at least some background knowledge, and that interest me enough to have read widely. I think this is a very good rule, that you would be wise to follow in future. First World War aeroplanes, to take an example, have interested me since I was a schoolboy; I have read a great deal about the subject, and have access to a considerable personal library of source material for reference. My memory is far from perfect, some of my sources are dated, and with one thing and another I am far from always right. In fact I have learned a great deal about my pet subjects since I started editing Wikipedia! Other editors have referred me to sources of which I was not aware, and have successfully challenged ideas I have held to for years. All very productive! The research necessary to substantially improve an existing article (as I have recently) is also a grand way of exercising my aging brain cells and holding senility at bay, at least for a while. But on subjects about which I know nothing my questioning, or my blind endorsement, of anything is a bit of a non-issue, isn't it?  Would I be wrong to suggest that even if you are much younger than I am - there are bound to be other things about which you know a great deal, and have all manner of information? How about editing articles on these subjects - so long as you are careful to avoid the supposition that you already know everything worth knowing on your pet areas of interest.  On perhaps a rather more serious note, when did you last read WP:OR? Do read it - especially the second paragraph of the lead. We very simply DON'T have to reference EVERYTHING. A reference may "verify" a single fact, but will in practice very often refer to the general drift of a page, chapter, or even a whole book. And (very) many things are attributable - that is anyone could find a hundred sources to back them up, but to no purpose, since no one would dispute the point in question. Hence these things are unlikely to be directly attributed (WP:OR give the example "Paris is the capital of France"). People editing an aviation article would know (for instance) that landing an aircraft is the moment when the pilot's control is most needed, and that he MUST keep sufficient airspeed to avoid a stall (a loss of lift in the wings) until he is safely down. No need for things like this to be referenced every time or there'd be more references than text.  Finally, and this is getting right to the point - by all means edit text that seems more verbose than it need be - but recognise that (especially when you "have no information" on the subject, or, to be a little less kind, when you totally ignorant about it) it may well be that things that seem to mean the same thing actually don't, and that you have (inadvertently) changed or diminished the meaning of text instead of making it plainer. Clear plain text that says everything it should is the ideal - but clarity and accuracy are much more important than concision for its own sake. Having said all that, thanks for the little trick with the doubled "breaks", one of the reason for the length of these comments has been to try them out!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My edits today
The main thrust of these was getting rid of sentences (paraphrased or lifted from sources?) that were a little "over-dramatic" for an encyclopedia article, and otherwise improving the prose. Guttman's conviction that M was Von R's "fifteenth victory", while far too interesting to be omitted, remains outside the general historical consensus - I have done some rearrangement and tweaking over this paragraph to reflect this.

Must say I'm most impressed with all the hard work that has gone into this article recently - we must be at "B" already, surely! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)