Talk:Laird Solution

Issues
!. The Solution and super solution were so closely related it would probably be better to have one article cover both. 2. The engines were more likely to be /r-1340 s as the R-985 Wasp junior was only just entering production when these aircraft were being built. The problem is evidence. Aerofiles seems to give accurate designations and the engine powers also favour the R-1340. More evidence is required.Petebutt (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No major issue merging articles if you want to take it on, but adding the Super Solution might water down most of the individual racing history of the "Solution" and leave only one set of specs. I would like to find all the Laird aircraft and create seperate articles for each model, the manafacturer and the engineer, like I did for the family of Towle Marine Aircraft Engineering (Later, Towle Aircraft). The alternative is meshing them all together under one model like the Monocoupe 90 article. I know it's a gray area... I merged the Cessna CR-1 and Cessna CR-2 together when I made them because they were little different, but broke out a seperate article for the Cessna CR-3 because they each had unique racing histories.


 * On the engine... The only specific engine ref I found online for the Soultion was at that said it was a R-985.. should have cited it, but it looked weak.  I've been cautioned from using aerofiles as a ref.. So I look up items independently now, and "peek " at aerofiles to see if they came up with the same thing. Aerofiles lists the Solution and the LC-DW300 as seperate aircraft and the LC-DW300 and LC-DW500 as the same. The LC-DW300 would roughly match Laird's naming scheme putting the rounded engine horsepower in the name of the aircraft.  Since the specs were just for the Solution... not the Super Solution, 300 hp would have been in line with the first generation R-985's. FlugKerl (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)