Talk:Naglo D.II

Accuracy
Grays German Aircraft of the First World War has a slightly different story:
 * 1) name Grädig
 * 2) still working for Albatroswerke and was sacked as a result
 * 3) type test 24 May 1918
 * 4) rejected at Aldershof at the request of a man called Schubert from Albatroswerke
 * 5) no mention of results or whether requested to be re-submitted

Gray's book is a bit long in the tooth but are the differences REALLY down to new information or just differing interpretations of the same material?--Petebutt (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On point 3, that is what the article says.TSRL (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Quadruplane or biplane?
The latest edit, claims the Naglo was a biplane not a quadruplane, based on the quoted Jack Herris. I don't own that but both Green & Swansborough (cited) and Gray & Thetford (German aircraft of the 1st world war) have it, as the article originally said, as a quadruplane and show photos. It sounds like a case of mistaken i/d but by whom?TSRL (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

According to Herris shows it as a quadruplane, so I've reverted it.TSRL (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This revert is a mistake, because Herris says that the D.I is a quadruplane and the D.II is a biplane; he bases these observations on info by the late Peter Grosz.Convariety (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ooops, you are right. Sorry. So we have a name dispute in published material, 2 articles saying the quadruplane was the D.II and 1 the D.I. What does Herries call the 1918 trials aircraft? Seems to me the best way forward might be for me to move the original piece to Naglo Quadruplane - this is what Green & Swansborough call it. Then you could start a new page, perhaps calling it the Naglo Biplane to avoid possible name clashes with a preserved copy. I'll add a few comments on the name confusion in the Quad page. What do you think?TSRL (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)