Talk:Victory Bomber

Geodetic Construction?
"The bomber design was based naturally on geodetic construction in which Wallis was an expert having used it for several aircraft including the Vickers Wellington."... huh?!??

I can't figure out how this relates to aircraft design. Am I just dense? Pjbflynn 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's just confusingly worded. The Wellington used geodetic construction for the fuselage (and wings from the look of it). Here's the first relevant image that Google found: http://www.bomber-command.info/blwimpy6.htm Mark Grant 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've re-worded that section, hopefully it's less confusing now. Mark Grant 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just realized that geodesic had been misspelled as geodetic. Pjbflynn (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Long or short tons?
The conversions "50 ton (45 tonne)", "75 ton (68 tonne) and 100 ton (90 tonne)" only work when "ton" is a short ton. I thought the typical (so to say) non-metric ton in the UK was the long ton. Shouldn't it be "50 lt","75 lt and 75 lt"?ospalh (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, one of the two sources is an American book. So who knows what kind of tons that are. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a difference. I think it should be at least spelled out what ton was used.ospalh (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The 'tons' used in the original specification would have been the long ton - all tons used in the UK until metrication were long tons (2,240lb). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)