Talk:Westland Wyvern

Untitled
Regarding the top-speed: Is that actually true? It seems to be incredibly low for such a high-powered aircraft. Even the much older F6F-3/5 Hellcat seems to have performed better, according to the data given in the article.--Snark7 (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By the time the Wyvern entered service the 'Fighter' role for it had disappeared and it was basically used in the same roles as the US Douglas Skyraider, and it was for it's ability to carry and deliver heavy loads of ordnance that it was used. This also happened with the earlier Blackburn Firebrand which started out as a carrier fighter but ended up as a mainly ground attack aircraft in a similar role as the RAF's Hawker Typhoon. Both the Wyvern and the Firebrand were classed as 'Torpedo-Fighter's (TF) in that they could carry a torpedo and maintain a fighters maneuverability whilst carrying it. The Firebrand was fully aerobatic with a torpedo which not many earlier torpedo bombers were. In other words, by the time they entered service, maximum speed was of lesser importance than carrying capacity. At around this time jets had started to become useful in terms of range and endurance (which in the Royal Navy's opinion they hadn't by the time of the Korean war, hence their use of piston-engined aircraft during that conflict) and so the jets then took over in the fighter role.


 * Firebrand aerobatic? try telling that to the pilots that flew it!! As for the maximum speed the Wyvern was operating at weights twice that of the Hellcat with only half as much more power.Petebutt (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There you go then Sunshine, a 1945 picture in Flight of a Firebrand inverted with a torpedo:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this Flight photo item many of us have been pronouncing 'Wyvern' wrongly all these years - according to Flight it's 'Wivvern' not 'Why-vern';

CE
Bzuk, I altered the citations because they had red template warnings all over them.Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've put them back. Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You may need to explain I cant see any template warnings after Bzuk's reverted your changes. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have a page like this User:Keith-264/common.js you can load importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); and it shows harv errors in big red notes. If you don't know about it, it can seem like someone has strode in and unilaterally altered things which don't need altering....Keith-264 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I dont have a page like yours I see the page as most of the other users will see it, without a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a way of notifying errors that need to be remedied.Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Blackbushe 1973 is cited but has no reference. It did after I remedied the error but now it fails B1.Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think the issue may be the use of harvnb templates for some (but not all) of the short form citations - without a target, these won't give the desired functionality, which is presumably why the script gives errors. Whether this is really something that needs fixing is debatable - it could equally be fixed by removing the harvnb templates. Referencing on the article is fairly simple, so there isn't a huge driver for harvnb or its cousin efn.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably, I don't know how to use them (I tried to work it out for occasions like this) so I put sfns in to get the red off. I didn't know that efn was harvnb either, I thought it was a sfn template....Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)