Template:Did you know nominations/Fairchild BQ-3, Fleetwings BQ-2, Fleetwings BQ-1

Fairchild BQ-3, Fleetwings BQ-2, Fleetwings BQ-1

 * ... that the Fleetwings BQ-1, Fleetwings BQ-2 (pictured) and Fairchild BQ-3 were all planned for use by the United States Army Air Forces as remote-controlled flying bombs?
 * Reviewed: Cookie Belcher, Khong kangjei, Tim Winn

Created by The Bushranger (talk). Self nom at 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Date, length and referencing check out (AGF on offline sources), image is properly licensed, QPQ checks out, no apparent copyvio. I would pass the hook, except for two concerns. One is the accuracy of describing them as unmanned combat air vehicles in the lede, since they were more of a flying bomb/early cruise missile like the V1 flying bomb. Second, while the articles are adequate on the aerial platform, they lack any mention the other half of any remotely controlled weapon, i.e. the guidance system. Constantine  ✍  08:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the BQ-1 and BQ-2 articles to reflect their being more like missiles than modern UCAVs; some sources hint that the BQ-3 was intended to drop its bombs and return, so I've left the phrasing (it was more similar to the Interstate TDR in concept, it appears). As for guidance, they actually all do mention guidance - the Fleetwings types had TV-command guidance, which is mentioned in the "flight testing" section ("Following trials of the television-based command guidance system", same for both), while the BQ-3's guidance is mentioned in the second paragraph of the "design and development" section ("the aircraft was intended to be operated by radio control with television assist"). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, I simply thought there'd be more info on the guidance systems. I guess that as they remained in the prototype stage, there isn't that much to go on. Anyhow, the articles are Symbol confirmed.svg good to go. Nice work! Constantine  ✍  08:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, these are some of the more obscure types that most people never hear about - which makes them all the more fascinating. Thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)