User talk:Wildkatzen

Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2
This is referenced - Hare, Paul R. The Royal Aircraft Factory. London: Putnam, 1990. ISBN 0-85177-843-7, pp.208-209. The reference is at the end of the paragraph. An older reference would be Cheesman, E.F., ed. Fighter Aircraft of the 1914–1918 War. Letchworth, UK: Harleyford, 1960. pp. 44-45. Please stop nuisance editing on this point. It really was an oleo leg! In point of fact, as I hope the article makes clear, there were three forms of the undercarriage - The original oleo one, which had, in addition, a small nose wheel (which did indeed serve, as you noted, to help prevent noseovers rather than take normal landing loads). They were two separate elements - the nose wheel, if it were sprung at all (not sure to be honest) would have used rubber chord, the ubiquitous "bungee" of the day. The second form of the undercarriage was a convention "V" - all springing by rubber chord, the third was a cut-down version of the original, complete with oleo shock absorbers but minus the nose wheel. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Panzershreck
Some reason you don't like my edit? Only the US test specified armor type, the static test penetrated more armor, and the firing test didn't pen the 2.25" backing plate.--MandolinMagi (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Prior to the revert I believed that the information was correctly referred. Yes it did, but not the second 2.25" backing plate. Quote: The whole was smooth, symmetrical and only gently tapered; very good performance. Hole came to end just at rear surface of first 2.25 inch plate. Second 2.25 inch plate only slightly pitted. (6" FHA + 2.25" RHA = 210mm). According to Karl. R. Pawlas, Dokumentation W127, the Panzerschreck was fired against "gewalzter Stahl" rolled homogeneous armour. Wildkatzen (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)