Jump to content

Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An assessment

[edit]

In response to a request for assessment on the WP:AVIATION project assessment page, I submit the following, in addition to my edits to the project banner checklist, as a courtesy peer review. --Born2flie (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Futher information template used at the beginning should be incorporated into the See also section.
    • The introduction is stretched by creating lists (roles and locations) attempting to show a widespread use. Ultimately it looks like one paragraph split and stuffed with minutiae to look like two. An article that is 92kb long could realistically have an introduction that is 3 paragraphs long and truly summarize the article.
    • The intro contains phrases like, "such diverse roles," and, "carried out its various roles," where the first can simply be done away with and the second can be replaced by one word, "operated."
    • There is a stray number (135) and comma at the beginning of the last sentence of the first paragraph that does not seem to fit with the sentence.
    • Multiple single sentence paragraphs in the article. Some are just run-on sentences.
    • It is questionable whether some subheadings need to be used for a single paragraph. This seems more likely used to create the TOC as an index, artificially lengthening the TOC.
    • There is a link to the article on variants that isn't clear that that is what the link is to: Spitfire Is, IIs, Vas, and Vbs, the same article is linked in reference to a term, "Cottonised".
    • Other articles are linked to more than once.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The note for "Spitfire complex" appears to substantiate the text, only to further the question as to whether or not the statement is fact.
    • The Further reading listings for this article are included within the citations, so they are not further reading and are part of the bibliography. Further reading listings are applicable materials not used for creating the article that provide more information on the subject.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Article seems to peter out when it comes to covering the post-war history.
    • You seem to stumble onto the engine development throughout the history.
    • One country's section lists quantities of variants employed while others do not.
    • There doesn't seem to be consistency about how information is presented. It starts out as if by timeline, but then tries to go into roles. Within the sections on roles, it attempts to contain the timeline as pertains to that role. Certain parts aren't even clear where in the timeline they fall; the night fighter section quotes day and month but there is no year within the section at all.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    It is possible there is a subtle bias, but I am not going to spend enough time here to substantiate whether that is true or not.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    per the history and the request for assessment.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Pictures seem to be randomly placed. There are quite a few sections with no pictures.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    These are some of the items I've found using this checklist. I do not think it is ready to progress beyond the C-Class that the WPAVIATION banner automatically assigns to it, based on the B-Class checklist. --Born2flie (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very fair, thoughtful and useful review. The TOC is on the long side. I have removed the hatnotes as they are covered by the 'Spitfire articles' navbox at the bottom and also added the aviation infobox (which also allows for a bigger photo). Maybe a little too much technical info on the German counterparts that could be thinned out. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

User:Kurfurst - see and desist.

Today you removed this information, despite it having two secondary sources. You also lied on the edit summary citing removal because they were "primary sources" - STOP IT. Dapi89 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done again. Needs to be reported. Dapi89 (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems someone has added some Primary sources which have been discussed to be unreliable..."

[edit]

In this Kurfurst is completely wrong; the scources used are primary scource documents which can be verified. As discussed with an administrator:

Finally, the plethora of primary source documents that he provides on his sites are, of course, usable, as long as no conclusions are drawn from them. For example, there could be no reasonable objection to an edit like this, nor to citing that document to back up a statement like (for example):

"Woods reported that he was near the town of Furstenwalde when he sighted the first four Fw 190s.1" (relates directly to the author's own experience, no interpretation or evaluation of the claim)
Notes
1 Woods 1945, p.1
References
  • Woods, Sidney S. (22 March 1945), Pilot's Combat Report, retrieved 2009-02-19

On the other hand, these are all abuse of a primary source:

"B-17s of the 3rd division were marked with a red tail and red diagonal stripes on the wings.1" (probably true, but this kind of fact should come from a secondary source where it has been fact-checked)
"Fw 190s operating in the fighter-bomber role would jettison their bombs before engaging in air-to-air combat.1" (certainly true, but a gross generalisation from a single piece of evidence)
"The P-51 Mustang could turn as tightly as the Fw 190.2" (wild extrapolation with only a circumstantial relationship to the source at all!)
Notes
1 Woods 1945, p.1
2 Woods 1945, p.2
References

Kurfurst is removing legitimate scources and is being asked to stop now.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misrepresenting that opinion of an administrator you have asked. I have your discussion with him, and as I recall he was very specific about that examples like scans combat reports can be used, but no conclusions can be drawn from them, as that would be OR. Here however you attempt to advance your own position by citing sources from an unreliable, which reliability has not been established, with scans that could be photoshopped and falsified etc. (Nota bene: I am echoing your very own words and concerns here). Perhaps you should link here your discussion with that administrator, so it can be read by everyone. Why only cite a single line from him, out of context?
Furthermore, you seem to have engaged in Original Research Synthesis by your comparison of aircraft speeds, taken from two seperate sources, to reach a conclusion that is not present in either sources. This needs to be removed. Of course you can disagree, but then we can do an RfC in you like from a neutral editor. But it seems to me you are again trying to 'smuggle in' Primary sources into the article, which have been already pointed out by several administrators to you that it is against Wiki policy.
Also I cannot find the Wood and Dempster cite you refer to in you 100 octane article. Could you please cite it to me? I don't recall anything about increased climb etc. stated there. Kurfürst (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please see the complete version of the Administrators comment on Minorhistorian's talk page.

"Unfortunately, even when a self-published site is expansive, authoritative, and meticulously researched, it still doesn't meet the requirements of the reliable sources policy. This was recently demonstrated in the Featured Article Review of the F-4 Phantom article, where references to Joe Baugher's superb site on US military aircraft had to be removed."

So it appears the sources cited (two partial digital pictures) are not from a reliable sources and the practice is that they need to be removed. Also, given that these scans are allegedly come from the National Archieves, which does not allow the reproduction of images without consent, they are protected by copyright and need to be removed for this reason as well. Kurfürst (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

MINORHISTORIAN,

  • Please provide a direct quote from the source that states : The maximum speed of 353 mph (568 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m) for a typical Battle of Britain Spitfire equipped with a constant speed propeller was some 8 mph faster than that of a Bf 109 which, according to the handbook data, had a top speed of 345 mph (555 km/h) at 19,865 ft (6,055 m).[26][27]
  • Please provide a direct from the source that states : The availabilty of 100 Octane fuel during the battle allowed the Merlin engine to operate with a five minute emergency boost of +12 lbs which conferred a substantial increase in the rate of climb, especially at lower altitudes.[23][24][25]
  • Re: the above claim - care to comment on the Administrators comment 'as long as no conclusions are drawn from them' - you do seem to have drawn a conclusion from those primary sources (scans). Please also comment on the fact that the self-published source that hosts these sources is, as per the admininistrators comments on your talk page, 'it still doesn't meet the requirements of the reliable sources policy'.
  • Please show us the show us the permission from National Archieves, Kew, that authorizes the use of these documents on wikipedia via direct linking.

You are an experienced editor, you should be aware that you are operating here against clealry definied and communicated wikipedia policies (sytnhesis, reliable secondary sources, copyright). Kurfürst (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The maximum speed of 353 mph (568 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m) for a typical Battle of Britain Spitfire equipped with a constant speed propeller was some 8 mph faster than that of a Bf 109 which, according to the handbook data, had a top speed of 345 mph (555 km/h) at 19,865 ft (6,055 m).[26][27] Direct scources? What do you think Price 2002 and Cross and Scarborough are? Price stipulates the equipment state of the Spitfire being tested while Cross and Scarborough have quoted performance figures from the Bf 109E handbook - it is quite clear that there was a difference of 8 mph. Do the maths.
Ahhh, I forgot to add Price 1996...rectified. The documents show that 100 Octane fuel was available and being used.
These pages are not direct linked to the National Archives at Kew. Notice the "Archives of M Williams" or "Courtesy of Neil Stirling" ? A complete red herring.
I would have thought Finally, the plethora of primary source documents that he provides on his sites are, of course, usable, as long as no conclusions are drawn from them Is perfectly clear; as long as there are no unreasonable claims being made using the documents cited as a scource they can be used. Simple, straight forward!
The cited discussion with the administrator came about because of comments like this comment on Spitfire Performance and discussion on other forums Discussion on 100 Octane. What is clear is Kurfürst has a large part to play in a rival website http://www.kurfurst.org/; his reasons for removing primary scource documents which come from a rival site must therefore be suspect. I don't mind leaving this matter to a neutral ed/administrator, because I don't have a vested interest in the sites run by Mike Williams - Wikipedia should not be used to carry out a personal feud between Kurfürst and another website owner. Minorhistorian (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1, Thank you for admitting you are engaged in synthesis. Sythesis is forbidden. Read: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. [1] The point is, neither sources claim there was 8 mph difference between the two aircraft. The 345 mph claimed as top speed (at 20k! also wrong) is erroneous anyway (the manual does not state its top speed, it notes that it is level speed, and the power is unspecificed - it quite clearly refers to a 30min cruise speed rating, not maximum speed), the official specifications for the Bf 109E were 570 kph, at 5km. This can be verified from the manual published by Hafner.

ad 2, The documents you have linked are from the National Archieves, Kew, and are protected by copyright. The webpage you have linked them from also shows this in the references, giving the AIR referneces in the NA at the end of the page. All of these images are from the National Archieve, Kew. These images are copyrighted, and cannot be published or used with the consent of the National Archieves. Remove them immidiately. That some digitial brand these documents "Archives of M Williams" or "Courtesy of Neil Stirling" may have some unfortunate legal repercussions to these persons, but in no way generate a copyright for documents that were copied via a digital camera in the archieve, and published without consent of the archieve.

ad 3, You are claiming that 100 octane fuel was available, and it greatly increased climb etc. I note that you could not provide a cite from Wood and Dempster for this, so this I take a false cite. Also of note that this conclusion of yours is refernced to the two primary sources from that webpage. This is obviously a conclusion. These documents would be usable 'as long as no conclusions are drawn from them', yet you do, hence why the admin gave you an example of using such sources they way you do an abuse. You simply want to circumvent wikipedia policies about primary sources - those are pretty clear, aren't they:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. These are copyrighted material linked, and these are unacceptable for several reasons already mentioned. Furthermore, that website was discussed several times, you have yourself agreed that sources from it may not be used for statements in wikipedia, and you yourself removed references from it in the articles you have edited. You now simply want to smuggle back a POV website into the articles, which everyone agreed that is not usable, because it does not satisfy wikipedia requirements.

If you disagree, I take you have no objections for an RfC....? Kurfürst (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the offending sentence forthwith!
Kurfürst has a great deal to do with a rival website which, at the very least makes any judgement he makes on this matter to be suspect. His claims that the material accessed are copyrighted and "published without the consent of the archive" and "must be removed" are unproven. I take it Kurfürst knows exactly what arrangements have been made between the Kew archives and Messrs Williams and Stirling?
Price 1996 states quite categorically that the use of 100 Octane fuel increased climb rate and top speeds at low altitudes. The documents show the use of 100 Octane fuel by Fighter Command. Hardly a misuse of primary documents which are backed by a secondary, published scource. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about Kew being copyrighted is a lie. I am currently engaged in dissertation work and have copied 150 documents so far. Dapi89 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Kew has the following copyright policy : You are not allowed to publish facsimile duplicates of any materials you have obtained through the publication scheme without written permission from The National Archives image library. Please note that you may be required to pay a fee. Any facsimilie ordered from NA, Kew, also has a warning notice on the top of the page for the user about copyright restrictions. So unless you can show us the written permission from Kew to publish these pictures on Wikipedia, without even acknowledging the source, and with the pictures burdened with a copyright fraud being falsely branded as 'Archieves of Mike Williams', I suggest you immidietely remove the copyright violating images, that also violate No Primary Sources: Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

If you do not remove the violating images within 24 hours, the issue will be reported for copyright violation. It also seems you simply seek to circumwent the very clear wikipedia guidelines about primary sources, in order to advance your own POV, by using sources you have been told that are unproper for wikipedia. Kurfürst (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Utter rot! That applies to

[2]Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

  • 1.Copies of Public Records in Crown Copyright
  • Most public records in The National Archives are in Crown Copyright.
  • There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research or private study. Copies, and copies of those copies, may be made and used for education purposes. This covers both teaching and preparation for teaching and/or examination by either teacher or student.

Applications for permission to use copies for publication (including website publication), exhibition or broadcast or any other purpose must be addressed to: The National Archives Image Library The National Archives Kew, Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU

  • 2.Copies of Public Records in privately owned (ie not Crown) Copyright

There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research, private study or education (as defined above) within the limits set in UK Copyright Law. Copies of non-public records and of published Copyright works held in The National Archives These are supplied subject to the customer completing a declaration form and observing the conditions it contains. Any infringement of these conditions may result in legal action. Any use other than for non-commercial research, private study or education, if approved by the copyright owner, may also require the permission of the image library. The National Archives Copyright Officer will provide further information on request.

A blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation by Kurfürst! I repeat he has no idea of the arrangements made between Messers Williams and Stirling and the National Archives. Given Kurfürst's consistent attempts at discrediting a rival website he has no rights to demand anything, particularly from the people he seeks to discredit and/or intimidate. His attempts at using Wikipedia policy as leverage in his attempts to discredit a rival website are equally shameful. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you cool down a bit and assume good faith. If you claim that there is an arrangement made between Messers Williams and Stirling and the National Archives that would allow them to distribute, partially or as a whole, the copyrighted material of the archive collection, especially with the condition that Messers Williams and Stirling should not even credit the National Archives for copyright on their website, then produce evidence of that. But quite clearly what we are dealing here is a copyright violation, as someone went into the the National Archieves, took photos of the collection, branded it with his own name, and uploaded to the internet, and refused to give credit for the proper copyright holder. I have slight doubts that this would satisfy wiki reqs for copyright... In any case, the policies are also quite clear that burden of proof that the use of these images are permissable are on the editor who added them. I suggest you read the relevant wiki policies, they are quite clear about instant delete of such images. Kurfürst (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Opinion:

  • further edit warring here will be looked upon with disfavour
  • comments like blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation are pointlessly provocative. Strive for harmony and WP:CIVIL
  • personally, I would be inclined to think that a reference to the disputed jpeg is permissible, but I'm not a copyright wonk. Don't take my opinion. Somewhere on wiki is an appropriate noticeboard where people who just love to argue the minutiae of permissions exists. Find this, ask their opinion and be bound by it

William M. Connolley (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the use of blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation'. However it should be noted that the editor has shown a consistent pattern of prejudice in this matter starting back in July 2008;

14:23, 13 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Supermarine Spitfire ‎ (Removed claims based on revisionist website; added comments of Supermarine test pilots on Spitfire development)

this is the first time he has raised copyright on archival material as an issue, in spite of his claims that he is very familiar with Kew's copyright rules. For the record I have no "close association" with Messers Williams and Stirling and their websites; Mr Williams has contacted me once with his concerns over provocative comments being made about his websites by Kurfürst in various discussion pages and edit comments. If the information is deemed to be unusable on Wikipedia I have no huge worries about removing the offending material. My main concern is that an editor who has shown a great deal of prejudice on the issue has the right to arbitrate.
BTW I would ask that Kurfurst stop using references which have nothing to do with the statement being made. Price 2002 p. 76 says nothing about fighters "being reduced to scrap by three cannon shells" This is not the first time this editor has used references in a misleading way. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask Minorhistorian to stop accussations of the statement not being made - Price is very clear about the issue on page 76.

'The service life of Spitfire X4110 lasted only 25 minutes. ... During an attack by a Me 109 the Spitfire took cannon shell hits and the fuselage was damaged so severly that the aircraft never flew again' This is a caption for two photographs, which show three sizable holes of the Spit's fuselage. The reference, which have been removed, needs to be restored.

Note that this editor tried to refer his own and his associate 'research' to respected authors like Wood and Dempster, and Morgan and Shacklady, both of make no such statements. Also note that this issue was once discussed in the relevant article, Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, a consensus was reached and the article was ever since stable until Minorhistorian started to add his and his associate's version of the events.

It seems to me that this section serves no other purpose than a POV fork article, where the claims not accepted by other editors in other articles can be 'published'. Its already growing out of proportion, with a lot of undue weight on minor issues like wheater this or that fighter was 2 mph slower of faster, and repeats pretty much the same material as in the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain article. It needs to be radically cut down with a link to the main article. Furthermore, the confrontational behaviour of Minorhistorian needs to end. His apology is rather unconvincing when he continues his confrontational behaviour in the next sentence..

In any case, the edits made by Minorhistorian based on the 'research' by his associate seems to violate half a dozen wiki policies: it is an undoubtfully copyright violation, it is a self published source, the contents are not possible to verify since any of these pictures could be photoshopped, and the reader can only read a couple of pages - 'selected' by M's associate - without knowing what is on the rest; please note that other researchers who had studied these papers confirmed that there is a lot more to the story. It is in any case a primary source and contains questionable original research and conclusions that is contradicted by what is by far the most prestigious source, Morgan and Shacklady's outstanding Spitfire: The History, that is generally referred to as the 'Spitfire Bible' due to the immense research work behind it - suffice to say, this monograph lists the fate of all 20 000 individual Spitfires built. Kurfürst (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurfurst your trying to dodge the bullet again but it ain't working: For once will you be honest and start telling the truth. You have misled people and then have been found to falsifying citations before. You did it recently on the German battleship Tirpitz article. The book you quoted from was found on google books and it was shown that the information you claimed was there was not, namely: her mere presence was a great threat to the Allies, tying up huge naval and air forces to make sure she could be dealt with if she ever made an offensive sortie, and causing a major convoy to scatter and be destroyed piecemeal by other ships, using Garzke&Dullin 1980, p. 248. They said no such thing. You have a history with misrepresenting citations - a big one -STOP it. Dapi89 (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators reviewing the page kindly note that the above editor is systematically stalking my person for about two weeks, and he has been already blocked several times for doing so. I definietely feel that this time, enough is enough, and he needs a long cooldown period to re-consider rules like civility, assume good faith and so on. About his accusations, he simply made them up: an editor requested on a talk page a ref for a sentence in the introduction (not my edit BTW), and I added a ref to the sentence which supported the statement. See: [3] [4] [5]

This editor is quite simply tendentiously confrontational. He needs a long cooldown for he is not learning. [User:Kurfürst|Kurfürst]] (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another lie. Its the other way around. Kurfurst, you are in the process of trying to get the Battle of Belgium deleted (an article I created days ago), and are in the process of trying to ruin the Battle of Hannut article - which I again created. Cease and desist with the lies Kurfurst. Who do you think you are kidding? Dapi89 (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how conveniently Kurfürst forgets that I was the first one to include information on the potential damage caused to a Spitfire by MG/FF hits in the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain article. I'll ignore his nonsense about 'M's associate' if he chooses to be so petty, in spite of my stating the facts about this, then so be it. In the meantime I have more important things to do than waste time replying to his crowing. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think I'll bite my tongue and try to avoid his baiting. Leave him to screech on his own. Dapi89 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting how conveniently Kurfürst forgets that I was the first one to include information on the potential damage caused to a Spitfire by MG/FF hits in the Aircraft of the Battle of Britain article." - interesting that, in contrast to that now you say that Price doesn't say such thing and accuse me of misusing sources... you made your accusation in firm knowledge that it is false; and the incivility, its still the same. Kurfürst (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" ... the maximum speed of 353 mph (568 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m) for a typical Battle of Britain Spitfire equipped with a constant speed propeller was some 8 mph faster than that of a Bf 109 which, according to the handbook data, had a top speed of 345 mph (555 km/h) at 19,865 ft (6,055 m).[26][27]" - a speed advantage of around 5-10 mph is not large enough to be significant as the average service pilot (on either side) would not be able to fly his aircraft accurately enough to achieve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.101 (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for use of copyrighted images for the future

[edit]

An administrator already commented on the use of images, see: [6]

Please note the above for the future. Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, whilst CI's opinion is not definitive and his admin status irrelevant, the point he makes the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website is a good one. The reference is (should be) to the memo in the archives. The photo is merely proof that the reference exists and of what it says. That would in turn appear to imply that removal of the reference in its entirety is wrong: I think it should be replaced with "Air Ministry minutes on supply of 100 Octane fuel, 18 May 1940. and presumably some note as to the current location of those minutes" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

109F in 1940??

[edit]

I know Galland and Molders tested a couple at the end of 1940, but it wasnt until 1941 that the F was in 'service'.

Someone has quoted that the 109F was 'in service' in 1940 Xiolablu3 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The production of the 109F-1 started in July 1940 (some 180 built IIRC). You are right that it certainly saw any widespread service in 1940, but a small number (unfortunately, I can't say how many) of examples were flown by several pilots. It should be "limited service" or something along those lines. Cheers, KF Kurfürst (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy comparisons

[edit]

There has been lots of wrangling of late over whether direct comparisons are useful in aircraft articles (qv: Kawasaki Ki-61, Macchi C.202 etc. The concensus so far is that the use of such data in aircraft articles leads to too much dogfighting over the relative merits of aircraft types. In fairness to other editors and other articles I have reduced or eliminated the comparison peices in this article. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, mine is bigger than yours comparisions are not really needed, particularly in what is the operation history of the type. You cant really compare in detail every type that the Spitfire has fought against. Any such notable conflicts can just be mentioned as one liners in the relevant bits of the operational history if needed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photoreconnaissance?

[edit]

As far as I know such a word does not exist; at least not until it appeared, completely uncited, in Wikictionary. No dictionary that I have seen lists photoreconnaissance as a word. Until proven otherwise photo-reconnaissance is the accepted form and no Wikictionary entry will convince me otherwise. Secondly, the section on late PR Spitfires is becoming a real mess, the citations are of a different (and untidy) format to the now accepted standard for aircraft articles and much of the recent editing has not been discussed. Massive overhaul pending. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English (unlike German) does not allow compounding of words, so you are absolutely correct. The same goes for 'cooperation' which otherwise appears to be something to do with barrel-making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.101 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish photo-recon Spitfires

[edit]

Would someone care to clear up the conflicting statements that have been edited into this section: does the cited source state that the Soviet air defences became too effective, or does it state that the Swedish State Minister ordered the missions to cease? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nordenskiöld had ordered these flights on his own initiative with Erlander unaware of it, for which he was rebuked and the missions stopped. Have to get back on the source for that. BP OMowe (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Supermarine Spitfire operational history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history&oldid=1208368679"