Talk:Sunbeam Crusader
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Petebutt in topic Handley Page Type "O"
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Short 827 edit
Was the Short 827, as the article suggests, particularly more notable than any of the other aircraft applications ? --Red Sunset 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps in terms of numbers built. There were altogether 108 Type 827s built by five different manufacturers (including Sunbeam); of the other aircraft mentioned, only the Sikorsky (approx. 80 aircraft, i.e. 320 engines) comes close and perhaps deserves a mention. The Handley Page "O" , of which some 600 were built, seems to have been powered by the Rolls-Royce Eagle, not the Sunbeam Crusader; perhaps early versions used the Sunbeam - the wiki article is unclear on this point. --TraceyR (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks TraceyR; that explains the reasoning behind the entry which could now be briefly clarified/expanded. Having checked the HP "O" wiki article, I too was in doubt about its inclusion in the list of Crusader users; perhaps the originating editor has some info on this. --Red Sunset 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Handley Page Type "O" edit
I note that the Wolverhampton Museum site refers to two engines having been supplied for this aircraft, but it seems unlikely that only two would have been fitted, since it was a four-engined bomber. A mixed configuration would have been unusual for many reasons. Is there any more evidence for the Crusader having been used on the Type "O"? --TraceyR (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite so TraceyR, it does seem a rather unlikely scenario unless the idea was to test the engines out without putting all of the eggs in one basket so-to-speak. But even if only two examples were used, would it not still be correct to include the Type "O" in the list perhaps with a note to that effect?I have no further evidence to provide. --Red Sunset 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- What am I thinking about; the Type "O" was a twin-engined aircraft!!! DOH! --Red Sunset 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)