Talk:Triplane
| WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft | (Rated Start-class) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Grammar and style: criterion met
The article says:
- "immortalised as the aircraft most closely identified with Manfred von Richthofen, the 'Red Baron'."
The truth is, von Richthofen more commonly flew the Fokker D.VII, which became so popular it was placed in licence production with Albatros. The Dr.I was championed by him, but never (or rarely) flown operationally by him. Trekphiler 00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tandem triplane
If this nomenclature really is in use, then (a) there should be a referenced source and (b) it should have an article of its own. This one is for aircraft with three pair of main planes, surely? --TraceyR (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] purpose of having three sets of wings not discussed
The purpose of triplanes having three sets of wings is not discussed. How do planes of such small build benefit from having so many sets of wings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.152.3 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Multiplanes - proposed article move
The section on other multiplanes is out of place here. Neither this section nor the remaining article is large enough to stand on its own. I propose moving the whole article to a more general title, say Multiplane (aircraft), and rearranging the content accordingly. Maybe later, when both halves are large enough to stand on their own, the article can be split. Comments? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
