Talk:Victory Bomber

Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Geodetic Construction?[edit]

"The bomber design was based naturally on geodetic construction in which Wallis was an expert having used it for several aircraft including the Vickers Wellington."... huh?!??

I can't figure out how this relates to aircraft design. Am I just dense? Pjbflynn 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just confusingly worded. The Wellington used geodetic construction for the fuselage (and wings from the look of it). Here's the first relevant image that Google found: http://www.bomber-command.info/blwimpy6.htm Mark Grant 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've re-worded that section, hopefully it's less confusing now. Mark Grant 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that geodesic had been misspelled as geodetic. Pjbflynn (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long or short tons?[edit]

The conversions "50 ton (45 tonne)", "75 ton (68 tonne) and 100 ton (90 tonne)" only work when "ton" is a short ton. I thought the typical (so to say) non-metric ton in the UK was the long ton. Shouldn't it be "50 long tons (51 t)","75 LT (76 t) and 75 LT (76 t)"?ospalh (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, one of the two sources is an American book. So who knows what kind of tons that are. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a difference. I think it should be at least spelled out what ton was used.ospalh (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'tons' used in the original specification would have been the long ton - all tons used in the UK until metrication were long tons (2,240lb). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]