Talk:De Havilland DH.60 Moth

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

reversion

The DH-60 is a specific model, not a family, of aircraft. E.g. The tiger is a DH-82. This info is on the already existing pages re de H. Moths. There are several other moths including single wing and enclosed, about which there are no pages at WP. I am paving the way for that. Disambig is needed. Reverting. Paul Beardsell 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DH.60 is a specific model, not a family, of aircraft. Isn't that exactly why this should be an article about that specific model? There were aircraft which were not Gipsy Moths, Tiger Moths, Hornet Moths, Fox Moths, Giant Moths, Hawk Moths, Puss Moths, Swallow Moths, or Leopard Moths, but just Moths.

By all means it should be mentioned that deH also used "X Moth" for a lot of different models, and a list may be provided. But we still need an article on the "Moth", the DH.60. If you don't think information on that aircraft should be here, where should it be? FiggyBee 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De H referred to the DH60 as the "Moth" only until there were other Moths. Then they too had a disambiguation problem, and the plane once which could be called "Moth", unambiguously, was henceforth always referred to as the DH60 or, usually, as the Gipsy Moth - and I know technically it depends upon the engine fitted. When readers of WP think of De H Moth they will usually (almost always) be thinking of the Tiger Moth. That's the one they've seen or flown in, most probably. When a reader finds her/himself at the DH60 page without any indication that the page they really want is elsewhere, that isn't good for the encyclopedia, or the readers. Paul Beardsell 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there is a fairly good indication that the article they want is elsewhere, and I've specifically mentioned the Gypsy and Tiger in the lead (which surely gives the reader a better idea of where they should be looking than just having a list of all the moths, if indeed they are looking for the Gypsy or the Tiger). I just think that one or two lines about the original "Moth" are helpful. Particularly since this article is linked to by a number of articles where the aircraft meant is the DH.60. FiggyBee 11:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best then is to revisit those articles and to correct the links. Although that is an admonishment to me, not to you, as I am the one who changed this from a redirect to the Gipsy to a disambiguation page and, thus, that's supposed to me my job. I bet also, though, that we've fixed the odd page which meant Tiger Moth or Moths in general, and were linked to the DH60 page in error. Paul Beardsell 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the prime example of a page where no other article will do is 1925 in aviation. ;) FiggyBee 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de Havilland Gipsy Moth

I have been expanding this article and working on format and references. A user on the talk page proposed to rename the article de Havilland DH.60 Moth which I think is very sensible as then all the variants of the DH.60 (Moth, Gipsy Moth, Cirrus Moth, Hermes Moth, Genet Moth, Metal Moth etc) can be included but I see that this article name has been used for a single variant. There has been similar discussion on that article talk page. A discussion on this can be viewed at [1] where it has been been recommended that the content of de Havilland Gipsy Moth and de Havilland DH.60 Moth be preserved and merged in to the latter article. With many variants it is clear that the DH.60 is a series of the same basic type that can be covered in one article. I have been asked as a courtesy to inform involved editors in case there are strong objections. Many thanks.Nimbus227 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I agree with the merge of de Havilland Gipsy Moth into de Havilland DH.60 Moth. See if you can't work in a repetition of or a link to the list at de Havilland Moth too. FiggyBee (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done both as you suggest. Still some work to do here and it could be quite a good article. Editing this has certainly improved my own understanding of the Moth range and their names. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-AAMT

A DH.60 (?) with the above registration appeared in the film "Out of Africa". Is this a "survivor" or was a different aircraft with this registration used in the film? --TraceyR (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually an American built DH60M G-AAMY painted for the film. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy/Gipsy?

Just had a little tidy up, some unreferenced material has been added but it sounds good to me, perhaps the editor who added it could add their reference source as well? I see Gipsy spelt 'Gypsy' very often still, the way to remember it folks is that it has an 'I' like in 'Tiger' (Moth), so it's Gipsy Moth, Gipsy Major etc. Quite a nice article now. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DH.60 vs. DH 60

The article's name uses DH.60 while article's text uses both version. Which one is correct? cherkash (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They probably both are, you sometimes see D.H.60 as well, but I have made them all the same as the article title. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on De Havilland DH.60 Moth. 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) 11:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steel or Wood frame?

The article says "biplane of wooden construction", but pictures I've seen have a steel frame. Was it always a steel frame with wood/steel fabric? Or did it change from wood frame to steel frame at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.131.196 (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct,the fuselage is described as a 'plywood box' by Alan Bransom (first listed source). The wing construction was later shared with the Tiger Moth, wooden spars and ribs with wire bracing and steel root fittings/aileron hinges (as shown in the image). The Tiger Moth fuselage was a square steel tube lower section with a plywood 'turtle deck' (upper forward and rear fuselage). There was a wooden fuselage version of the Tiger Moth known as the Queen Bee, designed to be produced quickly and cheaply as it was to be controlled remotely and used as a drone for gunnery practise. What you may have seen is a Tiger Moth fuselage, this image of Australian Tiger Moth construction shows the structure quite well.. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No that answer is incorrect.- the DH60 was built in two basic forms, the original Moth had an all wooden fuselage but the later DH60M (M for metal) and the DH60T both had metal tube fuselages, the DH60T when modified to have staggered wings became the DH82 Tigermoth.

The DH60 Moth (Cirrus I), DH60 Cirrus Moth (Cirrus II), DH60X, DH60G Gipsy Moth and the DH60GIII Moth Major all had wooden fuselage, the Queen Bee drone had Tigermoth staggered wings but a wooden fuselage based on the DH60GIII.

Of the over 1000 DH60 Moths built, approximately 1/2 had wooden fuselages and the other 1/2 had metal steel tube fuselages.

See "de Havilland DH.60 Moth - The Worlds Most successful Light Aeroplane" Stuart McKay ISBN 1 857802128 Mark r pilkington (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]