Talk:Hanriot HD.3

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.

Military history: Aviation / European / French / World War I

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	World War I task force

Variants

The HD.5 and HD.6 were very different designs from the HD.3 and don't seem to qualify as variants. The both have their own articles now and I was tempted to remove them from here, but I decided to wait for checks on the text of Bruce Fighters vol5. Anyone got it?TSRL (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the HD.5 and HD.6 can be removed from the article as they are unrelated aircraft (although the HD.6 does bear a superficial resemblence owing to the Salmson engines. I have Bruce - what do you want to check?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good; I'll remove them. I just wanted to be sure that Bruce did not assert they were closely related (to variant status), as he was the source cited by the anon IP who added them. I also wondered about the HD.9; I've got no info on that, apart from seeing a pic somewhere (aviafrance?) and thinking that it was a bit more HD.3 like, with stagger and a single bay. Does it qualify as a variant? BTW, I'll try to stop typing 7.7 in! Thanks for spotting.TSRL (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce says that "the airframe of the HD.9.Ap.1 was basically that of the HD.3.C.2" - they have the same wingspan, wing area and length - and the same engine. It definitely counts as a variant of the HD.3.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]