Talk:No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2016.

88 formation[edit]

Ian, I'm not sure that the 88 formation is particularly notable. I flew in several balbos at PCE - 27 vampires was the largest (photos held) - and I'm sure there were others.Lexysexy (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, personally I wouldn't argue with your first-hand knowledge, it's just that it seemed to be considered notable enough for mention by an RS, i.e. RAAF Museum. The article won't live or die without it, but be nice to replace it with another properly sourced tidbit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Just FTR, as I'm adding further detail to this article I think I will forego this tidbit now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Ian, further nitpicking: In the sentence under the Vampire trainer photo: " Previously the cadets had used FTS aircraft under RAAF College instructors, but........", I would like a comma after "previously". Up to you.Lexysexy (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough -- done. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    prose: (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

1. basic instruction taking. Suggest - with basic instruction taking

Done.

2. who served until 1929. Suggest - who commanded the unit until 1929.

Already two variations on "command" in the sentence, made it "led".

3. became the nucleus. Suggest - formed the nucleus.

Done.

4. varying. Suggest - varied.

Done.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice work Ian. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of the Westland Wapiti for cadet training[edit]

The article contains a photograph of a Westland Wapiti. The caption states A cadet prepares for a solo training flight in a Westland Wapiti at No. 1 FTS, Point Cook, 1938. The photograph shows one cockpit for a pilot and a second cockpit for a gunner. The article on the Westland Wapiti states it was a general purpose military biplane.

It seems highly unlikely the No. 1 FTS RAAF would have used the general-purpose Wapiti for pre-solo flying training, and post-solo flying. I suggest the caption is a fiction. It may even be incorrect to link the Wapiti with the No. 1 FTS RAAF. Dolphin (t) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see if you go through the article, 1FTS's employment of the Wapiti as a training aircraft is cited to a couple of sources. The Wap was well obsolete as a combat aircraft by 1938, in fact it had been largely relegated to a training role in the RAAF since the mid-thirties, following delivery of the Hawker Demon. As to that particular photo, well I think my father knew the plane he was soloing in... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I'm happy to put it down to the Australian defence forces being relatively poorly equipped in 1938 and therefore driven to make use of whatever they had, even if it wasn't ideal. Dolphin (t) 10:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)