Talk:Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8

Sturdy?

The poor old Royal Aircraft Factory designs have copped an awful lot of flack based at least as much in "anti-socialist" ideology than factuality - but I have honestly never seen the R.E.8 described as unusually strong - its wing structure actually had inherent weaknesses - those long upper wing extensions would break if you weren't careful. Are you mixing this one up with the F.K.8? It was often (favourably) contrasted with the R.E.8 in this regard. If you are more or less quoting a direct source then you might want to reinstate this, with the source - but it would need to be a very good one, as it is going against most accounts. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cite for part of the delted text (the bit about the up-swept fuselage. While any statement that the FE8 was unusually strong does of course need to be well backed up with cites - the opposite also applies - certainly the J M Bruce "Flight" article, while it stresses its poor performance, and until modified, dangerous handling, does not say that it was particularly weak, although the wing exensions looked weak-it doesn't say that they were weak -"After the second modification, the R.E.8 became quite safe and manageable". Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheesman mentions the weakness of the wing (and the almost identical wing of the B.E.2e) but uses the words "said to be" - so I have altered the text slightly to conform with this. I have seen a photograph of an R.E.8 (or was it a B.E.2e?) with the top wing extensions both folded right back just before impacting in a vertical dive - can't locate it off-hand, but if I manage to I might insert this!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Further note! An examination of good drawings of the R.E.8 shows that while the rear longerons sloped up, this was faired to a straight outline by the top decking, so that the fuselage top line was in fact straight! The resulting overall planform of the fuselage is one that tapers towards the tail from the bottom rather than one "sloping up". The perspective illusion of the "sloping" tail, evident in many photographs of the type, is in fact produced by the slight incline of the engine. I have changed the text to indicate this, and moved the relevant sentence to improve the flow of the text.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NOT the F.E.8 article!!

The F.E.8 pusher fighter is an utterly entirely and completely different type from the subject of this article!! Sorry - we all make embarrassing mistakes from time to time of course. I have reverted the changes relating to the F.E.8 anyway. Somehow, a book called "PUSHER aces" is unlikely to be a good source for this article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite - but why??

I was shocked to discover that the author of a commercially published book apparently saw fit to plagiarise this article, pasting in phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs(!). I am sure it was that way round - as the bits he copied have been in the article for years, while the book in question was published in 2011. I have taken advantage of the opportunity to improve the article - most new information and insights coming from Hare (although I am always careful NOT to plagiarise).

I have stuck up my work "as is" although it is NOT quite finished - I have to add some references (again, these will be mainly from Hare) - and I am going to add some new photographs - as with the work I've done recently on the F.K.8 and B.E.2 articles.

Hope everyone approves. --Soundofmusicals ([[User talk:Soundofmusicals|talk]]) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

O.K. - 'tis done! A better artile than it was, I hope, and at least now no longer hinting at Treadwell's British & Allied Aitcraft Manufacturers of the First World War, which plagiarises the old article like mad and is in many other ways the worst researched book I have ever seen. Please, NO ONE should use it as a source for anything!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RAF 4 horsepower?

Did this develop 140 hp or 150? I have seen the 150 hp that all the sources said when I was young (wheeze wheeze) change to a perhaps more realistic 140 hp in most recent books that casually mention the engine. While I have pointed out to someone that what our own article on the engine concerned says does not constitute a reliable source (all else referential incest) it says (presumably on impeccable authority) that the prototype developed 140 but they got 150 out of production engines. Not really sure how relevant all this is, ten horsepower more or less on a 1915 vintage motor that was notorious for running very rough if you opened it out? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Very patchy batch of edits (by me)

Well meaning tinkering and tweaks, not all of which quite "came off", had rendered this article a dreadful ruin of its former self. Rather than just restore an older and better version, and possibly throw out a genuine "baby" (good error correction/actual improvement in style) or two with the bathwater I corrected each over-zealous and over literal following of a punctuation "rule", and each misguided and meaning destroying "redundant word omission" separately, to make my intent clear. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My very first "re-write" (comments please!)

I have not attempted a detailed description of all the changes in this new version. I have worked on it off-line, and in my sandbox, for some time, and without giving a line-by-line analysis, my aim has been:

• To cut "verbosity", unnecessary statements and duplicated information.
• To tidy our referencing. Our two best sources are Bruce and Hare. Bruce is in many respects an excellent source, but Hare is much more recent, and incorporates more recent research. Where Bruce and Hare present widely differing viewpoints, or frankly contradict each other on points of fact, I have taken the liberty of following Hare rather than Bruce. I have also modified/cut some references that seem to have got "displaced".
• To re-arrange the article to be a little more coherent and sequential. I have tried (I hope successfully) to restructure the article to make it less disjointed.
• To correct plain errors.

This is my first effort at this kind of thing - I really would like comments, but please make them specific, and in a form I can answer directly. Above all HERE (or, perhaps, on my talk page. WWIReferences (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)