| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Albatros D.I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture edit
That picture was not an Albatros D.I. It was a license-built Albatros D.III. 167.10.240.94 03:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thr current picture certainly IS a D.I
Wickelrumpf edit
Simply, since the structure of the Albatros fighters did not use this technique, there is no need to go into great detail about it in an encyclopedia article about them (or any one of them), or even to mention it for that matter. Wooden monocoque fuselages of various types (based on existing boat building technology) were employed (or at least tried out) by several different manufacturers at about this time, generally being rejected on the grounds of expense, not to mention a very marginal aerodynamic benefit at the airspeeds then attainable. But none of this is especially relevant to this article. An enthusiasm to tell (and re-tell) the whole story at every point really has to be tempered by a concern for clarity and relevance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)