Talk:Victory Bomber

Latest comment: 12 years ago by 80.4.57.101 in topic Long or short tons?

Geodetic Construction? edit

"The bomber design was based naturally on geodetic construction in which Wallis was an expert having used it for several aircraft including the Vickers Wellington."... huh?!??

I can't figure out how this relates to aircraft design. Am I just dense? Pjbflynn 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's just confusingly worded. The Wellington used geodetic construction for the fuselage (and wings from the look of it). Here's the first relevant image that Google found: http://www.bomber-command.info/blwimpy6.htm Mark Grant 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've re-worded that section, hopefully it's less confusing now. Mark Grant 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just realized that geodesic had been misspelled as geodetic. Pjbflynn (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Long or short tons? edit

The conversions "50 ton (45 tonne)", "75 ton (68 tonne) and 100 ton (90 tonne)" only work when "ton" is a short ton. I thought the typical (so to say) non-metric ton in the UK was the long ton. Shouldn't it be "50 long tons (51 t)","75 LT (76 t) and 75 LT (76 t)"?ospalh (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Come to think of it, one of the two sources is an American book. So who knows what kind of tons that are. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a difference. I think it should be at least spelled out what ton was used.ospalh (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
The 'tons' used in the original specification would have been the long ton - all tons used in the UK until metrication were long tons (2,240lb). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply