Talk:Airco DH.4

Untitled

Graeme - we seem to be editing this one in tandem - "D.H." is generally (including most other contexts on wikipedia) the usual abreviation for "de Havilland" but that's not a detail I would fight over. The picture situation (the old article lacked a good clear photo of the standard type) is improved, I hope. DO we need to talk???

Soundofmusicals 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this be classified as a British Bomber aircraft1910-1919 rather than a British fighter aircraft 1910-1919? Nigel Ish 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Abso@#$%^&*inglutely. Winstonwolfe 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cockpit Layout

Regarding the design of the cockpit layout, clearly there were problems regarding communication between pilot and observer because of the distance between the two. I'm just wondering if the point in the article about the positioning of the fuel tank could be verified/cited. In Munson, Kenneth "Aircraft of World War I". Ian Allan 1967. ISBN 0-7110-0356-4, page 16, the chosen cockpit layout is attributed to the need to "...give the pilot the best possible view downward past the bottom wing for aiming the 460lb, of bombs...". Maybe the communication problem was caused by a mix of the two reasons for this particular configuration? I propose to weave something in about this into the article unless anyone has any comments/objections.Scoop100 08:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with Wikipedia article 'Standard Aircraft Corporation'

Under 'Production' is stated "In the United States, the Boeing Airplane Corporation, Dayton-Wright Airplane Company, the Fisher Body Corporation, and the Standard Aircraft Corporation produced the DH-4 . . . " The article 'Standard Aircraft Corporation' does not mention the DH-4. According to Roberts, John, "Mitsui: Three Centuries of Japanese Business" (Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1973), Standard company preferred stock belonged in total to Mitsui, and the company was sued by the USG after the war to recover $2.5 million in overpayments. This would suggest that Standard's production of the DH-4 was significant, was properly mentioned in this article, and should be mentioned in the Standard Aircraft Corporation article.PhuDoi1 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad reputation

The DH-4 was nicknamed "The Flaming Coffin" because of the location of its fuel tank between the two cockpits.

Further, production was delayed by corruption plus grossly incompetent decision-making.

All this was exposed during Congressional hearings after the war. See, amongst others, www.snaples.com/lsnaples/dissertation/chapter_iv.htm

It would seem appropriate that such information be included in the article. I'm no expert in aviation, so I must leave this addition to others.

PhuDoi1 (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The ancient question of the placement of the fuel tank already gets a mention - we'd need a source for any idea that more DH-4s burned than other types with more conventional placement of the fuel tank - bearing in mind that the usual position at the time was right behind the engine, making the explosion of the tank in a bad crash almost inevitable! In the D.H.9/9a the fuel tank position WAS changed (but for other reasons, mainly to put the pilot and gunner closer together, so they could communicate better). "Corruption and poor decision making" seem to have affected the American versions of the Bristol F2b much worse than the DH-4 - in either case I doubt the relevance to articles on British types, although a very brief (well cited!!) mention may be in order. There was certainly a lot of politics and commercial conflict of interest over the response of American industry to the declaration of war in 1917, this was one factor behind the Americans taking so long to get involved in any meaningful way (not until mid/late 1918, in fact) - does this need its own article? If not there are probably more appropriate places for it to be brought up than here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Numbers produced and reaching AEF

Thomas Shipley, History of the AEF, states that 1213 DH.4s reached France. Obvious conflict with Jackson. 217.144.100.18 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since a lot of them "arrived" just before the end - and none were returned home (they were all disposed of by burning after the war - many must have still been in their original packing cases) this figure may be a bit problematic. Jackson is generally an excellent source - unless Shipley specifically cites modern re-evaluation probably not worth changing? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Flaming Coffin"

The question of the DH.4's fuel tank is already fully covered - and, what's more, referenced to reliable sources. For the record it was no more likely to catch fire where it was than anywhere else it may have been put (this is supported not only by common sense, but by statistics). The snag of the placement rested entirely with the fact that it prevented communication between the crew members. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a remark

The Specifications state "DH.4 - Eagle VIII engine" while the Powerplant Line goes "Rolls-Royce Eagle VII inline liquid cooled piston, 375 hp". Which one is it? A "VII" or "VIII"? Further more, reading the wikipedia Rolls-Royce Eagle page, none of them had 375hp. HF Netweezurd (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)