Talk:Armstrong Whitworth Siskin

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Status of Major Green?

In the previous version of this page, the designer of the aircraft was listed as Major F. M. Green, formally Chief Engineer of the Royal Aircraft Factory. I have changed this to formerly of the RAF; this seems more likely. Am I misunderstanding the situation? If somebody has firm data on Major Green's status when he designed the aircraft, feel free to revert my change. Thanks. Raymondwinn (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google found [1] which says The Armstrong Siddeley company began aero engine development and production when the Royal Aircraft Factory ceased building production engines from February 1917. In January of that year major F M Green left the Royal Aircraft Factory to join Siddeley-Deasey Motor Car Company as chief aeronautical engineer - so you are right he was formerly of the Royal Aircraft Factory. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operational history - Canada - The Siskins aerobatic team

I removed the info about the Siskins' aircraft being tied together with ribbons since this info wasn't properly referenced (it was not in the book cited). This is certainly a myth, similar to the one about the Siskins' being tied together with rope. Dempsey's book does mention this myth on page 38. The last paragraph mentions that it is popular legend that the Siskins flew...airshows with their three aircraft tied together. In fact, it only happened once, in practice, on November 18th, 1932 when the aircraft were fastened together with light string. BC _{talk to me} 05:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that this info was improperly referenced - on the other hand it is a fact that exhibition formation aerobatics in this era often used the "tied together" demonstration of absolutely perfect station keeping, from takeoff to landing. Possible for the last time in light fighters like the Siskin and the Gamecock, and with talented and highly practised pilots. Certainly not a "myth" in the sense it never happened - although light rope DOES sound much more likely than tape! A shame that the one instance that it DID happen in Canada (togethr with the several times it was done in England!) couldn't get some kind of mention here however. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF cerainly did tied together aerobatics with Siskins - Tapper's Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913 discusses No 43 Squadron's displayes, which featured flights of three aircraft tied together with cords (covered in bunting) attached to the Interplane struts, with the squadron carrying out a series of manoeuvres, including loops, only breaking the cords at the end of the display when each flight broke formation. There is even a photo.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant the this particular aerobatic team didn't fly like this in public (i.e. a myth for that team). Apparently the Siskins' team had started practising with the string with the intent of including it in the next season's (1933) public shows "under the right conditions". One of the pilot's logbooks (Gobeil's) states: "Formation with aircraft fastened together with light string. OK". Their wings, however, were pretty much clipped at the end of the '32 season and they never did pursue the "stunt". BC _{talk to me} 23:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engine Cowling

The article says that the Dragonfly engine on this aeroplane was mounted in an aerodynamic housing. All the photographs are of aeroplanes without engine cowlings, I imagine because they are Jaguar engines rather than Dragonflys (or should that be Dragonflies?). The NACA cowling was a very important American development dating from 1927; the abandonment of this apparently very similar idea for a British aeroplane of 1919 surely merits expansion or explication from someone much better informed than am I. Moletrouser (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Aerodynamic housing" is a bit of an exaggeration - certainly nothing whatever like a NACA cowling! I have seen a picture of a Dragonfly-powered Siskin - might try to track it down and upload it (assuming it's PD).--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]