Talk:Pilatus P-2

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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am worried about some of the claims made in the second para. It says that the P.2 u/c and the guns of the armament trainer version came from Bf.109s. Now in 1945 there were a lot of the latter about, but this assertion needs proof. If true, the legs would have needed swapping to get the wider track, which sounds a lot of bother. Likewise the calibre of the guns used was 7.9 mm, as on early Bf.109s, but were they the same model? If so, were they really from Bf.109s, of just from the same maker? Claims of borrowings are common and not always true.

I suggest a revised second para, partly because of the above and partly because the current version spends too much time giving data that is in the specs below. There are some more general points to be made. I've also got a fairly reliable contemporary (1954) source and a recent one to add to the references and flesh out some specs. Of course, specs out of JAWA c.1950 would trump these.TSRL (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: how reliable is this Orbis source? It is often quoted, but how close does it get to primary (manufacturer's) sources? Or does it just repeat the stories that permeate aviation websites?TSRL (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different sources give slightly different numbers, all in the mid 50s, of P-2s built. There are two obvious causes of confusion, the static P-2-02 frame and the change in numbering by the Swiss AF. You'd think Pilatus would know how many they built but one of their pages say 26x production 05s (everyone seems agreed on this} but 25x 06s (one less than Wiki). Their "chronicle" page though says 53 production a/c in all (one more than Wiki). Given that, I went with the rather careful count-up, critically with c/n numbers as well as SAF registrations given at www.samoloty.ow.pl. So 2x26 +3 =55.TSRL (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pilatus P-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208143605/http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/ to http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]