![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Abso@#$%^&*inglutely. Winstonwolfe 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]