This template 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
Should the list of Type Numbers be restricted to just aircraft that did not have a name. Vickers allocated Type numbers to each variant of a type for example they are at least 56 different type numbers for the Viscount!! MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could get a bit silly, the Wellington has lots as well (I left it for you!). One thing struck me doing this list is that because the type numbers are bolded in the articles they are dead easy to find and makes this kind of job quick. Something that the MoS police don't like us doing, I think we should fight the case. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added the Viking/Viscount/Vanguard/VC10 type numbers to see what it is like. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok, interesting to see Venom and Vampire there, I worked on the VC10 for five years and have the part number prefix of 110087 stuck in my head! Nimbus227 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Bianchi had in 1960 created a one-off Vickers 22 (Bleriot type) Monoplane, using Vickers company drawings intended for the Vickers Flying Club in 1910. The completed prototype was available and 20th Century Fox purchased the replica, though it required a new engine and modifications including replacing the wooden fuselage structure with welded steel tubing as well as incorporating ailerons instead of wing-warping. The Vickers 22 became the final type used by the Italian contestant."
Pictures of the aircraft (minus wings) can be seen here. along with reports from an Australian 2010 expedition which succeeded in locating more parts of the aircraft earlier this year. The aircraft was shipped out to Australia and was to have been flown to the South Pole by Hugh E. Watkins. Unfortunately (or perhaps not!) it was damaged in Australia before the expedition set off, so its wings were removed, after which it was intended for use as an "air tractor"! I'm sure that there's an article to be written about this aircraft - perhaps there's one already, which I haven't found. Any ideas? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Vickers REP monoplanes appear to be the Vickers Monoplanes 1-5, which are already in the template and are covered in Andrews & Morgan. The Australian aircraft was monoplane number 2. Monoplanes 6, 7 and 8 were improved versions powered by Gnome engines. Andrews & Morgan also mentions a Bleriot monoplane purchased from Gustav Hamel and a "Ni 22 Project", an improved Bleriot powered by a 70 hp Gnome, although it is unclear whether it was built (and if so, who by).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have you an idea about what R.E.P. stands for? --TraceyR (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I've seen that R.E.P. stands for "Robert Esnault-Pelterie", who manufactured aero-engines and monoplanes, and that Vickers obtained the exclusive rights to exploit his inventions with efect from January 1911 (Flight, April 1911). Was the Vickers R.E.P. a Vickers monoplane powered by an R.E.P. engine, or an R.E.P. monoplane built under licence from R.E.P.? It would appear to be the latter, judging from the Flight article here. --TraceyR (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flight 29 July 1911 confirms that the "South Pole Monoplane" was "one of the first machines built by Messrs. Vickers ltd. to the designs of Robert Esnault-Pelterie". Q.E.D. --TraceyR (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article here claims that the Mawson expedition's Vicker R.E.P. Monoplane was the first, i.e. No. 1. I gather that Andrews & Morgan state otherwise.--TraceyR (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrews and Morgan states that the first was destroyed in a crash, No. 2 went to Australia - The first one used a French built rear-fuselage, so that may be the reason for the confusion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
