Talk:Burnelli RB-1

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Engines

According to http://www.aerofiles.com/_burnelli.html, the RB-1 used Liberty engines and the bigger RB-2 Galloways. AeroFiles is generally held to be a relaible, citeable source. TSRL (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the German page as a guide. From what I can tell though, it might have been the other way around judging by [1] this Google Books result. However, this source: [2] and this source seem to support what you're saying. (You can tell I use Google Books for a lot of my referencing). I'm not quite sure which source to follow. Bramble claw x 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm! It's interesting/ aggrievating when decent sources disagree. There's general agreement amongst WPAVIATION editors the AeroFiles is well researched by reliable folk; but you'd expect AAHS to be likewise. I'd like to see more of those Google book articles (ie the whole text), just in case they something else off camera, but the AAHS bit seems clear enough. I can't find back numbers in either back numbers or in our county libraries, and the paper copies of vol 42 seem to have sold out (wonder why!). One way forward in such a case is to go for contemporary reliable sources. So I tried Flight and found http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1921/1921%20-%200505.html, dating from 28 July 1921, well before the RB-2. It looks very useful as a source for details and specs (could you add a ref for your data source?) and it says Liberties. Given the date there should be no RB-1/RB-2 confusion. Incidentally, there is another useful Flight article later at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1929/1929%20-%200455.html, on the CB-16 with lots of detail. TSRL (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got my data from the German article, because I couldn't find the data elsewhere. If you've found a source, feel free to add it. Bramble claw x 14:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that and boosted the narrative with some of Flight's material. That article is too early to say what happened to the RB-1. AeroFiles has it crashing rather than storm damaged. May be harder to get inline refs on that.TSRL (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm damage came from the AAHS as well. Bramble claw x 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their only named source is the March 1980 Aeroplane Monthly one: I'll see if there are copies about.TSRL (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there was a series of articles, starting in March and running through to July, perhaps skipping one month. Another, shorter piece in October.TSRL (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose this merger because the aircraft are so closely related. Being almost indistinguisbhable visually, with only slightly different dimensions.--Petebutt (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the shortage of info on the RB-2, this makes sense, especially as aerofiles seems to have dropped out of favour as a reliable source.TSRL (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a huge issue with a merger but I created an article on the RB-2 as it appears to be more significant than the RB-1, perhaps merge RB-1 to RB-2? MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way sounds good, just a bit silly to have two mediocre articles instead of one better one.--128.204.255.223 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)--Petebutt (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of propeller-rotation

It would be interesting to get to know: Were they rotationg opposite or not? 46.114.4.55 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]