# Talk:Lympne Airport

Details a bit sketchy so far. Facts as known - 

Date was 21 October 1926
Aircraft was carrying passengers and mail
Aircraft was a single engine type
It ditched in the Channel
Pilot was named Horsley (which might lead to the discovery of the name of the airline)
Only casualty was a dog.
Above from The Times, 23 October 1926, p12
If anyone can assist in pinning this one down and adding to the Accidents and incidents section please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The accident on the 21 October 1926 was Imperial Airways Handley Page W.10 G-EBMS from Croydon to Paris. Refer http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1926/1926%20-%200799.html No connection with Lympne as far as I can see other than Horsley went to search for the wreckage. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Another accident with sketchy details. Facts as known.

Date 23 December 1935.
It was a Swiss airliner.
Overshot on landing in fog, going through a hedge and receiving substantial damage.
Two crew and three passengers uninjured.
Above from The Times, 24 December 1935, p7
Again, more info needed so that this can be added. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It may have been Fokker F.VIIb/3m CH-190 but not proven, still looking. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the date of 1935, I doubt it was CH-190, as Switzerland was using the HB-xxx registrations by then (introduced 1928). Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion in an Air Britain Archive journal, shame nice picture at File:Ad Astra Aero - Fokker F-VII-B 3-m (CH190).jpg. I will keep looking for it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Another accident found is the fatal crash of Lympne based DH Moth G-AAKR on 18 September 1931 near the Royal Oak Inn near Lympne, owner Nigel Cohen killed. May not be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Found a few light aircraft crashes in the 1920s and 1930s mostly I suspect not really notable but worth a mention at least on this talk page was Moth G-EBSS which crashed at Selby Farm near Lympne (13 October 1928) when the pilot fell out of the aircraft during a roll! MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Another not really notable Moth story, the owner of G-EBWC didnt like having the last two letters "WC" and applied to have it changed, it was re-registered G-EBZN on 9 July 1928 despite two days earlier on 7 July having been destroyed when it collided with a hangar wall at Lympne. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've mostly steered clear of light aircraft/GA accidents, the nearest we have is probably the Monospar crash, which killed a person very closely associated with the airport. A possible candidate for inclusion is a B-17 that managed to land at Lympne sans-port outer following a raid on Germany, but details are sketchy at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I would agree that nearly all light aircraft accidents are not really notable and appear to be a common feature of the airfield in the 1920s and 1930s. A lot of light aircraft appear to have been destroyed in a bombing raid on Lympne in 1940 or 1941 I see if I can find out more. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Already covered in article. Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
They may have been another raid on the 11 June 1941 that destroyed at least three BA Swallows G-ADLD, G-AEVC and G-AEYW MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Another possible accident, from The Times, 29 January 1925, p7 and The Times, 30 January 1925, p8. Imperial Airways DH.34 piloted by Minchin crashed at Lympne during Autumn 1924. Apparently suffered a mishap on take-off from Cologne (damaged u/c??). Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


### B-24
A 67th A/C Impatient Virgin #41-29231 J was forced to crash-land at Lympne at 1630 hours after eight of the crew had bailed out. The pilot and co-pilot then landed with considerable damage to the plane. One enlisted man suffered injuries from parachuting' [1] MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Crash image at http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu234/HHCRYPTIC/IMPATIENTVIRGIN-THE2.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Info at http://www.b24bestweb.com/impatientvirgin-the2.htm MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry better crash image at http://www.b24bestweb.com/impatientvirgin-the3.htm MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a different aircraft to the one I was referring to. Mjroots (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the list of occupants too long for the infobox?  Infoboxes should be pithy and informative.  This one is way too long, especially as some of those squadrons will only have been there for a matter of days.   Wouldn't it be better as a table in the relevant section(s) of the article? 86.143.17.65 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'd rather wait to see what comes up when another editor reviews the article for GA status. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett (talk · contribs) has blanked the list entirely. Not sure that this is a good thing, but am amenable to some criteria being established for inclusion of an entry in the infobox. Will inform him of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The list was, to be blunt, too long and not inclusive - it only listed the RAF units. The code for that section draws on template:infobox military structure and the infobox doc states "Any notable military units which occupy the structure." I would not overload an infobox for a military unit with many battle honours preferring instead to link to the section - well that's what I did for the Royal Norfolk Regiment. I think separating off the entity that was RAF Lympne would benefit the article as a whole. RAF Coltishall handles the occupants issue as a separate section. I note also that that article uses two Infoboxes - a Military Unit one for RAF Station Coltishall and a Infobox Airport to describe the physical airfield. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lympne Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: three found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: four found; 1 repaired and three tagged.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've fixed the links, which were caused by typos. The links are only a convenience, as the actual source is the journal that the link goes to a scan of. The references would have been just as valid without the links to the scanned pages. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Lympne was also involved in the evolvement of air traffic control... "evolvement"?  "evolution" is perhaps what you mean? Done
"evolvement" changed to "evolution". Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
n January 1925, it was notified that red edge lights had been installed along the runways and taxiways at Lympne Clumsy phrasing.
In May, it was notified that the night light was again in operation at Lympne. Again "it was notified"?
In October, it was notified that the ground signals and again.
I see other instances of "it was notified" which is poor grammar.
"It was notified" means that a Notice to Airmen was issued, containing the relevant information. Not sure how else to indicate that a message or instruction was issued in this way. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
When I was training the NOTAM abbreviation was used. Suggest ", a NOTAM was issued" with "NOTAM (notice to airmen)" in the first instance. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
See talk:Penshurst Airfield#NOTAMs, the use of the term "NOTAM" did not start until 1948. Prior to that, the full term should be used. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
See note further down page to prevent clogging this up :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems to have been covered but Chaosdruid's copyediting. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Pleasure flights were given at a cost of 5/- "for a cost of"
 Done amended. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The Lysanders or 16 Squadron and 26 Squadron were used on black violet missions, in support of the remaining British troops following the Battle of France. "black violet" needs explanation.
It was actually "back violet" (my typo), but I may remove the phrase as I can't seem to find anything to explain it. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
On 15 March 1943, 1 Squadron move in, "moved"?
This was followed by the arrival 451 Squadron and 453 Squadron on 6 April, equipped with Spitfires. "arrival of"?
The above three points are now part of the RAF Lympne article. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall the prose is poor, It needs copy-editing and rewriting in a summary style.  Currently it is merely a list of events.
Copy edit done by Chaosdruid. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Much better, but there still a number of isolated one and two sentence paragraphs, which need to be consolidated. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References which I can check support the cited statements. References are RS.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Probably a little too detailed. Summary style is what is needed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
OK
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This article is well researched, but the prose leaves much to be desired.  Currently it reads very badly, just a list of sentences strung together. Please enlist the help of someone to copy-edit and convert to good plain English, avoiding endless repetition of phraseology.  You may need to trim some of the detail, which overall appears rather excessive. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots has asked for an extension as the article is to be split.  I am happy to go up until 19 March, but will close the review then and detrmine the outcome.  The GAN backlog has been massivley eroded during the drive so re-nomination, if necessary, won't be a problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I am happy to list this artcile now in light of the improvements made. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I have just started, but there is so much to read it may take a couple of days or so to finish.

Lead
"of early air mail services." - I have added "... after the 1918 armistice." There was a ref, but as the lead is not using refs I will leave it here for now in case it is needed later on in the body of text.<ref name=RAFNo18sqmail>{{cite web |title=No. 18 Squadron |url=http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/h18.html |publisher=Royal Air Force |accessdate=7 March 2011}}</ref>
Establishment
Renamed some RAF to RFC as the RAF only formed on 1 April 1918, previously they were RFC squadrons.
DH.9s to DH.9 as the "s" may confuse into thinking it was an S variant.
1919-29
"On 30 December a Junkers F.13<!--reported as a Dornier, but the Dornier Komet had a much more powerful engine--> landed at Lympne." - This is a little troubling as it is OR without a ref. Perhaps a full explanation of the problem may be better, if no ref can be found it should be stated as per source? The RAF museum says Komet [4]
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
2nd save Chaosdruid (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Times states "an all-metal Dornier monoplane..." and "...the machine, with an engine of only 180hp, carries five passengers...". It clearly cannot be a Dornier Komet, as that aircraft carried a 600hp engine. [Flight also describes it as a Dornier. I will amend the article to just state "Dornier" without giving the actual aircraft type. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
(saved for break)Chaosdruid (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. May I suggest that you use the {{inuse}} template when editing, so that others will know you are active. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Usually do, well I use the {{GOCEinuse}} rather than the standard one. I use the effort tag when there is going to be a significant (3 hours or more) time delay, when only editing small sections of a large article, or as a flag for GOCE editors when the article is on the requests pages to show that it is being worked on. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the GOCE tag until the proposed split has been done. Also noted on the GOCE requests archive page. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll do the split tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Split now done. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have done the first pass. I am sorry it took so long but as there were so many small sentences it took a lot of time to check the references to see exactly how to reword things.
I understand the points on the similarity to a list, it did seem at times like the article was a "List of events at Lympne" with the * removed. However it is not really possible to rewrite many of them as they are simply factual snippets. I did try and weigh on relevancy, but most were valid and interesting points. Moreover they seem to be fairly notable and not just stuffed in as article packing as one finds on so many other articles.
I tried to alter the format of them, too many times sentences began "On this date, this happened". The difficulty was in keeping copy-editing and reworking/rewriting apart. I will be revisiting it over the next 24-48 hours as I do think that a second sweep will be beneficial to the article.
I found it a very interesting read though, and I have learnt a lot from this article, I did not know much about the history of air transport prior to 1940 and found it fascinating to learn about the trials and the development of the air highways, especially the lighthouses! If there is a need for any more copyediting I would be more than happy to have another look. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(cont. from GA discussion on "Notice to Airmen")
Not really should be used but "preferred"? The point is that the article is written for the reader. Although it is an interesting fact that it used to be written in full, no-one under the age of 70 will have used the archaic term "Notice to Airmen" and will be more familiar with NOTAM. "Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)" is accurate, and would not cause me a problem, in a similar vein to using "VTOL" which was not immediately adopted, but is now the accepted commonly used term. If the phrase was specific, such as "Notice to Airmen No. 164 was...", then I would agree that the full term should be used. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to push this article to FA status. Comments, suggestions etc as to any outstanding issues are welcome. The article was extensively copyedited during the GA nomination and review process. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for a peer review as the next stage towards FA. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lympne Airport. 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/20110302143806/http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_F-1.htm to http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_F-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 06:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lympne Airport. 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/20110120194906/http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_F-22.htm to http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_F-22.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724114904/http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_OO-.htm to http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_OO-.htm
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) 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In the 1950's Test flights for the Fairy Rotodyne were carried out at Lympne.  This new technology aircraft development was cancelled by the Government due to cost. 2A0A:EF40:E69:B201:4474:EF20:4F34:E37F (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, and includeable, if a source is provided. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)