# Talk:Supermarine Walrus

The Seagull V was a private-venture development of the original Seagull III, it was similar in layout apart from the engines and a metal-hull. This is not what the development section says? any sources? MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have several sources, particularly the Profile on the type, Thetford's Naval Aircraft & the Nicholls monograph. There's no clear consensus: it seems that the type was designed as a private-venture response to a RAAF requirement.  Had it actually been developed specifically to a requirement, I imagine that a) they would have built it more quickly & b) not handed it to the Brtish forces for evaluation.TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I need to remember where I got the idea from two and half years ago! MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thetford spcifically says it was a PV. The Profile says there was an initial contract, although they it does not say wht this covered. Its all very ambiguous: there's probably a couple of memos in the Austalian archives which would clarify the matter. I think the wordingfor the article at pesent, though vague, is appropriate. But as I say above, its difficult to understand why development was such a low priority if there was a proper contract: my guess is that there was some vague memorandum of understanding.TheLongTone (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
London's British Flying Boats and his article in Air Enthusiast No. 74 both indicate the prototype was built as a Private Venture, with no money changing hands until the contract was signed in 1934. Much of the British evaluation appears to have been done on behalf of the Australians (presumably as no-one really wanted to wait a few months for a prototype to be put on a ship to the Antipodes for the aircraft to be evalauted.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks: gives a majority for 'Private venture'.  There must have been some sort of arrangement between the RAAF & the Air Ministry, since it wasn't really an aircraft the RAF wanted. All I have is fairly reticent on the bureaucracy involved.
The Air Enthusiast article has a quote from the Air Ministry Director of Technical Development on seeing the prototype's hull under construction: "...very interesting; but of course we have no requirement for anything like this". (London Air Enthusiast March/April 1998, p. 35.)Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Supermarine Walrus. 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://archive.is/20130115013955/http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P09281.982 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P09281.982
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303213915/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12893405/Flying%20the%20Supermarine%20Walrus.pdf to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12893405/Flying%20the%20Supermarine%20Walrus.pdf
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) 21:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

​The references are not consistently formatted at present and I want to use the Harvard system throughout when working on the article, which I intend to raise to GA level. Please comment if you have any objection. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Supermarine Walrus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cropping isn't a creative act covered by copyright. You need to copy over all the licensing info from the original photo.
Done. AM
Photos from British magazines after 1928 are still in US copyright.
Magazine images removed. AM
What's the source of File:Supermarine Walrus at Royal Naval Air Station Bermuda at Boaz Island.jpg?
No idea, so image removed. AM
You have two identical photos, find a substitute for one of them.
Sorted, dup image removed. AM
Primarily used as a reconnaissance aircraft, it was the first British squadron-service aircraft to incorporate a fully retractable main undercarriage, crew accommodation that was enclosed, and a fuselage completely made of metal. Needs a cite
Sorted. AM
I would strongly suggest merging the Development and Design paragraphs together, leading off with the rationale for the program and order for a prototype, transitioning to the description and finishing with the production info. I believe that that would flow much more smoothly, preventing issues like describing the changes made between the prototype and production aircraft before you've even described the aircraft at all.
Sections reordered as suggested, titles amended as well.
Always tell the reader what type of ship (with links!) one is when introducing it to the reader
Done. AM
I was thinking more of a simple battleship or heavy cruiser, but links to the class will do. Be advised, though, that you've now got a lot of duplicate links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Dup links now removed. AM
Explicate the orders for the Seagull V in more detail. Was it just RAN and just 24 aircraft?
Sorted. AM
The term and associated link maritime reconnaissance or patrol aircraft should be used rather than simply reconnaissance or observation.
Done. AM
plywood wings were of equal span wings awkward
Sorted. AM
Link sweepback, float, rudder, tail wheel, taxi, crane
Done. AM
Suggest deleting the cost conversions as capital costs have increased far more rapidly than have consumer costs.
Done. AM
Add production numbers for each to the variant section
Done. AM
Serials of each batch not generally necessary, FYI--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll remove them. as I think they clutter up the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Still a few more things to go through, but this will get you started.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Above comments addressed (hopefully). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any usage of Aircraft of the RAAF. If I haven't missed a cite, move it down to the further reading section. Fix these minor remaining issues and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)