Talk:Bristol F.2 Fighter

message: The quaint idea that first world war aircraft pilots "went onto oxygen" (in this or any other type) at 10,000 feet needs correcting. In fact aircrew frequently coped at 20,000 feet and more with no oxygen at all!! They were a tough lot!
Soundofmusicals 11:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxygen

message: Reverted the edit 'The grandma of this plane is known as Mrs. Poopjohneaturface' which had oddly appeared.--Ndaisley 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Stuck a couple of templates onto article; yes, I know, put your money where your mouth is... I'll try and do just that. It'd be nice to get this article moving up the criteria tree for re-classification. Scoop100 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Going Places

message: According to the British Aicraft Directory website, there are three airworthy survivors in the UK, D 7889 and D 8084 at Duxford and D 8096 at Old Warden (the Shuttleworth machine). The relevant page was last updated in 2006, but if it is correct, then this article should also be updated.
RASAM (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survivors

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Nigel Ish (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Text removed was a close paraphrase of Wegg's General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The article gives the impression that the Rolls-Royce Falcon was the default engine and that others were tried but were found unsuitable. However - the article states 5,329 aircraft built, but the Falcon article states 2,185 engines built. So is the Falcon production number incorrect, or were there in fact a large proportion of aircraft produced with alternative engines ? Rcbutcher (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Engines ?

message: The brief mention of this (quite distinct) type is justifiable as it was often described at the time as an "all-metal Brisfit", and this furphy still crops up from time to time. We do need to mention that it was nothing of the kind. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bristol M.R.1 

message: I am taking it on myself to rewrite this article - in the process redressing faults that a number of well-meant editors (including myself!) have failed to address entirely satisfactorily. Doing this in blocks off-line, rather than piecemeal, I have first attacked the "origins" section, which I leave in place for others' comment. The essential point is that the Brisfit started out as an intended B.E.2 replacement, but that from the time it was uprated by the more powerful engine it was nothing of the kind. Hopefully this is now more clearly and succinctly expressed. I intend to improve the references to this section, too (over-reliance on worthy but very dated writers like Bruce is less than ideal, for instance) either before or after attacking the following sections. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intended article re-write commenced