Talk:Supermarine Type 224

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 not 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.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

re-emphasis of article

I thought the entry as was for this aircraft quite extraordinary, really just a destructive comparison with the Gladiator, saying little and understanding less about the aircrft itself, merely leaving the impression that it was an abject failure fit only to be desroyed by naval gunfire or whatever. As stands still says little about the aircraft, I'll continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding references. Most of the story is hard facts which are in Barnes & al which don't seem to me to need indivual citations. The whole business of who gave it the name 'Spitfire' does imo need a cite because it is something most sources are vague about it, I think it's generally attributes toe the then chairman of Vickers? Mitchell is on record as disliking it... back to the subject of citations it seems to me broadly that if the putative fact is from a source outside the major sources on the 224 (such as contemporary issues of Flight or refences in some individual's memoirs).TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the Gauntlet? - No, replace the Bulldog.

The article starts out with an assertion that Specification F7/30 was meant to produce a replacement for the Gloster Gauntlet - It wasn't. The Gauntlet hadn't even entered service properly when the Type 224 first flew. The F7/30 specification was meant to produce a successor to the Bristol Bulldog "Zone-fighter" (capable of use both in the day and at night with a radio) with a view to it approaching the level of performance of the then-new "interceptor" class (day only, no radio) Hawker Fury. The Gauntlet was ordered to specification 24/33, some three years after F7/30 was first drawn up and only the year before the type 224 flew. - Read "The British Aircraft Specification File" by K Meekoms and EB Morgan. Published by Air Britain 1994. ISBN 0 85130220 3. Also see the opening chapter to Morgan & Shacklady's "Spitfire - The History" - 5th revised edition 2005 ISBN 0-946219-48-6. Appendix III of the book contains a full copy of the entire F7/30 Specification. See also "The RAF and Aircraft Design 19-23-1939" by Colin Sinnott (Cass Studies in air power) 2001, ISBN 0-7146-5158-3. - See its description of F7/30 in chapter 4 (page 77) - "F7/30 - a day and night fighter to replace the Bulldog". 77.100.216.20 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]