Talk:Blackburn Firecrest
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blackburn Firecrest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Blackburn Firecrest has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Assessment comment
editThe comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Blackburn Firecrest/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| I find it hard to see how this article could be expanded. Was the aircraft some middle stage of some development? Did something special happen during its construction and evaluation stage? --MoRsE 11:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 11:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Visibility comment
editThe article states:
" Operational experience had found Blackburn's Firecrest strike fighter to be far from suited to carrier operations. In particular, the pilot sat near the wing's trailing edge, looking over a very long and wide nose"
As this aircraft never reached operational status, it is not clear how this might have happened. More to the point, the Firecrest does not have a cockpit near the trailing edge nor does it have a particularly long nose. I strongly suspect this is actually talking about the Firebrand, which did meet this description in all ways. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)