 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
This is a really clumsy sentence if it means what I think it does:
it was estimated that a powered version would achieve 200% more flying time at 95% less cost per hour.
change to:
it was estimated that a powered version would achieve 200% more flying time at 95% of the cost per hour.
--I get the "twice as much flying time" precision, but the "one-twentieth cost per hour" sounds unreasonably optimistic. --How about just replacing "less" with "of the" --I'd do it myself but it's possible some report in the mid 1950's actually had the rosier estimate, and I don't have anything to the contrary to use as a citation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReedScarce (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating aircraft. I recall seeing this odd-shaped machine flying at Cranfield airshow in the sixties when my parents regularly took us - it was involved in some kind of testing there and it flew past with smoke coming out of it. Have some pix somewhere.
- Please post them on this page, it's always useful to have original photographs complement an article. FWIW Bzuk 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
REALLY need an overhead shot!
editAll of the images in the article show the aircraft from the side, and due to optical effects, make the wing look quite wide. In contrast, the HP.115 was very narrow, and these photographs are not doing that justice. Here's an example of the sort of shot we need! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)