Talk:Nakajima C6N
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Propeller. The Specifications section of the article is titled "Specifications (C6N1)". This makes perfect sense, as the N1 variant was also the "General production model", as can be seen in the "Variants" section of the article. The "Variants" section also correctly shows that all C6N1, except the earliest prototypes, were fitted with three-blade propeller. The "Variants" section of the article is sourced properly. Ample of photographs also shows the serial production airplanes fitted with three-bladed propeller. The few photos of four-bladed propeller C6N are the early prototypes, easily recognizable because of (the four bladed propeller of course, and) the large air scoop on the bottom port side quarter of the cowling (noticeably smaller air scoop for the serial production C6N1). My edit has been reverted as unexplained, unsourced change to cited content, although it's been in accordance with the properly sourced information in other section of the article. I am not exactly sure about the propeller being "metal" and "constant-speed", as many mid to late WW2 high performance designs used wooden-bladed propellers (Ju 88, Fw 190, Spitfire to name a few). And a variable pitch propeller does not automatically mean constant-speed propeller. Hence my removal of "metal", "constant-speed" propeller attributes from the article, as these seem to be unsourced. If my second attempt to edit the specifications will be reverted again, I will not try any more to correct the specifications to not be accused of vandalism. NotedCollector (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Edit for typos and I also misplaced the air scoop for the prototypes, the current photo on top of the page confused me well, because it is flipped horizontally. Correct higher-resolution variants of the same photo are available. The air scoops on the bottom port side quarter of the cowling differed significantly in size, but not in the placement, as the flipped photo in the article would suggest. NotedCollector (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)