Talk:Boulton Paul P.111

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 not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / Cold War

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not 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
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Has anyone got Brew's bbok, if that is a fairly definitive source. We need a source that someone has checked for the specs: for example some sources from the 1950s give the tip-less span as 29 ft 9 in, and also a wing area (but tippped or not?) as 200 ft². Given it was a delta, where is the 10% t/c measured?

Also, apart from the Museum link all the other external sources links seem dead. TSRL (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This gives wing area (of 291 ft2) and length.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chasing this. You would think that this area was right; Flight is usually reliable and they are much closer to the time. But: if the wing were a 45 deg delta with no fuselage, the area (unclipped) should just be span²/4 = 281 ft² with a span of 33.5 ft, and the fuselage, rather wide is going to take a lump out of this. I've just been measuring up a small (2 mm = 1 ft) g/a diagram, unclipped and get about 212 ft², though I've taken a sort of mean fuselage width whereas it is obviously curved. Still, that's close enough to 200 ft² to wish for another source.

I also checked the area lost by clipping the tips and estimate about 15 ft², so that will not account for the 290 -> 200 difference.TSRL (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Aeroplane Monthly article I've just added - although it doesn't have a full set of specs, does confirm the length and height, with a clipped span of 25 ft 8 in, a span of 29 ft 8 in with intermediate tips and a maximum span of 33 ft 6 in with the pointy tips.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also gives a mximum speed at sea level for the P.111a of 648 mph.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And from the drawings of the fully extended tips in the Aeroplane article, I make an area of about 205 sq ft. HmmmNigel Ish (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not realised that there were intermediate tips and that explains the variety of span values: Dessoutter's 1954 book also gives the span as 29.75 ft. Were there just the three configurations? I wonder how often it flew at 25' 8"; in most of the photos it looks less cropped. Saw it once, late 50s Battle of Britain show, somewhere in Cambridgeshire-ish as a surprise guest. Might have been the same show with the S.B. 5 in the static ...TSRL (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to British Jet Aircraft by Adrian Vickery (p104), wing area is 200 ft2.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got a copy of Brew and entered his data with detail on the three wing configurations. His areas are large but he is the authority. I still don't see how they can be that large - it is as if the fuselage has been ignored - and there is a matching problem with the root chord he quotes (17' 2.5", bigger than the g/a) but there we are.TSRL (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boulton Paul P.111. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414232104/http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/planes/boultonPaul.htm to http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/planes/boultonPaul.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BP.111[edit]

I've removed the comment (also called BP.111), which was cn'd last May. Brew (Boulton & Paul Aicraft, Pitnam) does not say this, nor The Observers Book of Aircraft, nor The Jet Aircraft of the World (Green & Cross). All B&P projects were given a P (project) number according to Brew p.312, eg the P.82 Defiant. TSRL (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]