Talk:Dyke Delta

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 not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Awards[edit]

The Dyke Delta and designer have been awarded many honors over the years. Most recently, Mr. Dyke was a 2008 inductee to the EAA Homebuilder's Hall of Fame. More awards will be added to the list shortly.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddenthusiast (talk • contribs) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the facts?[edit]

As of Nov. 29, 2008, this article read:

"The sole flying Dyke Delta is N18DW, which was constructed in the late 1960's. The bright yellow aircraft was a frequent visitor to EAA fly-ins throughout the 1970's, until it suffered an engine failure which resulted in a severe landing accident on route to Oshkosh, Wisconsin in 1979."

Now, it reads:

"Including the prototype, under a dozen are in a known flying condition today though nearly that many are currently under construction."

This article needs reliable, independent references. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double Delta?[edit]

The article says it's a "true double-delta". There is no such thing. For years it was said that the Dyke Delta was not a "true delta wing" and this fabrication of the term double-delta must be in reaction to that. The Dyke Delta is close enough to a true delta to have the flight characteristics of a delta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExperimentalAircraft (talk • contribs) 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is worse than spam[edit]

The article is irresponsible in that the author intentionally leaves out relevant facts about the nature of the aircraft that would portray it in an unfavorable light. This is a potentially dangerous situation.

I can't seem to edit the first paragraph so I can't fix it. The whole tone of the article is sales oriented.

This is an aircraft designed by an amateur and built by amateurs. This is not an aircraft for low time pilots. People need to know the risks or they risk killing themselves or others. This is not a topic area where we can cherry-pick facts and mix unsubstantiated opinions with partial facts.

I'm sure John Dyke would not want anyone hurt or killed in his design.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ExperimentalAircraft (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]