Talk:Hawker Hurricane

GA nomination

This article is not ready for GAN, it has quite a number of incited paragraphs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not ready for GA review because it is a poor article. For instance no mention is made in the development section about the fgact that the tailplane was originally strut-braced ar that the tailwheel originally was retractable or that (like the Spitfire) the prototype's undercart doors aa hinged section to cover the lower half of the wheel. Certailly therese are minor details but given the general level of wittering on about tangential issues I, I think something about the snecking aircraft itself is important. Another missing fact is the slight increase of length of the MkII- seven inches (178mm). From memory, the length given in the specs differs from that given in Hawker aircraft since whenever. Id look all this up & do the edits but I do not edit from home and so doing do would involve a pannier bag of books; doable but needs forward planning. Wile I'm at it FRlight Testing at Martlesham Heath has a good rather than sketchy eplanation if the spin recovery proble- from memory the problem was that stick position in spin recovery was critical because of a danger of the aircraft entering a second spin upon recovery. I will be back.TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And isnt the "Aircraft of a similar... section generally depreciated> In ths case I'd say that the Polikapov (not enough armamant) and the LA-80 (too late) are not really comparable193.35.234.68 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)