Talk:List of racing aircraft

Exclusion criteria

I have no issue with the exclusion criteria as such, but despite the criterion excluding unmodified military aircraft not built for racing, there are quite a few military aircraft in the list. Is it the contention that these were modified? If so, they would all need to have a reference. The same goes for the Beechcraft Staggerwing. YSSYguy (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Any US military aircraft with an R in the designation was built as a racer hence the Navy Curtiss R3C, Army Curtiss R-6 etc, and Seversky built a special racer for Jaqueline Cochrane based on a P-35 prototype (it differed in lacking dihedral and weapons). The Beech 17 was entered in races where it ran on its own merits rather than being dependent on handicapping (I think they were mostly in races where range was at least as important as speed) - the reason for the exclusions is the rather long list of nearly every civil aircraft ever built in any numbers having been at some time entered in a race (Cessna 172s and DH-89s for instance) which would make the list unmanageably large. Most of these would not normally be considered in any published list of racers as such however the Brits and others did build a few aircraft for these handicapped events that can only be described as racers such as the Percical Mew Gull. How to exclude one but not the other though. A Supermarine Walrus on the other hand was entered AFTER the war in the Kings Cup - a most unlikely racer if the category allows it, and a group that would need extensive footnotes.

That was my thinking anyway though I guess the Bendix jets could go in and just exclude purely handicapped entrants. It could probably be worded better for sure. I excluded balloons simply because there is no practical difference between a racing balloon and a non racing one and they should have their own list (especially if this one gets as large as I think it could - there are literally dozens of races whose entrants are not yet comprehensively listed - the formula vees, the custom unlimiteds etc etc). My intention is to eventually have a footnote for every aircraft listed. NiD.29 (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for not making myself clearer; what I was referring to were types such as the P-38, P-39, P-63, Bearcat and Sea Fury. What I am getting at is: did modified versions of these aircraft enter races, or were they stock aircraft? If stock, how do they fit the criteria? If modified, perhaps that needs to be explained somehow, perhaps in a "Remarks" or "Notes" column for instance. YSSYguy (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - more or less heavily modified examples have been entered in races - primarily the Bendix and Reno races, in which most still compete regularly - and yes I realise they need footnotes - although both F8F and Sea Fury participation is pretty common knowledge as they have come in at the top of the rankings for almost every year the Renos have been active. adding a note for modified is an idea - shouldn't take too long either. Not sure if I will have much time to do any work on the page for the next while though. NiD.29 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of rewriting the criteria, based in part on the above. If balloons are never built for racing as such, then they are naturally excluded so there is no need to mention them. The list of essentially unmodified types which have participated in races at one time or another is huge and meaningless, so I thought it best to keep the line on the safe side, as it already was. I don't want to add an inclusion clause to allow unmodified types which have participated in major air races, such as the Supermarine Walrus and the Schneider Trophy, because they are not "racing aircraft" any more than a bomber carrying a couple of passengers is an airliner. Several of the types listed do not meet the present criteria and will need to be removed. Of course, if anybody wants to create something like a "List of aircraft that have participated in notable races" and add them to that, that is fine by me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. A complete listing of just the King's Cup entrants alone would be enormous - that would have to be done on a race by race basis, unless the page was done as a list of lists I think. Unsure what you meant there as the Schneider Trophy aircraft were built as racers. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My Mistake, I chose a false example. I forgot that the Supermarine Sea Lion II was not a production type but a modified Supermarine Sea King. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

National flags

MOS:FLAG and MOS:LISTS say that national flags should not be used in lists except where the nationality of the item is a significant characteristic. WP:AVILIST says that this applies to lists of aircraft, and allows that exceptions such as flags may be included by local consensus. Are racing aircraft an exception in this regard, since the sport is international in flavour? Is the nationality of a racing aircraft a significant characteristic, or is it no more significant than that of say a famous fighter aircraft or passenger jet? Should we allow national flags in this list? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The flags are just a holdover from when they were everywhere and should be removed - to quote Orwell, "...sport is frankly mimic warfare."

Clearly, there is no local consensus to override the style guide default. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do these aircraft meet the criteria?

OTOH, several types you just deleted, including the Bäumer Sausewind were designed and built as racers ("designed to compete in a 1925 light-aircraft race" per one of the refs on its page), hence part of the rationale for the names of the races being included. Likewise the Travel Air 5000 was built specifically for the Dole race and Northrop Gamma made its name as a long distance record breaking aircraft, while also entering conventional races. The Albatros L 69 was about as much a "trainer" as the Do 17 was a mailplane - a cover - as flight says it: "was designed mainly for racing" - nowithstanding the front cockpit whose occupant would never have been able to escape in a crash. - NiD.29 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

For the most part the main articles for each type do not say so (OK I missed a couple), so the very least they need is citations to support their presence in the list. Here's my take:

1. According to Bäumer Sausewind, The Bäumer B II "Sausewind" was an open twin-seated wooden cantilever sport plane. It won a race but the article does not state that it was built as a racing tourer, or for that specific race. This needs citing.
2. According to Travel Air 5000, it was "built for air mail contract and passenger service". Two were built "for racing" but they were only modified in a minor way from the production machine. I accept the fact that they were built to order for a race, but I'd suggest this only makes them a marginal case which needs the criteria clarifying one way or the other.
3. According to Northrop Gamma, The Northrop Gamma was a single-engine all-metal monoplane cargo aircraft. many such planes gained records in their time, that doesn't make them racers. Some Gammas may well have been entered in races, but again the criteria explicitly exclude such production or near-producton machines from this list.
4. According to Albatros L 69, The Albatros L 69 was a two-seat German trainer aircraft. If sources exist which say that it was in reality a racer then these sources need citing in the list.

At the very least, the claims for the Gamma do not stack up, but I have restored it for now with a fact tag to see if any reliable source can come up with something. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Travel Air 5000s were custom built for the Dole race (having a slightly smaller span, higher empty weight, changes to the control surfaces, additional tankage and additional installed equipment). I am updating the page with new sources. The main ref on the L 69 page is the flight article ([1] & [2]) - which blasts a huge hole in the "trainer" claim - stating that the "student's cockpit" was utterly inaccessible (dangerously so) and was clearly designed for speed rather than as a trainer. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for helping to verify the relevance of these aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Intended race

At present this list has a column for the Intended race (may not have entered). WP:AVILIST says that such non-standard columns should not be included unless there is a local consensus to do so. Some racers - and non-racing types - have been entered in a wide variety of races, while others have been made and flown for a single race. It is hard to argue, as the list presently indicates, that the Supermarine Spitfire racers have only been converted for the Kings Cup air race, see here for example: really, this particular cell should be left blank. So, rather than have a random scatter of blank cells, would it be better if any race-specific comments were added in the Notes rather than having their own column? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree it would be better as a note, not sure the accuracy of modified military aircraft against a single race helps. It is unlikely that the Spitfire was modified in 1936 to race rather then just entered as a publicity thing. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The column was intended to provide a single example only, mainly of the most important race the aircraft entered (to be changed if there is another you think fits the bill better), and not be an exhaustive list in its own right, and additionally to provide links to those races which already have pages as a way to link them together - and to encourage people to write pages for some of the more important races that are currently missing. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Might a List of air races be a better way to achieve that last? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Or it could go in a notes column. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

List of races

Discussion moved to Talk:Air racing#List of air races.'— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dates for unflown aircraft

Just a reminder that per WP:AVILIST, the Date field needs to contain a date so that it can be sorted on. It a plane has not flown, the date of cancellation should be entered. If there is no formal cancellation date, then we need to find another suitable one. As a starter I should say that any verifiable date of the correct era would do, with any necessary explanation in the Notes, e.g. "Date work stopped" or "Date of last known activity" or whatever. Certainly, "n/a" is not an acceptable date value because a) it cannot be sorted on and b) there will be an applicable date, we just haven't found/agreed it yet. It is better in such cases to leave the field blank. If any editor feels the need to stick to the date of first flight and agree there a common value to be entered in the date field of unflown types, then please take it up on the Avilist talk page not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of racing aircraft. 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/20120608044402/http://howardaircraft.org/Benny_and_Gordon.htm to http://howardaircraft.org/Benny_and_Gordon.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) 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)