Talk:Penshurst Airfield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePenshurst Airfield has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 20, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the October 1926 crash of a Blériot 155 (pictured) at Leigh, Kent, whilst trying to reach Penshurst Airfield was the result of the first mid-air fire on a civil airliner?

Images[edit]

What is the copyright status of the photo on this webpage, which is used as a ref in the article. I suspect it may be PD as an official USAAF photo, but would like confirmation before it is added to the article. Also, a photo of C-47A 42-108872 would enhance the article, if one exists. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website says the original source is unknown, it could be British or American, if we assume it is unknown then it fall into the pd-uk which is 70 years (1941) so I dont think it is old enough. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another 4 years before it becomes PD then. Would it be relevant enough to use under NFFU? Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just need to prove in the rationale that it was notable to the airfield, and as a fairly unique event for a small grass strip and unlikely to be a free image available may be OK. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Image uploaded with NFUR and added to article. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the status of this photo, currently in External links. Again, I believe this is probably PD as expired Crown Copyright, but I'd like confirmation of this. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is hosted by the Imperial War Museum, which presumably confirms it is now PD? Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree image is crown copyright expired it would need a Template:PD-BritishGov and the iwm links should be used as provenance. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Image uploaded to Commons and added to article. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this photo of Blériot 155 F-AICQ is presumably a PD image? Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've uploaded the photo to Commons. Can definitively date it to between May and October 1926, so it is firmly in the PD as author is unknown. Added to this and the accident article. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 October 1926 accident[edit]

The aircraft was F-AICQ a Bleriot 155 of Aero Union named Clement Ader. I have a London Times reference for the registration and the type came from http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/reg_F-3.htm MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the Air-Britain http://www.ab-ix.co.uk/f-aaaa.pdf also gives details of the accident. It appears both 155s crashed in Kent one in August and this one in October. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Accident corrected and expanded using those sources. Now, what was the reg of that Flying Flea? Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it! MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G-AEEW built by R G Doig of Aircraft Constructions Limited, Sidcup, Kent. Flt Lt A M Cowell killed when it became uncontrollable and crashed at Penshurt, Kent 4.5.36 (Jackson British Civil Aircraft since 1919). MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appleton and Cave, British Civil Aircraft Registers 1919-1978 p39 gives a c/n of GDA22. This is bashing into shape nicely! Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one point in the article about crashed at an airshow according to the Times Cowell was a test pilot working for the "Air League of the British Empire" to test fly the Flea that had been built by a local constructor. The Time makes no explicit mention it was an airshow just that it took off circled the airfield at 300 feet then just dived into the ground. The Air League recommended an immediate suspension of Flea flying pending investigation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref to an airshow is last para of the introduction to Leigh at War, ref [1]. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the reason for closure was that the lease on the land expired. I'd trust a contemporary newspaper source over a collection of memoirs on this one. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, a good find. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

268 Sqn[edit]

Not sure if it is Notable but 268 Squadron were officially based for four days! from 4 to the 8 August 1941 with Tomahawks. They came from Snailwell near Cambridge then went back again! MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's notable! If we can verify a short detachment, then it should be in the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added, also 661. Nice article by the way, good work. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad for a field near a railway, encircled by roads, is it? Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were 268 operating Lysanders or Tomahawks at the time. Given the size of the field, and going by the (unreferenced) 268 Sqn article, I'd say that Lysanders would be the more likely of the two? Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted I hadnt noticed that, Jefford says they operated Lysander IIIs from Feb 41 to Mar 42 and Tomahawk IIAs from May 41 to Aug 42 so they were operating both, not sure if they all came to Penshurst or as you say just the Lysanders. Sorry about that we need to do more digging! MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was an Army co-operation squadron with Lysanders and these were supplemented received some Tomahawks for tactical reconaissance duties another source says it only operated a few Tomahawks, so Lysanders would seem to be the main aircraft in use when they came to Penshurst. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the entry for 268 Sqn to state that they were operating both a/c types, which will suffice unless we get a specific ref to an a/c type deployed. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as that is clear from the reference and it would be original research to guess and further. MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This history of 268 implies that they may have been using Tomahawks, but I'm not going to stick my neck out on the strength of it! Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've blagged a book out of the library which confirms use of Tomahawks. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knotley Hall[edit]

Cant find much on this but Knotley Hall was used in both wars as an officers mess for the airfield (mentioned in Roy Humphrey's Kent Aviation). MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned in Leigh at War, top of p32. Unfortunately no photos on Geograph nor is there a separate page on the Leigh and District Historical Society webpage. May be worth a mention, particularly the anecdote about the tennis courts being off limits to those billeted there. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knotley Hall was offered for sale in 1919 - RAF disposal? The Times, Saturday, May 31, 1919; pg. 22; Issue 42114; col C Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil aircraft based at Penshurst[edit]

I've found a website that lists aircraft registrations, their owners and bases are mentioned, including a few that were based at Penshurst in the 1920s and 1930s. Total aircraft is less than ten. Is this worth adding, possibly in table form? Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth a list unless they are notable for something, just not encyclopedic in my opinion. It does mean a summary in prose without a list of registrations might be ok - bit like ten aircraft were based in the 1920s mainly dh foos and avro 999s. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, something like "aircraft known to have been based at Penshurst include DH.60 Moths, Avro Avian and Blackburn Bluebirds".[refs] Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I prefer that to a list, the prose is easier to relate to for the reader and still gives a flavour of the occupants. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope this info is of use, relevant and in the right place:

In the 1930s Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne flew to Hitler's Germany from Penshurst when they were based at Sevenoaks Weald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDrake390 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnDrake390: do you have a source for this? Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTAMs[edit]

Hi Mjroots, I live not too far from Penshurst, so I've been watching this article develop with interest. I do have one point though: Was the term NOTAM in use in the 1920s? I don't believe it was, and that the full term "Notice to Airmen" would have been more appropriate for the time. Do you have any references that support its use then?

Certainly the modern use indicated in the article NOTAM is different to the way it would have worked 80 years ago, although the NOTAM article has little historical content to confirm this.

I have spoken to a pilot friend of mine who suggests that the term NOTAM didn't come into use until sometime after the second world war. Incidentally, do you know how "Notices to Airmen" would have been distributed at that time? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a "Notice to Airmen", per the Flight magazine reference. NOTAM means NOtice To Air Men. I've no objection to it being wikilinked Notice to Airmen though. Notices to Airmen were published regularly in Flight. All issues from the first one to 2005 are available online. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the first reference to "NOTAM" in Flight Magazine was 3 June 1948. Prior to that, they were, as I suspected, known as "Notice(s) to Airman". Many thanks, Lynbarn (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done article amended. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penshurst Airfield - More Photo's?[edit]

Over the last few days, I've been watching this. It's got me interested mainly because of the history and military side of it. Would like to recommend or suggest to have a couple more photo's added to the article left in their normal size when it was taken recently. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, it looks like we can use the Flying Fortress photo under NFUR. The Blériot 155 photo must be PD by now, as the photo must date to between May and October 1926, author is unknown. Did you have any other photos in mind? Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another recent photo/picture of Penshurst Airfield should be added and left as it's original size. Similar to the one in the Infobox, but one of another direction of the Airfield. Adamdaley (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevan OS grid squares are TQ5246 and TQ5146. Keeping a photo at its original size can mean that it stretches a page, even with a wide screen monitor, hence the use of thumbnails. I've not found any other suitable images on Geograph other than the one we already have in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at my pictures on my talkpage. They are 3,072 × 2,304 and 1.4x Mb unedited. That is what I mean by original size. Adamdaley (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bit confused by your comment Adamdaley the images on your talk page are showing as thumbnails (because they are in a gallery). The thumbnail bit doesnt actually change the size of the image jist how it is presented on the screen. If you are not sure about this just move the images on your talk page outside of the gallery and they will display at the original huge size. If you click on any image it will also display at full size. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I would also add that in "My Preferences" there is an option for each individual editor to set the size thumbnails are displayed at. (there is a parameter to fix the size in the thumbnail template, but use of that is now discouraged). H.T.H. Tegards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confused. Just requesting another recent picture of Penshurst Airfield (from another direction) that is a bigger size currently in the infobox which has a size of 640 × 479 pixels, file size: 79 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg. When the photo is taken should be left at its original size because if you see my pictures on my talkpage. The one for the Cebu Taoist Temple is in the infobox of that article and I wasn't the one who put it on the article. When placed in the Infobox it is reduced to 800 x 600 pixels (even though it's 3,072 × 2,304 pixels and 1.4x Mb unedited) but remains at its original size if clicked on twice. Adamdaley (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So What you are requesting is that a Wikipedia editor should visit the site of Penshurst Airfield, photograph it with a megapixel camera and post the image to Wikipedia? By all means, please do so if you feel the article demands it - or find an existing freely available image and add it yourself. If another editor agrees, they may feel so inclined.
The "original size" of images you are referring to depends very much on the source of the image, the capabilities of the camera used or, if taken from printed material, the capabilities of the scanner used. Remember, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a photo gallery or a geocacheing site, and the number, size and quality of images used on any particular article, varies with the willingness and capacity of the voluntary Wikipedia editors. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where ever I go on holidays, I take my camera and take pictures/photo's. I think about not only myself (and the memories I make and the experience I have) but of Wikipedia as well, to see what I can contribute. It maybe not information, but I try and get pictures, later this year, I'm going away again for 10 weeks, I'll be taking photo's to improve the content of some articles on Wikipedia. If someone was going near Penshurst Airfield for some unknown reason and willing to not only go out of their way for a little bit and to have a rest or stop for a few minutes for a break then by all means take their camera. Sometimes, I get photo's of my local area and and where I've travelled in on the east coast of Australia and overseas and have stumbled upon some unpredictable photo's by luck or chance. Just think of it as a little adventure and you never know what you'd manage to capture on a camera. Coincidences do happen. That's all I'm saying. For example, in 2004, I took pictures of an anbandoned building in the city which I really liked and it served as a train station terminus/hotel back when trains were the main transportation. The footpath awning is not there now, and it's been sold ... still abandoned. Who has recent pictures of this building? In years to come people will want to know what the building looked like. Adamdaley (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interested readers can click the thumbnails, Adamdaley, and it will take them to its wikipedia page or its commons page where they can download it at full resolution if they so wish. Keeping pictures as thumbnails on articles themselves is in the interest of maintaining... well... neatness of the page. This isn't print media where the size of the page remains the same. Users often browse wikipedia through monitors with lower resolutions (or mobile devices) than say, my own native dual screen 1600x900 monitors. If a large photo that is not thumbnailed is placed in an article, readers will have problems seeing it, or it will push the text in a manner that will make it very difficult to read. As for new photos, wikipedia uses what it can get, if no photos are available under the proper licenses, then none can be added. If you have the means though, feel free to upload your own pics of notable things, places, etc. to wikipedia and add them to articles which needs them. I do so myself, and yes I too try and find pictures of things which wikipedia doesn't currently have or are unique to my region/culture. :) --Obsidi♠nSoul 11:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting pretty close to the optimum number of images. Possibile candidates are one showing RFC Penshurst, one showing the airfield in its operational days, one of the Dakota crash - all for historic rather than aesthetic reasons. Other than those, I think we've pretty much covered it. If the Lysander/Tomahawk issue can be resolved, we may need to change one photo. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCAF Station[edit]

I noticed it has a RCAF station category - has anybody actually a reliable reference that it was handed over by the RAF to the RCAF (it didnt usually happen) ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point 664 Squadron appears to have two articles No. 664 Squadron RAF and No. 664 Squadron RCAF !! MilborneOne (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. 664 Squadron RAF is the English Air Force while the No. 664 Squadron RCAF is the Canadian Air Force. Did they both operate from Penshurst Airfield? If so, then both should be made clearly so readers will not get confused. Adamdaley (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it could be the same unit: RAFweb says:
Formed on 9 December 1944 as an RCAF unit, albeit not in the 'Article XI' sequence of squadron numbers, at Andover. It moved to Holland in March 1945 and later settled in Germany, disbanding at Rostrup on 31 May 1946.
As the number was not transferred to the Canadian authorities, it was revived post-war when the squadron was reformed as part of the RAuxAF on 1 September 1949 at Hucknall. It was composed of a number of detached flights, 1964 at Yeadon, 1965 at Ouston, 1969 at Desford and 1970 at Hucknall and finally disbanded on 10 March 1957 along with all RAuxAF flying squadrons.
I'm not sure if that clears up the situation, but maybe it will help a little! regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it was really 664 Sqn RAF and was a Canadian manned squadron unlike the Article XI units which were Canadian squadrons. MilborneOne (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that was the case - I have a suggested a merge into the RAF version

My Suggestions[edit]

Should some information from No. 664 Squadron RAF and No. 664 Squadron RCAF during World War II to make it a little longer? Also, there are a few things I would like to change in the 1940s for example:

  • Plt Off Peter Chesters to Pilot Officer Peter Chesters.
  • Spelling mistake with avation should be aviation:

On 13 January 1944, an Auster was presented to 653 Squadron in memory of Scottish avation pioneer Bertram Dickson.

Also shouldn't all the Squadron RAF units be for example: No. xxx Squadron RAF even without the wikipedia brackets? All mainly in the 1940s section really. Adamdaley (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a minor spelling mistake like that, be bold and fix it! With the squadrons, they are spelled out in full on first mention to make it clear exactly which squadron is meant, after that, they can be mentioned in shorthand. Plt Off is standard shorthand, in a similar way as Sgt, Cpl, WO1 etc is. Fw is also standard shorthand. Both terms are wikilinked to the relevant articles should a reader need to know what the rank was. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine[edit]

Time is a WP:RS, is it not? It's just that I've found an article which claims Charles Lindbergh flew out of Penshurst shortly after before the airfield closed. He flew to Staaken, Germany where he was permitted to land at the German air base by Adolf Hitler himself! Although Lindbergh did not meet Hitler, he was met by his representatives throughout his visit to Germany. Is this a WP:REDFLAG issue? The Time article is over 3 webpages - p1, p2 and p3. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The London Times mentions he left London for Staaken on 22 July at the invitation of General Goring but doesnt have a lot of detail and doesnt mention Penshurst. An interesting fact as Lindbergh's speech in Germany was important but notable to the airfield? MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly notable as the airfield had officially closed at the time (i.e. it may have continued as an unlicenced aerodrome, which is certainly hinted at in the article in Flight detailing its conversion to a polo ground).
Possibly notable as one of the last flights before Penshurst closed. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is notable that he used the airfield although it would be nice to find another ref (not that Time is not reliable), been trying to find which Gipsy Moth he used but not had any luck so far. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Berlin, July 22 - Colonel and Mrs. Charles Lindbergh, who left London this morning on a visit to Berlin at the invitation of General Göring, arrived at the Staaken airport this evening. [1] MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that link on my talk page works. I've added in some details on Lindbergh, but I'm not familiar with the importance of the visit or speech, so this could probably do with a more knowledgeable editor giving it a look over. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Penshurst Airfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Very well done. Fine article, very close to GA, but has a few little, niggling details I'd like to see resolved if they can be before passing it.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Reads well, covers its points in a good fashion. The multitude of wikilinks are slightly distracting to my eye, but none of them are unnecessary. However, one concern I do have, in the "Civil accidents and incidents" section, the main-article link to the Air Union crash is somewhat jarring and looks out-of-place; at a glance, I'd associate it with the Powell crash above it. Is there any way this can be altered?
    I've given this a tweak, moving the bullet point and indenting the text. The only other alternative is to remove the hatnote.
    My personal preference would be to remove it, but I won't insist if you think it works. It is clear which accident it relates to now, so this is Go. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Exceptionally well-sourced. Virtually all of the references used I'd give an A++ for reliability to, and the few that aren't are A or A+, so no worries here. Well done. Everything well-cited without OR or SYNTH.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Coverts virtually all aspects of the airport, and doesn't stray from the subject. However, the section for the 1910s seems a bit sketchy. "Airfield was established, aircraft operated, war ended, RAF sold it off" is about what it amounts to. Is there anything that can be added to the article about its World War One service? What aircraft were operated, and what roles did they perform? Only wireless training, or anything else?
    Tricky one this, Milborne One and I have added as much as we can from the sources we have available. I've given WT:MILHIST a shout in the hope that other editors can pitch in and expand this a bit. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully something will turn up. I won't hold it against the article if it can't be, but let's see what can be found first. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Covers the airfield well without neutrality violations, or any PEACOCK that I can see. Nicely done.
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Fairly new article, but appears to be stable, and certainly no edit-warring or reverting going on.
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All but two pictures are Common and free-use. I'd suggest moving the period pictures to the top of the "tree of pictures", Bleriot first, but that's a quibble. I do have questions about two pictures though. The B-17 picture - are you sure this isn't a free image? I'd expect it to be an official USAAF photo and thus PD-USGOV. And about that Bleriot...are we sure it's PD-OLD? Since it's certaily not 100 years old yet itself, one would presume the author's death-plus time isn't 100 years either?Ah, just found the discussion already on the talk page about them, my concerns were addressed there. Good to go on photos!
    As discussed above, the Blériot photo is, as far as I can tell, PD. As it says on the B-17 documentation, the photo is not claimed as free of copyright. It's at least 90% certain that it is a PD-USGOV photo, but in the absence of proof it is being treated as a copyright photo. You are correct about the order of images, and that has been changed. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Better to err on the side of caution, agreed. And thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold pending the addressing of the subjects raised above. I don't see any show-stoppers though, and hope to be able to pass this one soon. Good luck! - The Bushranger One ping only
    Article has been improved. I'd still like to see more about WW1, but given it's fairly obscure role in the grand scheme of things, that's something for ACR or FAC, not to hold up GA. Nice work! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Colonel Lindbergh in Berlin". News in Brief. The Times. No. 47434. London. 23 July 1936. col E, p. 15. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help)

Wireless School[edit]

Just been back to the source to see if it mentions aircraft type and it says formed 8 November 1917, disbanded 23 March 1919, example aircraft Avro 504J and 504K, DH.6, BE.2c and e, Sopwith Camel and Sopwith Snipe. It had two detachments at Kensington and St James Park. I am sure I have seen other references to similar work at Penshurst, must keep looking! MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the 1910s section with that info. Just needs an eye cast over it to double-check all is correct. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luft Hansa forced landing[edit]

According to this forum, a Junkers G23 of Luft Hansa made an unscheduled landing at Penshurst in 1925. Can anyone verify this from a RS please? Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Lufthansa was one word? Was it two words back then? Adamdaley (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was - see history in Lufthansa. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They used "Lufthansa" since 1933, in the 1920-1930s History section first paragraph. Adamdaley (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue with IE[edit]

I was alerted to an issue with images affecting the viewing of the article in IE7 (and probably affecting IE8 too). After it was explained to me exactly what the problem was, I came up with a work-around which has apparently cured the problem.

I am wondering whether it is really necessary for the generic images of the aircraft types operated by the RAF to remain in the article. After all, we don't have generic images of any civilian types operated out of Penshurst. The Flying Flea is included as it was the crash of that type of aircraft that directly lead to the decision to close Penshurst. I'm not averse to the removal of all three images, leaving just the presentation and B-17 images in the "From 1940" section and moving the Blériot 155 and Flying Flea images back to the "Civil accidents and incidents section". Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it now has to many images so perhaps we could remove the "general" images as you describe. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiddingstone Causeway[edit]

Just seen a ref that the airfield was called Chiddingstone Causeway during the first world war when 78 Squadron based a detachment of BE 2s in late 1916. Should we make it clearer that it had an alternate name? Anybody have any reliable references for the use of the name or the change. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it is a reasonable name to use, as the village was only ¼ mile away. Id say add the info and tweak the lede. RFC Chiddingstone Causeway could be created as a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The airfield would have received the 'Penshurst' name because Penshurst has a railway station and would be easier for personnel posted there to locate, and get to, not because it sounded 'posher' than 'Chiddingstone Causeway'.
In the days before most people had cars almost all of the service people posted there would have arrived there by train.
For this reason RAF stations usually received the name of the nearest railway station or halt.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.225 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penshurst_Airfield&oldid=1210215460"