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:
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
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
According to what I have seen, Germans captured some rotary engine propelled Nieuport 11s and not Nieuport 17s as stated here. As far as I know, Nieuport 17 had a radial engine, differently from Siemens-Schuckert D.I and, in any case, they were not the planes Siemens based his development on. Should we mark this issue as citation needed or does anybody have an appropriate reference in order to handle it ? de.wiki seems to suggest it was Nieport 11 the cloning baseline. (de:Siemens-Schuckert D.I) --EH101 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Both the 17 and the 11 were rotary engined (as was the D.I). From the appearance it was very obviously the 17 and not the 11 - apart from the engine installation it is a pretty literal copy of the 17. And the 17 as the "cloning baseline" is specifically mentioned in every source I can find (seven or eight of them!!). I really don't think, from any angle, that this is in any kind of doubt. With due respect, if the German article states otherwise it is in the most manifest error imaginable. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This was REALLY horrible - I have rewritten it so that it at least tells no really big fibs but it is still not perfect. Will add a picture tomorrow (or whenever) and further brush up references etc. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
