 | SNCASO Trident 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. Review: January 16, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SNCASO Trident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number built?
editFrom what I can work out there were two SO.9000s built, of the 10 SO.9050s ordered only six appear to have been built. Perhaps someone can confirm this, thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wing area
editThere's a very different number (99 sq ft) in the 1957 Observer's Book of Aircraft, which agrees on all the other imperial dimensions. Green and Cross, in Jet Aircraft of the World 1955, agree with OBA. So 156 sq ft may not be right, but a quick measure of the g/a drawing suggests a little over 145 sq ft, in broad agreement with the bigger number.TSRL (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thes numbers are all for the Trident I.TSRL (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just to confuse things more, the Complete Book of Fighters by Green and Swanborough has a wing area of 178 sq ft for the SO 9000 Trident and 156 sq ft for the SO 9050 Trident II! Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did spot something amiss there as well, my Jane's experimental aircraft book gives 99.03 sq ft (9,2 sq m). From memory the F-104 is 22 ft span (same as the Trident not counting the engines) and has a wing area of 196 sq ft. Gunston says 156 sq ft for the Trident. Will have a look if there is any consistency in the other language articles. Perhaps it is just one wing?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The other language articles all have different wing areas!! Did the Trident I and II have different wing spans? Bit of a mystery. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to Complete Fighters, both a shorter span and reduced chord.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- JAWA 56/7 gives a shorter span of 7.50 m (or 7.52 m if their imp 24' 8" is right (!)); they say it's the same for both Trident I and Trident II. BTW, the F 104 wing is quite different in plan at least, with marked taper.TSRL (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Complete Fighters has a span of 7.57 m (24 ft 10) for the Trident I and 6.95 m (22 ft 9⅔ in for the Trident II.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Engines
editAccording to JAWA 1956/7, the Trident II rocket engine had four chambers, not two. OBA 1957 does say two, though.TSRL (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- There are some specs in the French external link, shows different wing spans and areas, seems to say that the early rocket motors had three chambers and the later ones had two (agrees with Gunston). Also notes the three different turbojets (Marbore, Dassault Viper and Gabizo) and a Trident III and IIIC variant. All good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:SNCASO Trident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- " and the Air Force ordered nine SO.9050 Trident II fighters in 1954 to further develop the aircraft so it could serve as a short-range interceptor" - I'm confused by this sentence. I see three ordered in 1954 in the body, and then 6 ordered in 1956.
- "Only six of these were ultimately completed, of which the first three were damaged or destroyed in accidents before the programme was cancelled in 1958" - I see the first three destroyed (the three from 1956). However, references to the 1st, 4th, and 6th of the pre-production aircraft (the 1956 ones) make it seem like all of those six were made. Or were the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th not completed? What happened is mentioned all the way down in the variants section, but it's rather confusing to the reader until they get there, so can a brief statement that only 3 of the 1956 ones were completed be added to the main body section?
- I think I was a bit careless about how I used prototype and pre-production, see how it reads now.
- "Furaline and nitric acid accidentally mixed and exploded, killing test pilot Charles Goujon" - You've already introduced Goujon, so you don't need to gloss him here
- Consider inserting the date of first flight into the lead
- Source link for the in-flight image is dead.
That's it from me I think. Hog Farm Bacon 03:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, all done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)