Talk:Vickers Type 432

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European B‑class

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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Imperial/Metric measures[edit]

I'm not that fussed about which is primary, but having only one or only the other is a bad idea in my opinion. I can convert if needed, but I have no real feel for how high 8,535 metres is - whereas 28,000 feet tells me precisely what could be expected. Could we please keep both on there? McNutcase 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, actually altitude in ft prevails among pilots even if metric measures are used for everything else. [:¬] Bzuk 13:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

i'd put Imperial first as it was built in feet and inches. GraemeLeggett 11:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree with both of those, but went for minimal editing. Although altitude in metres was used commonly at one point... it was official policy in the Soviet Union. Feet make for more convenient numbers, though... funny how Imperial tends to work out that way. McNutcase 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of the western aviation world works in altitudes in feet, and speeds in knots. It has done since the end of the Second World War. As McNutcase says, only the former Soviet Bloc used metric measurements and I believe they may have gone over to feet and knots since the end of the Cold War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.42 (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]