Talk:Henry Segrave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Henry Segrave appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 March 2006.

Amazed this appeared so quickly after I requested it - thanks!

Just querying the claim that he was in the airforce. The bio at http://www.bluebird-electric.net/henry_seagrave.htm suggests he was in the infantry during WW1. Can anyone clarify? the previous comments were left unsigned on 10:45, March 16, 2006 by Philsy

Clarification: it appears he was in both the infantry and the British RAF from this article: [1] . I didn't know that you requested this article. I created the article from research I acquired for my DYK article about the Daytona Beach Road Course. Sorry about using the U.S. format for the dates. I wasn't thinking of the international reach of Wikipedia. This IS a British article. Royalbroil 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The date for Segrave joining "the British Air Service" in the source (1) above "He flew to the front April 14, 1916" would have made it not the RAF but actually the Royal Flying Corps. The RAF was formed in 1918 from the amalgamation of the RFC and the Royal Naval Air Service, the RFC formerly being a part of the British Army and the RNAS a part of the Royal Navy. Before this it was not uncommon for soldiers and sailors to transfer to their respective air service, so Segrave could have been both an infantry soldier and a later pilot.

BTW, Segrave's Golden Arrow car is currently at the National Motor Museum along with several other record breaking cars [2] Ian Dunster 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I thank everyone for their contribution to this article and the Segrave Trophy article. I'm pleased with how well this collaboration worked! It came together so well that I thought the article deserved consideration for DYK. I'm amazed at the coincidence that we all were looking for the same article at the same time for different reasons. Royalbroil 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the airforce query. The website that mentioned that is very badly written, and it's hard to make any sense of it. This article looks very good, indeed.