Archive 01 - May 05-May 08
Archive 02 - May-Nov 08
Archive 03 - Nov 08-Apr 09
Archive 04 - Apr-Aug 09
Archive 05 - Aug 09-Jan 10
Archive 06 - Jan-May 10
Archive 07 - May-Nov 10
Archive 08 - Nov 10-Feb 11
Archive 09 - Feb-Jul 11
Archive 10 - Jul-Nov 11
Archive 11 - Nov 11-Apr 12
Archive 12 - Apr-Aug 12
Archive 13 - Sep 12-Feb 13
Archive 14 - Feb-Aug 13
Archive 15 - Aug 13-Feb 14
Archive 16 - Feb 14-Jul 14
Archive 17 - Jul 14-Dec 14
Archive 18 - Dec 14-May 15
Archive 19 - May-Nov 15
Archive 20 - Nov 15-May 16
Archive 21 - May-Dec 16
Archive 22 - Dec 16-May 17
Archive 23 - May 17-Feb 18
Archive 24 - Feb-Oct 18
Archive 25 - Oct 18-Mar 19
Archive 26 - Mar-Oct 19
Archive 27 - Oct 19-Feb 20

Please change our "The Airplane Factory" to Sling Aircraft (Pty) Ltd

Hi Adam.

I am the Marketing Manager for The Airplane Factory, now known as Sling Aircraft. We have legally changed our company name as of 3 weeks ago. I have tried changing what I can on The Airplane Factory page you apparently created but I am unable to change the page title or upload our new logo. All terms stating "the Airplane Factory" need to be amended to Sling Aircraft. Can you please assist with this asap as this old branding goes against our new corporate guidelines. Your assistance in this regard is highly appreciated.Shanellemc (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue here. The main problem there was that when I checked your website to see if The Airplane Factory (Pty) Ltd had been renamed, I found thus page: https://www.slingaircraft.com/about-us/#manufacturing which says "The Airplane Factory, situated at Tedderfield Airpark, Johannesburg, South Africa, is a hangar complex (2 880 m2) where Slings are designed and manufactured." I also found this page: https://www.slingaircraft.com/airplane-factory/ which says "The Airplane Factory (Pty) Ltd (TAF) is a light aircraft development, manufacturing and maintenance organisation. Based in Johannesburg, TAF designs, manufactures and markets the highly acclaimed Sling range of light aircraft. They are sold as Production Built Ready-to-Fly (RTF) aircraft, Quickbuild kits and as full construction kits." There are also TAF logos on each page. I could only conclude from this that the business is still currently called "The Airplane Factory (Pty) Ltd" and that the use of "Sling Aircraft" is just some marketing initiative or similar. Before makes any changes the company website really needs to be updated so it isn't so confusing what the legal business name is. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Please can you refer back to the pages mentioned above. These have now all been updated to reflect Sling Aircraft and not The Airplane Factory. Our logo needs to be amended, our website, all terms that reflect "The Airplane Factory" as well as our "Numbers Built" information. Please confirm as soon as this has been completed. Many thanks. Shanellemc (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for updating those company webpages. I'll update all the articles accordingly. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Good morning Adam. Many thanks for your assistance on this. Is it possible for you to send me a mail at shanelle@slingaircraft.com. The reason being is I am wanting to supply you with a few more updated facts such as staff titles, updated sales figures, updated specs etc. Thanks again for your help. You are saving me a ton of time! Shanellemc (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There is really no point doing this by email, as I will need publicly available references to add that sort of information. In general it is better to create a public record here to maintain transparency in these matters. So if you just want to leave your suggested changes and the references here or on the talk page for the article in question that would be better. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Electric tail rotors

Hi, I was just curious what you thought about this story, "Bell reveals 429 demonstrator with four electric tail rotors". Sounds like a good idea, though four tail rotors seems like a lot, but what do I know? Face-smile.svg - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. The article doesn't explain why Bell went with four; two would seem like enough for redundancy! I can see the advantage of going electric over shaft-driven off the transmission, which is the traditional way of powering a tail rotor, as it would eliminate a lot of hardware and weight. All you need are wires for power and control. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I can see how that would be beneficial. Whether this will be a game-changer or not remains to be seen. NOTAR certainly didn't catch on, and the fenestron still isn't very common. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I think much will hinge on the software, since I assume these are software controlled. One DDOS attack away! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has a little more information. - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Fly-by-wire, thought so! - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Landfall 35

Hi Ahunt,

I have had my sources, these are from my C&C LF line research. This information have been verified two time before publishing One sources is the actual responsable of the Images 1 construction to test the market in 1982.

Have a great day LF35 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I have checked your refs cited and those are not acceptable references for as they are not verifiable. To see what kind of sources you need to cite, please have a read of WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:OR. Furthermore, from what you have written I can't see how the information you are providing is the sort of thing that we would include in an encyclopedia article, as it just does not seem all that notable. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


I'll be hanging around as before, just not doing full-time editing again. I was hoping I could hack it, but I couldn't. - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I recognize that you are in a "can't stay-can't leave" sort of dynamic and have been for a while. Your contributions here are greatly appreciated and are helping build the encyclopedia, so I hope you do miss it enough to come back in a few days. My way of avoid the drama and idiocy that can be found here is to stay away from all controversial subjects and work on really obscure topics that almost no one else cares about. Having pretty much run out of aircraft references after starting about 2500 new article there, I have been writing articles on classes of sailboats recently and it is almost lonely there. 95% have never been edited by anyone else and probably have never been read by anyone else, either. It makes for low stress and low drama work through. Which is probably why I am still here and still enjoying it after 15 years. You might try it, as soon as a subject gets dumb, just unwatch it. It gets quiet fast. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I do appreciate the advice, and I'll take it under consideration. - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I recognize "advice" probably isn't the most helpful thing to offer, but I am being selfish. You are one of the good contributors here and I would miss you if you really did leave, so I am trying to find a way for it to be less stressful for you, so you will stay. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
During the last year I lived in the Caribbean, as a teenager, I had a 20-year-old World Book encyclopedia set. We had only one channel on TV (evening only), and no cable or VCR, so about all I could do was read. I read that set almost everyday, just bouncing from article to article, volume to volume. I did that at libraries after returning to the states also. has been like all those encyclopedias, instantly available, so I'll always be a user. Along with that, I'll still edit a few articles here and there. Perhaps later on, if I get to another stage in my life, I'll try to be more active again. But right now I just can't. - BilCat (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand. I do know you have some health issues to deal with too. I hope I will see you here, at least now and then! If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I do appreciate that, and I will. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bill, just to support the comments here, the advice to find a dark corner of to edit where nobody else bothers much (and the nutters have not found it) is a wise idea and I have done it myself when the stress levels rise. Hope you decide to help out here when you feel it is right again. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Buk missiles

Thanks for the correction, yes, you are right, it didn't belonged to that section. Moved to a relevant location. Thanks again and best regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you; thanks for your fix! - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you: placing my edit in that section could have given the (false) impression that it was a statement contained in the Dutch Safety Board report: your timely warning was most useful to avoid a potential source of misunderstanding. Where it is placed now it just provides the factual context of the deployment of the system in the area, i.e a fully neutral, factual, non-POV element of further understanding in the matter. I'm very puzzled on *why* it should be considered a controversial or inappropriate edit by some other users ... go guessing ;). Anyway, thank again and best regards. --Arturolorioli (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful. I think the main objection is that including the information at all is not seen as relevant. In the past editors working as Russian agents have tried to add information to make it look like it could have been Ukraine that shot the airliner down, as part of a a concerted disinformation campaign. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ahunt, thanks for the reply. I see. Well, I'm not a Russian agent, neither I'm running a disinformation campaign, and anybody willing to check my years-long contributions to the project (both in Italian and English) could see it perfectly clearly. Not nice to be targeted as such, by the way. Neither I see how my edit could be considered not-relevant ... the ownership of the firing missile have been the *main* element of discussion for at least a couple of months until the JIT published its findings, and the whole discussion would have been utterly meaningless if only one side had the weapon. So addressing *why* it was possible that there was a discussion at all (i.e., both sides operated the same weapon, an information missing in the article) is *entirely* relevant in an encyclopedic context. Provided, of course, that it is presented in proper WP form, i.e. in a neutral, not-POV, factual and referenced way. The edit is not controversial in any way, it just add in proper WP format a fact perfectly well known to anybody who followed the matter but that could be unknown to users looking for info on WP, and do not negate or challenge or distort in any way any other information provided in the article, neither does it put in discussion any part of the subsequent JIT findings (that were, by the way, almost entirely focused on this specific point, i.e. who owned and operated the firing SAM launcher). Well, not that it matters so much, I suppose. Thanks for helping me better understand the background of this apparently meaningless discussion. Looks like the crossfire is aimed at past targets, and I just get some leftover stray bullets: it happens when an innocent bystander walks unaware into a warzone ... even if WP *should* be a factual, neutral, no-war area to star with ... ;). Thanks again and all the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)--Arturolorioli (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As you can see at Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Consensus there are lots of objections to the addition, but yes, mostly because of past attempts by Russians to use the article to blame Ukraine for the shootdown, as part of an organized campaign. So, indeed, it does look like your edit was caught in the "crossfire", as you so appropriately put it. The article has an entire section on that campaign, plus the JIT investigation concluded that it was a Russian-operated missile and even which unit fired it, so it probably isn't that critical an addition to generally indicate that Ukraine uses Buks as well. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Template Questions

Ahunt I have a three questions about how you use templates. You obviously know alot about the history of Grumman Aircraft. I am interested because my uncle Girard B. Henderson was an investor in American Jet Industries and helped produce the Gulfstream American Hustler.

I am trying to understand the history and have come up with this timeline. Please correct if wrong:

Grumman - produced the Gulfstream I and Gulfstream II
Grumman Aerospace Corporation (1969 name change); produced Gulfstream I and Gulfstream II
American Aviation Ohio - 1960’s
Grumman American Aviation Corporation - Grumman Corporation took 80% share in American Aviation; in 1972 the company was renamed the Grumman American Aviation Corporation
American Jet Industries - the Gulfstream line and the Savannah plant were sold to American Jet Industries headed by Allen Paulson 1978); he and Girard B. Henderson produced the Gulfstream American Hustler
Gulfstream American (name change) produced Gulfstream III
Gulfstream Aerospace (name change in 1982), produced Gulfstream IV

I noticed that you want the template "American Aviation" for subjects related to the now-defunct company American Aviation. If this is true, would it make sense to add the company American Jet Industries (or any of the above)?

How are you using your Templates; they look like "outlines" for aircraft and boats?

In addition, there was a boating company called "Dawson Yacht Corporation", which was owned by Henderson, with a boat "Dawson 26". He also bought a boat called the "Roosterfish", which was owned by the Alexander Dawson, Inc. I suppose I could create a template for the Dawson Yacht Corporation, right? --Greg Henderson 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here! From my reading of it, I think you have the Gulfstream linage correctly there.
We use these templates as "navigation boxes" at the foot of the articles linked in the boxes and so they work best for readers when gathering related subjects together. The intention of the Template:American Aviation is to gather up just the light aircraft series that were produced by the succession of companies, and nothing more. For instance we have left the Gulfstream jets to another nav box Template:Gulfstream aircraft to keep it simple and also to keep the nav boxes from becoming too large and unwieldy.
As far as Dawson Yacht Corporation goes, the company seems to still exist: http://dawsonyachts.net/ although we don't have an article about it yet. You don't need a nav box to create the company article, just multiple independent references that show the subject is notable and then write the company article. Normally what we would do is first write an article on the company and then several of their boat designs and once there were at least three boats covered then add a nav box at that point. Then when more boat type articles are written they can be added to the nav box to aid readers finding them. You can see how I have done this at Tanzer Industries. The nav box at the bottom shows the founder's bio, the company article and the boat designs produced, making it a neat package.
I hope that helps explain how these navigation templates are used? - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about Aveko VL-3 price

Hi Ahunt, I would like to update de price of the Aveko VL-3. The value given on the wiki article is from 2011 (€78,300) which looks absurd to me. From what I heard this plane costs more than double. I can't find the price on the website of the manufacturer (http://www.jmbaircraft.com/index). However they have a second website (https://www.vl3aircraft.com/vl3-aircraft-packages/) that gives $160.000. I guess this second website is dedicated to the US market. I want to have your opinion if it is reliable enough to update the price on the wiki article.

Thanks for your help. WSgaT (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the really poor English there ("Get more informations from our dealers") it seems to be the US distributor's website, so should be WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Date Linking

Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize date linking was deprecated. I'll have to go back an remove the links from the previous tables I did sometime. I guess that's what I get for continuously copy-pasting an old table! –Noha307 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. The issue was sorted out more than a decade ago, and is summarized at WP:DATELINK. In the case of the "year in aviation" links, it confuses the reader. They click on it thinking that there is more on the aircraft in question and find themselves in an article that doesn't mention the aircraft at all. - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mooney International Corporation

Hi Ahunt, the disruptive IP is now blocked for a week. If you notice them returning with same disruptive editing, you can report them to AIV. Some of their "favorite" articles are now on my watchlist so I will keep a look out as well. S0091 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Super, thank you. On WikiProject Aircraft we have had a perennial problem with these sorts of "nationalistic" vandals before. They seem to think they can change reality in the "real world" by editing to remove undesirable facts. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


could have been made on mars for what the stubs identify notoriously empty on where or whatever, please check, my assertions could well be wrong, in rumsfeld territory here - unknown unknown... JarrahTree 03:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but not sure what you mean here. Can you link to an example? - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tractor vs. pusher tail rotors

Hi A, the Tail rotor article doesn't even mention tractor vs. pusher configurations, much less explain why. I was wondering if you could give me a short layman's explanation of why some helicopters use one configuration over another. IIRC, the Hueys/Cobras even switched from one to the other at some point in the long production history. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite true. The UH-1H has a "pusher", too, while the UH-1N has tractor config. I don't have a ref on this, but in general, in the hover, where it is most critical (the tail rotor is largely unloaded in forward flight) the tractor config is more efficient, because the pusher has its intake airflow blocked by the tail fin. This does depend to some extent on the design, though, and where the fin is located with regard to the tail rotor. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

CFB Moose Jaw-reversion

I just wanted to touch base about a reversion you did to my edit on the CFB Moose Jaw page. I have added reference and information to the Moose Jaw Municipal Airport page justifying the link. When the land discription on the site plans is cross referenced through the Saskatchewan land titles maps the site location for the Former R2 at Burdick is at the Same Location as the new airport. I only got through half the editing last night. Sorry for the confusion, I hope this resolves the issue. (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Mech1949 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this. Okay, if you have the refs. When I flew there I had been told the muni was a new build airport and that the Burdick site was north of there, but it is possible that info was wrong. We always go with the WP:RS! - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Cessna names

Thanks for helping out there. Them light aircraft sure do have a ton of names. I didn't try to add every variation or the letters tagged on to some of them just the major ones. Not all our navboxes have a Names section, but most really need them for readers who may not know or remember the designations. I was looking for the Caravan II today, but it took me a while to find it, partly because I confused Reims with Rheims. Do they rhyme? I don't know :) - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is a little trick we call "marketing". In all seriousness, I think it will help the readers, which is all that counts in the end! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Made worse by the fact the many Cessna articles cover several types, only some of which have names, and so they're listed only by model number. Feel free to add any more that you think might be noteworthy. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
If you mean "it is a confusing collection of names", then "yes, it is!". - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of marketing, I do wish more editors understood the role of a "beauty shot" as the Lead image, and focused less on having "representative" models and airlines. But that seems to be a minority view in WP:AIR. Sigh. (I'm one of the biggest aviation and computer geeks there is, and I get it, so it's not a difficult concept.) - BilCat (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Me too! The lede image should show the reader what it looks like! - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Another problem is newer users who don't check the history to make sure the "new" photo they're adding wasn't in the infobox for five or 10 years before it was mercifully replaced. ;) - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
and that is the advantage us old timers here have - long memories or at least a tendency to dig through the article histories. I spend far too much time here "reverting". - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Collins Aerospace Logo.svg


Thanks for uploading File:Collins Aerospace Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Databse error

Talk pages seem to still be working, but I'm unable to view many articles. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to working now. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that too at NOTAR. Musts have been a server down somewhere, but it seems to be okay now! - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Musts have been. Anyway, About an hour or so ago, I was trying to create a navbox, and even though preview-saved it (but not "published") a couple of times, it disappeared on me five times total. After the third time, I switched to another tablet, and it still disappeared twice. I finally had to create it on userspace, and then copy it into mainspace. I created two navboxes yesterday without any trouble at all, doing all the work before publishing it, and had absolutely no trouble at all. Strange. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Very odd, indeed. These days I write new article off-line in my text editor as an .html file, so my work is all locally saved, before trying to post it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yup, I'm still not sure what happened, but I'm thinking more server issues. I do most of my Wiki-editing on my tablets, so an off-line editor isn't a convenient option for me, but it's a good idea nonetheless. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen it again, so hopefully they got it fixed. I blame the virus... - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Me too. In fact, I stay off Facebook to avoid getting such viruses. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

More proof an IQ test ought to be needed to edit!

See here. Facepalm Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi explains this well. - Ahunt (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
And I have no idea what this was supposed to be! - BilCat (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
On a hunch I did a G-search, and found this. Copyrighted, of course. I guess I'll have to ask to have the diff deleted. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It's gone now. User:The Bushranger took care of it. - BilCat (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Great that BR got rid of it - the article itself looks like basic clickbait. While overall during this odd period in history the encyclopedia is getting better fast through the work of dedicated, but housebound editors, there are some others who are just adding garbage. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for information

Thanks for the guide about redlinks in. Zebuready (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful. Getting started on these days can be a bit daunting, so if you have any questions please do drop me a note! - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

VL3 Aircraft


I was trying to update the article of VL3 Aircraft with lates and most relevant data such as production location, price, performance, availability (mainly for USA market), certification etc. After hours spent on these updates I have been notified that you deleted everything we have just updated. Why? Why can't we keep that article up to date and relevant to 2020? I believe that your intentions were good but we, as well as everyone else would appreciate to have relevant and correct data especially in open "encyclopedia". Shall we write new article about VL3 Aircraft itself as the Aveko Sprint is not existing anymore?

Thank you very much. Have a great day ahead.

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcALION (talkcontribs) 22:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I reverted your changes because you added links to your website and added promotional text. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:COI as to why this is not allowed. I would advise you not to waste your time writing an alternate article on the same aircraft type, as it will just be removed. The bottom line is that is not the place to promote your business interests and products. - Ahunt (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


You have already indicated that you are in a conflict of interest and your edits keep persistently add links to your own website, the US distributor of the aircraft. This is not permitted, as I have outlined above and on your talk page. As outlined in WP:COI you need to stop editing the page and make suggestions for changes on Talk:Aveko VL-3 Sprint where they will be evaluated by neutral editors who are not in a conflict of interest. You can note that is not your website to promote your business, you should be doing that on your own website. Repeated addition of external links is considered Wikipedia:Vandalism and will be responded to as such in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Avro Canada C102 Jetliner

I've reverted a "nationalist" here, but some of the information is useful, if less enthusiastically worded and properly placed.

Btw, the US often gets a lot of blame from "up North" for killing off Canadian aircraft programs, especially the CF-105. In the Jetliner's case, several US airliners were very interested it it, and a few American companies want to build it under license. I have no idea if the C102 was susceptible to the Comet's issues, so maybe in the end the Canadian government made a good decision. For once :) - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a good revert. The information is correct, but, as you noted, far too WP:PEACOCK. The Jetliner probably could have been a great thing for the airlines and for Canada, but it was the Canadian government that ordered it "off", in favour of defence production. Probably a bad decision in hindsight, but we can't blame the US for that one. We still have User:The Bushranger/Planewarrior that can be used too! - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I've never seen that warning before. Thanks! As to affecting Canadian defense needs (as odd as that seems from a Canadian gov't!), licensing would have lessened that dramatically, yet even that wasn't allowed. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but shortsightedness is dangerous, and Canadian governments seem particularly prone to it. Over the years, I've heard "buy American" blamed for many things, but from WWII on, the US military has probably bought from Canada more than most other nations combined, sometimes as a second source like Canadair Sabres. We still buy from Bombardier and Viking, though these are relatively small orders. Granted, the US industries will fight tooth and nail for the bigger contracts, but they do that to each other too. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, The Bushranger's warning can be transcluded as a template, indicated there, so a useful ready-made warning. It is sad that we even have to consider that on a regular basis here!
I spent my military career here flying US-made equipment from Bell UH-1Hs and Ns, to OH-58As and even Musketeers! Did get to fly Canadian-made Tutors, T-33s and CF-5Ds a bit, but the latter two were US designs made here.
Present dumbness notwithstanding, our two nations have got on better than any other two anywhere, at least since 1814! - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't remember Canada being a country in 1814, but that's never stopped some Canadians from bragging that they "won", when it was just one campaign in the larger war. If the US had lost The War of 1812, we would speak English today. Uh wait, British English. ;) - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)