User talk:Bzuk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot |
|---|---|
| Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Bzuk/Archive Mar 2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An index of the archives may be found at User talk:Bzuk/Archive index. |
Contents |
[edit] Avro Arrow
Regarding the Arrow I only know the basic facts, and when it comes to the political turns leading to the cancellation of it I basically don't know anything from before, so I am reluctant to go into an discussion about it without third-party (preferably published) sources to base my opinions on.
However I believe that the article is somewhat biased, or at least would need more referencing. Take e.g. this quote: Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what they claimed was "rampant Liberal spending". Much of this was posed as an east/west divide, with eastern Canada using money from across the country to fund their "industrial welfare" projects. Here we have a few question marks: Did really eastern Canada use more than their share of the budget, or was it a general feeling that the people in the west had? The answer to that question can certainly be used as argument in the debate (if west was feeding the industries in the east this could to some extent justify the cancellation), and therefore it should be referenced. Especially the discussion about the political part of the program has many opinions that I feel might be based on feelings rather than facts.
Another thing is that expensive weapon systems, like fighters, are controversial. The defence needs of a country is hard to judge, and so is the benefit of having an own military industry. I don't think there is any simple answer to whether it was right to cancel the Arrow. We have several factors here:
1. The huge job losses for Avro and its suppliers
2. More money could be spent on other things (health care, social services and so on)
3. The following brain drain to the US
4. Was the Voodoo really a satisfactory substitute? Did it have the capabilities of the Arrow?
5. Did the RCAF need the capabilities of the Arrow, or should they settle for something less competent?
Those are a few things that one have to bear in mind when discussing whether it really was cheaper to buy the Voodoo. Of course it can also be claimed that the cancellation of the Arrow was correct, but that some other aircraft (the F-106 for example) should have been bought instead of the Voodoo, or that it was right to cancel the Arrow, but that the Iroquois-engine should have been developed.
Bottom line is that I think that there are many possible 'right answers', and that we never will know what had happened if the project would have continued. Several promising projects have suffered from serious problems in service (the F-104, F-101) and it is possible that the Arrow could have gone the same way. In my opinion the article should represent this fact, that the decision was, and still is, controversial, but that it was not a sole case in the world at that time (the XF-103, XF-108, the 'White Paper'), being instead part of a trend of investing in SAM's instead of interceptors. It was a serious setback for the Canadian aviation industry, but perhaps it was too expensive for the country to have an own military aircraft manufacturer.
I hope this was the kind of 'analysis' you wanted, good luck with the discussion!
Uhu219 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Avro_Lancaster#B_IV
Hi Bill.
The term "bay window", as applied to the Lincoln's nose-glazing, is an apposite description that I have seen used for the Lincoln at least once in print, however it's not that important to me so amend as you like. Regards, Ian Dunster 10:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John 'Jack' Frost
Hi Bill, I found your article on aircraft designer John Frost today. I was wondering about your sources for the assertion that the Frost-Emmett Human Powered Aircraft flew after his death. As an engineering student at the University of Auckland I 'inherited' this aircraft as a project in 1984. It had been left to the Auckland branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society on Frost's death. According to my research notes from the time, the aircraft did make some inconclusive towed tests behind a car in 1978. And I myself flew it briefly (and terrifyingly) in 1984, again towed behind a car. To the best of my knowledge, it never made a free flight. Nor, unfortunately, was it ever likely to. With an empty weight of 50 kg, quite high drag, and a takeoff speed of 6.9 m/s, the power required for flight was nearly 2 hp. I did't even try. The stability and control also left a lot to be desired. I am fairly sure that there was no further work done by the University after that. I left Auckland at the end of 1986, and am certain that no work was done in 1985 or 1986, and after that the emphasis of the aerodynamics section switched firmly to yachts. I would be intrigued to know of any other information or sources you may have. KiwiBiggles 10:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:XF8B-I (Navy).jpg
corrected
[edit] Central high school
Only very muddled thinking there, I think (we had an edit conflict in rv'g it :) Gwen Gale 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CF questions
Bill, I have to curiosity questions for you, not of high impotance, so don't research a book-level answer :). Off-the-cuff ansew is fine, or maybe a point in the right direction for a more detialed answer.
First, it's appearant form photos and literature that the CF was called the "Canadian Armed Forces" when it was formed in 1968. When did the name become "Canadian Forces"? 1975? It's not clear in the WIki article when this occured. Or was CAF just an informal name?
Second, I know the unifed CAF used a single Army-style rank and ratings structure from 1968-1975. I know the Navy ranks were resored, but Air Command did not return to RAF style ranks. Do you know why the RAF ranks weren't used? And did the fact that USAF uses Army ranks play any part in this decision?
Just curious. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Still curious. :) - BillCJ 14:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome!
Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
- Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
- We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
- We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bellanca Aircruiser
by owenpsmith March 21, 2007
Hi Bzuk, I love the photo of the Bellanca Aircruiser under restoration at the WCAM.
Do you have any other photos available? I am scratchbuilding a model of the Aircruiser following as closely as possible the structure of the real thing. I've even soldered up the individual wing ribs each from 20 odd pieces of brass wire. I find it a fascinating aircraft and have been out to see the one in Winnipeg as well as CF-BTW in Oregon. When I was in Winnipeg a few years back the fuselage was being worked on but the wings were not on display. Any help would be appreciated. I volunteer at the Canadian Museum of Flight here in Vancouver (Langley) and will likely have the model put on display there when it is complete.
Thanks,
Owen Smith osmith@mdacorporation.com
Owenpsmith 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] P-40
Hi Bill, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have two problems:
- at the moment there are only two pics for the whole RAF/DAF section. I am trying to locate other pics, but until then I think we should increase the size of the pics there, because otherwise we are swimming in text.
- was also taught to give full bibliographical details in the first footnote that a source is mentioned, so that a reader doesn't have to hunt through the main biblio.
As far as I know there are set rules for referencing Wikipeia articles and I have seen some very odd systems indeed. The one I was taught at university is "author/date/title/publisher/place", so that is my default. But I don't mind as long as we are consistent. Grant | Talk 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ==Hawker P.V.4==
Bill
I've not got any public domain pictures of the PV4 - there is a picture in Mason's 'The British Bomber' (it looks like a fat, radial engined Hart), but is credited "via R C B Ashworth" so I'm not sure of the copyright status. Nigel Ish 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
