Talk:De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	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.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: 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: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject

Recently there have been 3 reverts over the inclusion of this image: Image:DWTwinOtter.jpg. I believe that it should be included as it is freely licenced and applicable and fits the layout. -Lommer | ^talk 19:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bah, I feel stupid now - I just realized that that isn't a Twin Otter in the picture! -Lommer | ^talk 19:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the article, mostly to correct numerical errors. There are 584 Twin Otters flying as of August 2007. Someone had listed about 350, this might be correct as the quantity in airline service, but if you include the entire fleet (skydive, privately owned, government, etc.) there are 584. The first engine fitted was a PT6A-20, this was a 550 HP engine. The Series 300 uses the -27 engine, this is a 680 HP engine but it is flat rated (limited) to 620 HP when installed on the Twin Otter, primarily to keep the Vmc down to an acceptable level. The aircraft is legally limited to 19 passengers (anything more than 19 requires a flight attendant be on board in most jurisdictions) - therefore, if skydiving clubs are lifting more than this, it would be wise for them to not brag about it here on Wikipedia. The first pre-production prototype of the Series 400 aircraft is now being being built at Viking Air in Sidney, BC and is expected to fly in the late spring of 2008. FYI I am the engineering test pilot for the Series 400 - I work for Viking.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter/Comments" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanEuropean (talk • contribs) 07:25:29, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Accidents and incidents

Over the years, there have been lots of Twin Otter crashes and hijackings. Currently, there are 276 incidents recorded in the Aviation Safety Network database for the Twin Otter and, obviously, it would be impractical to list them all on this Wikipedia page.

Should this section be re-labeled "Notable accidents and incidents" (similar to how it's done on the Dash 8 page) and only particularly noteworthy incidents listed? If so, what guidelines should be used in deciding which incidents are worth noting? 12.214.19.55 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the airport and airlines projects have a definition for inclusion which is -

Accidents or incidents should only be included if

• The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
• The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
• The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

Although this has not been adopted by the aircraft project it is probably a good guideline for entries. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, by those standards, I will be removing the entry I made about the first known hijacking of a Twin Otter (since the hijackers got away cleanly and there was no hull loss or fatalities).

I will point out, however, that even with those criteria, the "Accidents and incidents" section could grow pretty large for a plane like the Twin Otter. The Aviation Safety Network database lists 243 hull losses and (if I counted correctly) 159 fatal accidents since 1967.

12.214.19.55 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point but the guideline is to limit non-notable incidents being added, I would suggest that if it was a hull-loss but didnt meet the other criteria then it shouldnt be added. Having an inclusion guideline doesnt allways follow that everything that qualifies should be added, I would like to think a level of common sense still applies. But it does give weight from consensus for excluding the more simple non-fatal and non-notable accidents and incidents from being added. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] price and cost

where can i find more information about the prices and costs of twin otter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.209.65.93 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)