Talk:Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar

Links

avrocar.com

WCFrancis 21:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dead link.

New rewrite

Maury, you have done a splendid job in adding details to the article. It may be a bit much for the layman but you have essentially identified the problems in trying to make a frisbee fly, which is the problem that absorbed and drove the creative mind of John C.M. Frost. I will add some further details especially about the "black" funding provided by the C.I.A. and the bizarre "Project Ladybird" connections to the story. A lot of what came about was due to the genius of John C.M. Frost and you might want to look at the article posted on Wikipedia related to his flying saucers and other creations. I intend to nominate John Frost for inclusion in the Cnadian Aviation Hall of Fame. Care to second the nomination? Bzuk Wednesday 10:02 27 December 2006 (UTC).See my comments on your discussion page.

So in the end, what do you think of the result? I think it's actually pretty good overall, but as always, I have that feeling in the pit of my stomach that something vital might be missing. Do you think we've nailed it? Maury 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)]

Maury, this is a very readable, interesting article and the only thing that is really missing is citations to reference sources throughout the body of the text. Bzuk 03:44 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Failed GA

A very interesting and informative article, but two inline citations is not nearly enough for an article of this length and technical detail. Also, while it is well-written on the whole, there are a few instances of informal phrasing that make it seem not quite encyclopedic ("technical fortress," for instance) and a few places where it needs copyediting. This sentence, for instance, has a couple of problems as well as an external jump that should be converted to a footnote: "In 1955, an extensive article appeared in Look Magazine was published, that, among other claims, speculated that current UFO sitings were Soviet-built saucers, which looking remarkably similar to Frost's all-disk aircraft."

With citations and a good copyediting, the article should make GA with no trouble. Please do resubmit it when you've made the changes. MLilburne 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that for an article of this length, and with such a unique subject, there should probably be more pictures. There are currently only 3 (one of which has TOP SECRET written across it, for some reason), and it could use several more. --JerryOrr 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that there's 50 inlines, I'd say it's time we tried for FA. Really, this is the best article on the topic available anywhere on the 'net. It deserves recognition. Maury (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Added to WP:GAR. Maury (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little way short of FA yet, well worth another try at GA though. But you should just renominate it at WP:GAN, no need for a review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd GAC review.

Hi! I'm reviewing the article for WP:GAC - it's improved immensely since last time around. I found (and fixed) one spelling mistake - but that was about the extent of my problems! One change I'd like to see (although it's not going to stop me from passing it) would be to switch over the references from a simple <ref> xxxx </ref> to using the more recent <ref>{{ cite book | xxxx }}</ref> so that references can follow a standard format with author names, etc. That's not a requirement for GA status though. (See: Template:Cite/doc for details on how to use the various citation templates.

Good work! I look forward to seeing this nominated for WP:FAC.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. —harej (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

VZ-9 AV Avrocar → Avro Canada VZ-9 AV Avrocar — Typically aircraft are recognized by the manufacturer's name and common name. In this case, Avro Canada is important to the title s it designated the company while the VZ-9 AV designation is the way the project was "buried" while "Avrocar" was also in common use. In order to give the article its true designation, it is better written as "Avro Canada VZ-9 AV Avrocar". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor point but the AV in the designation VZ-9-AV is just the US code for Avro Canada, all US mil designators have it but I dont know of any article that uses it in the title (like P-51-NA Mustang!). MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No other US-based VZ designation has the manufacturer's code as this was specifically put in by the Project Office in Dayton, Ohio to recognize that this was a joint US-Canadian program. This makes the VZ-9 AV designation unusual and the reason behind referring to its full designation. FWiW, it was actually "AV for Avro", in a kind of a nisnomer for the company as it really was a product of the Avro Aircraft Ltd. so it would have been AA? or a product of A.V. Roe Canada (Avro Canada). I know, trivial and silly information but nonetheless, the reason for its inclusion. Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

BillZ, they ALL have the manufacture code, it is simply not used in most situations. That's the point you're mssing here. And the codes were not misnomers, just two-letter coded assigned based om the manufacturer's name. It's possible "AA" was already taken, but since the US Army didn't use British Avro arcraft, it probably just didn't matter. The correct article title should be VZ-9 Avrocar. - BillCJ (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they don't in the VZ-series. A special compensation was made to use the designation with the manufacturer's code given. It was the subject of a number of meetings that took place between the Canadian design office and the US project office. I had pointedly asked survivors of the project about this oddity and was given to understand that a special designation would be in place to identify the Canadian connection in the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Sorry to labour/belabor a point but VZ-1-UH, VZ-2-BV, VZ-3-RY, VZ-4-DA, VZ-5-FA, VZ-7-AP, VZ-8-PH, VZ-9-AV . MilborneOne (talk)

Mil, Bill, true enough, but as you said, mostly a formal designation, rarely used, while I found numerous official documents with the full code. Here is the other unusual aspect in that the US Air Force first funded the project under a wholly different designation, the WS-606A, and when the US Army formulated a "battlefield flying jeep" program, then the other designation was applied. The Avrocar actually started life as a scaled "proof-of-concept" test model for the WS-606A. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Given the preponderance of the evidence piling up, I am willing to grant you the AV. LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The meeting notes that I have specifically refer to the AV code being used as a type of "special identification" but as it was probably in the hindsight of time, mostly a US team's effort to make the Canajan boys feel part of the group, I concede that the AV code probably wasn't that special. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Project Y

Just saying, "project Y" sure looks a lot like Vought_V-173. Not sure about the size, and the canopy looks very different, but its around the same time... 207.159.180.63 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not even close. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Read what you cite

Sometimes, I can't help but wonder if the people who contribute to Wikipedia ever read their sources. Case in point:

In a repeat of the earlier Toronto Star release, in 1955 an extensive article appeared in Look Magazine that, among other claims, speculated that current UFO sightings were Soviet-built saucers. The article went on to describe such an aircraft with diagrams that were clearly influenced by the Avro design.

Would somebody care to show me where, in the cited article, there is evidence of it being a 'leak', like the Toronto Star release? Or where it says that UFO were Soviet-built saucers? Or in what way the illustrations which accompany the article were 'clearly influenced by the Avro design'? I've just read the article, and my impression is that it was clearly identified as a speculative piece, which was inspired by the numerous rumours about Project Y which appeared in the North American press after February 1953. Moreover, the illustrations are just as clearly identified as a 'design study'; produced by an aeronautical engineer who was employed by Republic Aviation, Look made no bones about the fact that 'the design could be arrived at independently and is only one of several possible approaches to the construction of a saucer craft.'

It's this kind of sloppiness which has people laughing at Wikipedia. So, if nobody has any objections, I'd like to remove the spurious remarks. Oboroten (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing as the primary author of this article is a respected aviation historian, I'd be a bit more careful about accusations of not reading sources. The comment in the source that states the design "could be arrived at independently" is the discreet way of saying "OMG the Commies probably have some!" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt that a respected aviation historian included this one inaccurate statement and used a page on a conspiracist Web site to reference it. Who is this person? Igor Witkowsky? Now, tell me again: where, in the cited article, is there evidence of it being a 'leak', like the Toronto Star release? Where does it say that UFO were Soviet-built? And in what way are the illustrations which accompany the article 'clearly influenced by the Avro design'? You're quick to put me down, but slow to address the issues which I've raised. Oboroten (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How to Build a FLYING SAUCER

http://blogs.archives.gov/ndc/?p=426

List this inline or at the end? Hcobb (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note it in the external links. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC).

The article already mentions Project 1794. So this link, and maybe the newly declassified picture from the National Archives, should go there. The AvroCar was the small-scale proof-of-concept vehicle for Project 1794. --John Nagle (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ground-effect vehicle or hovercraft

Regardless of whether this was intentionally designed as a ground-effect vehicle or not, shouldn't this get linked to Ground effect vehicle? Kortoso (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Great article! I had to assess it a B until it has passed through all steps of the GA-A-FA process. I assigned it as being of "mid" importance. It is an interesting concept, but there were no follow-up and they had not so much significance in avaiation history.

Substituted at 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

National Archives videos

The US National Archives has posted three long AvroCar videos on Youtube. These are AVRO film reports on the project.

• Progress Report 1 (1959) [1] (Originally SECRET)
• Progress Report 2 (1959) [2] (Originally FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY)
• Continuation test program (1960) [3] (Originally unclassified)

These are very upbeat films, even though the thing flew very badly. The films show the progress from badly unstable to stable hover. It's amusing seeing it bump around the fields of what's now NASA Ames as a hovercraft. But it never got out of ground effect; max altitude was about 1 meter. John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927042257/http://www.vtol.org/pdf/Vertiflite-VZ9.pdf to http://www.vtol.org/pdf/Vertiflite-VZ9.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001070810/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil:80/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10856 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10856

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060804040008/http://avrocar.com/ to http://www.avrocar.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024155224/http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10856

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Article?

Much of this article is not inline referenced - and wasn't at the time it was listed as a GA. Standards may have changed since 2008, but it's clear this doesn't meet the GA crtierion as it stands now. I'm going to launch a barrage of CN templates noting what needs to be inline-cited; I may or may not come back to do some of it myself later when I have time, but regardless I'll let it be worked on for awhile before considering GAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Missing a lot of inline citations. I count 17 citation needed tags. Can anything be done here, User:Maury Markowitz? Schierbecker (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure something could be done. But I'm not the author of this article, I only did minor edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey@Schierbecker:, do you think that the issues have been addressed? If not then feel free to delist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Closed as delist. Schierbecker (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)