Talk:British Aerospace 125

Changes 12/27/05 by Emt147

I merged BAe 125, Dominie, and Hawker 800/1000 articles together to get rid of a bunch of stubs. IMHO a single detailed article is preferrable. I chose Dominie and 850XP specs as the most representative versions of the aircraft. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense Name

Just thought I would object to the change in name (and the mispelling of British !) - the aircraft was never the British Aerospace BAe 125 (this would make it the British Aerospace British Aerospace 125) can somebody revert this back to something more sensible please MilborneOne 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But the DH.110, DH.112, and HS.121, which are part of the same designation sequence, also use abbreviations for manufacturers. This is not redundancy; it is merely how the manufacturers chose to name their aircraft. Similar patterns can be seen in the North American NA-62 and Lockheed L-1011. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Airliners.net refers to it as the British Aerospace BAe 125 almost exclusively: see here. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The UK CAA and the Royal Air Force call it the British Aerospace 125 and abbreviate it to BAe 125 Not BAe BAe 125 ! - I would not call airliners net an authority on the subject. I would agree that some companies do use the style like the NA-62 but in this instance I believe BAe is just an abbreviation for the company - never seen the 146 described as the British Aerospace BAe 146 for example. MilborneOne 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't properly refer to an aircraft as a 'British Aerospace BAe 125' simply because it is repeating redundant information, similarity one doesn't properly refer to, say, a 'Heinkel He 111' as the 'He' is merely an abbreviation for 'Heinkel', so the proper usage when spoken would be 'Heinkel 111', or similarly 'Messerschmitt 109'. Similarly the 'BAC One-Eleven' would be the 'British Aircraft Corporation One-Eleven' and not the 'British Aircraft Corporation BAC One-Eleven'.

However ... there are exceptions, and for instance the Vickers VC10 is almost always referred-to as such - the 'VC' denoting 'Vickers Civil'. To complicate matters 'Focke-Wulf 190' would be correct, whereas conversely 'Focke-Wulf Ta 152' is also correct - 'Ta' denoting the designer Kurt Tank.

BTW, the relevant aeroplane to this article was always referred-to when spoken by the people involved at the time as the 'Hawker Siddeley One-Two-Five' or latterly the 'British Aerospace One-Two-Five' or 'BAe 125' - but not both at the same time.

... Having written all this it must be said that English language usage changes over time, so you are free to refer to them as you wish. But that is how the people involved with them at the time referred-to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.81 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I grew up in the airline business during the 60s and 70s. It was overwhelmingly referred to as the HS125. I never heard "Dominie" during those days. The RAF had long history of giving each new type a code name, often created by the manufacturer during development. HS had previously used the code name Dominie for the DH.84, while the DH.89 was the Rapide.220.244.74.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The name 'Dominie' was the RAF service name and was the official name by-which the RAF referred to the H.S. 125 type, the RAF operating the aircraft in a training capacity and RAF training aircraft have names reflecting a connection with teaching or academia - hence 'dominie'. The de Havilland internal name was originally 'Jet Dragon' as it was designed as a jet successor to the Dragon/Dragon Rapide. The RAF name for the Dragon/Dragon Rapide had also been 'Dominie', so this choice of name for the 125 was apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.18 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Missed waypoint

I deleted

"The Chief Designer of this successful aeroplane was Charles Joseph ('Joe") Goodwin, who also worked on Blue Streak. He emigrated to the US in the mid-1960s to work for Grumman, and still lives in Long Island, NY."

as not directly relevant (especially his work for Grumman & living in Long Island). Anybody who wants to mention he designed her, do me a favor, fix the wrong capitals first? Trekphiler (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I created an error - re 'wrong capitals' - not sure what you mean. Also sorry you deleted the info about Joe Goodwin. I have a very interesting summary of a recorded interview with him. He is my uncle and spent his life designing successful aircraft both civil and military, and I would like to know how to get the data from that interview onto these pages - some help would be handy. Griselda92 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A 1967 Flight article on the DH 125, mentioning the designer going to Grumman to work on the Gulfstream 2, here [1]

... first page of same article here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Original name

It was named the Jet Dragon by de Havilland as it was intended as a successor to the Dragon Rapide, via the Dove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.58 (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Source? - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It does check out Bill, mentioned on page 277 of Jackson, A.J. British Civil Aircraft since 1919 (Volume 2). London, Putnam, 1974. ISBN 0 370 10010 7 with the words 'known for a short time as the Jet Dragon'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, that's also why the RAF name for the HS 125 was Dominie - that was the RAF name for the Dragon Rapide too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.77.149 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a photograph of the prototype de Havilland 125 G-ARYA at the 1962 Farnborough airshow here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a link to an AvWeek 50th anniversary piece in the external links, if anyone wants to use it to fill out the history - it covers the many names among other things. 82.25.235.107 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

1961 Flight article showing "Jet Dragon" original name, here; [4]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Aerospace 125. 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/20071121013105/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com:80/ to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com

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) 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Roger Hiorns and buried aircraft

Should ZE396 get a mention as a buried artwork with a cross-reference to Roger Hiorns? (I'm no good at editing Wiki articles if someone wants to go ahead and do this) GeSalt (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a ref that describes this? - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I presume this is in reference to the Radio 4 programme yesterday. [5]

I think the overall artwork would be justified for an article itself. At the very least, we already have an article on Roger Hiorns with a section on it. I wouldn't move this to its own article though, unless we had enough content to write such an article in reasonable detail, not merely to pass WP:N. (I also don't understand the juxtaposition of Mig-21s and "passenger aircraft" - is this two artworks, or one which has significantly expanded in scope?)

As to linking from here, then I think it's a good mention and worth a sentence, under an WP:IPC section. Provided that we can link to something more substantial on the artwork.

I'd also encourage you to have a go at it. We've all got to start somewhere. If you have the time and the interest, that's two thirds of it (and having heard the radio is only as much as I know). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Speed discrepancy

The data section shows a maximum speed of 320 kn, as well as a cruising speed of 454 kn, which is rather larger than the cited maximum speed. With the NES quoted as 475 kn, I figure that the maximum speed value is erroneous, but I lack the source access to easily verify this. If somebody could please have a look? Thank you. --Stizzleswick (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed here during a change of specification template.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sloppiness like that was one of the reasons that editor ended up being blocked from maintenance a year ago. BilCat (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There also seems to have been some confusion between the vaious types of airspeeds - some of the speeds labelled as IAS wern't stated as that in the source.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

We do run into this issue often on jet articles. The Vne is always given in IAS, while cruise speeds are in TAS. That means that the Vne is often a lower number than the cruise speed for jets at high altitude. These need to be labelled as such though to avoid having these discussions every time. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)