Talk:de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Why was the descriptive table removed from this page? If there's a good reason, I'm fine with it, but otherwise I will revert the changes and accomodate the updates as I find the table to be a handy at-a-glance reference. -Lommer 00:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft group determined after much discussion that the table's disadvantages outweighed its advantages, and all new pages are being created with an inline text specs section. Old articles are likewise being changed to the new standard.

-eric 00:50, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Aha, I was not aware of WikiProject Aircraft, thanks for pointing it out. -Lommer 02:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible discrepancy

The article contains the following:

"Soon the factory was producing hundreds a month, and orders started pouring in from around the world. When production finally ceased in 1967, 1,657 DHC-2 Beavers had been built."

... given that the Beaver was in production for 20 years, this seems implausable... 100 a month would mean 1200 a year. Perhaps trying to source this would be a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - the statement is obviously incorrect. Because the whole section is unreferenced it is very hard to tell where that came from. I have reworded it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image added

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Images I suggest that this new image be removed from the article for three reasons:

1. the technical image quality is very poor - washed out colours, poor focus, etc
2. The primary focus of the picture is of a woman posing in front of the aircraft and not the aircraft and
3. very little of the DHC-2 can be seen in the photo.

This is really a "tourist photo" and not of the normal image or subject quality one would expect in an encyclopedia. If anyone objects to removing it please indicate your reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, also introduction of the image has caused a white space problem. The image is still viewable in the commons category so little is lost IMO. There were possibly already too many images in the article before this one was added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, the image will be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect nomenclature

Minor quibble, the intro paragraph states, "The U.S. Army Air Corps purchased several hundred;" The U.S. Army Air Corps became the U.S. Army Air Forces in June of 1941, which became the United States Air Force on September 18, 1947, shortly after the aircraft's first flight. It is possible but highly unlikely, especially in peacetime, that the Army Air Forces ordered the Beaver before its first flight, but I believe the Air Force selected the Beaver in 1951. I changed the name and link as appropriate. JPAnalog (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are quite right on your dates and such, but it was the US Army that bought them and operated them along with its fleet of Caribous, Hueys and such though the 1950s and 1960s as per the ref. The USAF had some too, but not as many as the Army did. The link that was provided to The U.S. Army Air Corps was the wrong link as you quite correctly pointed out, so I have fixed it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the United States Army Air Corps was once the correct page, as it did at one time cover modern US Army air operations since 1947, for lack of a better article to cover it in. That content was split off a couple of years ago to a new article, United States Army Aviation Branch. So it's really a case of a link not being updated when the split was made, which is probably understandable as there were/are many links to the United States Army Air Corps page. Just an understandable oversingt, but a good catch on JP's part. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill: That makes good sense! I think we have it fixed now. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, minor quibble, thanks for correcting my correction! JPAnalog (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem that is how Wikipedia works - collaboration. We are collectively much smarter than any one of us. - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Take off Length?

I know the correct answer is "it depends," but what sort of runway length are we looking at for one of these things? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See List of STOL aircraft, which has a referenced field length for the Beaver amongst other aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Jr. radial engine, 450 hp (336 kW) each

wtf is with each when it has single engine and when clicking edit theres no each there, really strange snuff that wiki is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.252.55 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible new lead photo

Current photo.

Proposed replacement.

Version of proposed replacement that is uncropped.

I recently took a new photo of this aircraft. Compared to the existing photo, my photo is technically superior in terms of resolution, sharpness, noise, as well as in composition. Would it be okay to replace the current lead photo with the new one? dllu (t,c) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your cropped version is pretty good. What would be ideal is if we could get a good in-flight image as per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've swapped a pretty decent in-flight image into the infobox and inserted my photo into the article body in its place. dllu (t,c) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought that in-flight image was the worst one in the article, just poor exposure, hard to see any detail and flat. I went though all the commons images and found a better in-flight one. See what you think of that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me dllu (t,c) 05:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Noting that WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES is a wikiproject guideline of WikiProject Aviation rather than a Wikipedia policy, it seems to me that in this case File:De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver N72355 Kenmore 2 crop.jpg is the best image for the lede. This is far larger than the current lede image, and shows the aircraft's ability to float on water. It seems to me that this new image is highly informative and of the best technical quality, and is therefore best suited for the lede. --Pine^✉ 07:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The size of the image is not that relevant. The current image has sufficient resolution to be used and also shows the aircraft in flight, which is preferred in the consensus standard. There is no need to show that floats fitted to an aircraft do actually float. Also the image you have proposed is a high aspect ratio which doesn't work as well in the infobox. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Zero-hour fatigue-life (airframe)

That deserves a little amplification I think, by a better link than the generic materials fatigue article or by an in-line explanation. If we did footnotes I'd say it should be a footnote, actually. Midgley (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean, to better explain what "zero-hour fatigue-life" means in this context? I admit I'm not entirely sure myself, but I assumed this was a rating for a new or rebuilt airframe which has not been exposed to fatigue cycles, rather than say an infinite fatigue rating. But I also can't find a definition. So yes, I agree an explanatory footnote would be helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "zero-hour fatigue-life" basically means an airframe that has been re-manufactured such that it is effectively a new airframe. Usually the process will include re-sparring, i.e., replacing the wing and tailplane main spars and other load-bearing items that are important to the structural integrity, and hence safety, of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.232 (talk)

Severe accident in Sweden 8 july 2021

There was a severe accident i Sweden on the 8 july 2021 killing 9 people. A swedish wiki page exists. My note was deleted. Is this accident not significant enough ?

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flygolyckan_i_%C3%96rebro_2021

Franke 1 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed it was a significant accident with nine persons dead. However the Swedish Wikipedia page on the accident is not an en.wikipedia link. Even so, I have noted this as a significant accident on this page, and I am sure that once US and Canada editors come on board, they will make an article and edit my edit

boopolo (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

After checking through the recent edits on this, I see the OP has deleted other significant news on this incident. I would suggest that before deleting, one would use this talk page, or create an new article themselves. Deleting true and honest news is not what Wikipedia is about, regardless of your Wiki score. For the general public, it may be seen that the editors here are 'covering up', or have some connection to the manufacturer. boopolo (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been over 300 Beaver crashes and over 660 deaths, so we are not going to list them all here as it would dwarf the aircraft article. Beavers crash a lot, it is a common occurrence. We have an agreed consensus for including accidents here and that is that they require a Wikipedia article first, before they are linked here. You can also note even without this consensus, we would use the WP:AIRCRASH standard for whether to include this accident. There were no notable people killed in the accident (people who already have a bio on Wikipedia) and at this point there is no indication of any lasting effects from the accident, like airworthiness directives, etc. It looks like just a loss of control or simple mechanical failure. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I honestly think you Ahunt should inhibit yourself from editing this article. You have no right to delete others posts or mine, just because you feel 9 deaths is not significant. To me it sounds that like you are using your Wiki quantity edits to bully others. As far as I see your deletions are bordering on vandalism. Others may think (right or wrong) you are connected with the manufacturer and therefore biased. One way or the other, you are trying to depress the truth, and do not delete my edits again without consultation on this page. (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay you need to read WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA before you go any further. You also need to stop edit warring to force your own way here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur that this is, at present, a minor though tragic accident that doesn't merit inclusion at this point, as explained by Ahunt. Users also need to realize that this is an encyclopedia, not forum, and users are free to remove any content that they believe is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Users make "posts" on talk pages, not the articles. Users who repeatedly add content against consensus and guidelines can and will be reportied for edit warring, and mzy be blocked by an administrator to prevent further disruption. BilCat (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this is indeed a serious incident and it was on the front page of most newspaper/news channels including the BBC. Ahunt chose to revert my edit (and others before that) without discussing it here on the talk page (shoot first, and ask questions afterwards). I on the other hand reverted just once. I am not warring with anybody. I am a very much casual editor for several years, and mostly revert vandalism. However, just because I do not have tens of thousands of edits does not mean I should not be allowed my opinion without been threatened with blocks. I once again state, in my opinion this was serious incident with 9 fatalities. In fact was probably the most serious one plane accident involving this aircraft since it was brought into service. I apologize Ahunt for calling your reverts out as vandalism. However, putting warning on my talk page is unfortunate and unhelpful. Boopolo (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The correct sequence is explained at WP:BRD: you put it in, I reverted it. I am not required to bring it to the talk page to remove it, especially when it violates the existing consensus on inclusion, you needed to bring it here to the talk page for discussion to add it back in.

We have a longstanding consensus not to include light aircraft accidents like this one. They may be tragic for those involved, but they are very common and not notable. We have more than 300 other Beaver accidents and more than 660 deaths that are similar. I have indicated why this is not notable, as there are no notable people involved (no people with biographies on Wikipedia) and there are no lasting effects from this crash (no airworthiness directives, no service letters, no changes to ATC or maintenance procedures). If you want this accident included you need to demonstrate how it meets at least one of those two parameters, otherwise it is non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I am here from a request for full protection at WP:RFPP. Is the claimed edit warring over this edit? Normally I would protect but not in a case where the edit is clearly outside normal procedure. @Boopolo: Articles sometimes contain comments but they follow a consensus on talk. Articles are not available for editors to post personal thoughts. Please do not attempt that again. I have no opinion on whether the particular crash should be included but I am inclined to believe the statements above that consensus is against including all incidents. If admin attention is needed, please ping me. @Boopolo: You need to follow WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

At the time I was not aware that the footnote ("Please do not add any new accidents here unless there is already a Wikipedia article about the accident to link to. There have been hundreds of Beaver accidents and most are not notable. Ask first on the talk page if you are unsure.") could not be added to. I am sorry for that. I agree that all incidents involving accidents should not be included in the main, as this would not be practical. However this particular accident is the worst regarding fatalities (9) with this aircraft. If the consensus here is not to publish, so be it. --Boopolo (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that note either. That criteria (that an incident should only be mentioned if there is a Wikipedia article about the incident) is standard across many articles, for example see WP:WTAF. It's a useful procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was pointed out above, but the original poster of this talk section Franke 1 already pointed out that there is a Swedish Wikipedia article on this plane crash --Boopolo (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the same as an article here. Different Wikipedias do things differently. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

An English article was created yesterday at Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash. It's a likely target for AfD, but I'm not going to nominate it myself at this point. As an article has been created now, I'd support a brief summary being added in the Accident section. Also, some details from the previous submission could be added to the new article, but be sure to mention this article for attribution purposes in the edit summary. BilCat (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone has already added the edit. I inserted my original ref link from the bbc, as that is where I first read the story --Boopolo (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ahunt: See Swedish DHC-2 fatal crash probe urges formal rating training for skydive pilots. Would that be sufficient to make the incident notable? (Since the recommendation is recent, it doesn't mean the previous deletion of the accident article was improper. Rather, the new recommendation would make the incident notable.) BilCat (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

While that is an interesting recommendation from the accident board, it is quite possible that the regulatory authority will not implement that. I am not sure how often that occurs in Sweden but in the US and Canada the regulatory authorities often don't implement accident board recommendations calling for yet more regulations, for a myriad of reasons. I would wait until there is an actual change implemented to say it meets WP:LASTING. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know how binding such recommendations where, hence my asking. BilCat (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The short answer is "they're not" and are often not acted on. I guess we will see over time! - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)