Jump to content

Talk:CAC Wirraway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.55.68 (talk) at 16:17, 4 March 2019 (→‎UK Allocation: Clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Origin

This aircraft was in fact based on the North American NA-16. It was even designated by the CAC as the CA-16. Some quick links: [1] [2]

Yes, it's true that the Wirraway is a license-built NA-16. However CA-16 is just one of the 7 CAC contract numbers under which the Wirraway was produced. The contract numbers are listed correctly on the main page. Derek B 18:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbu (talk • contribs)

The actual North American designation was NA-32 for the first aircraft imported with 'NA-16-1A' being the designation used by Commonwealth Aircraft. The second aircraft imported was designated NA-33 by NA and NA-16-2K by CAC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"eBay Wirraway Case"

I have removed this section again after an IP editor reinstated in. My reason for doing so is that it appears to be a very minor incident which isn't related to the aircraft per-se. The section's only references are primary sources (the court transcript), and as such do not establish notability - third party sources are needed for this (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources). As the section concerns living people, WP:BLP also applies, and this demands high standards for including material on individuals and high standards for sourcing this material - again, primary sources aren't acceptable here. In short, unless it can be proven that this was a significant incident (eg, by providing evidance of extensive press coverage, books or magazine articles about the incident and using this to cite the section) this material has no place on Wikipedia, and I don't see why it belongs in an article on the aircraft anyway. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If notability can be asserted by third party sources, especially if the case has had repercussions concerning how eBay handles bids and their relation to contract law, then I think this would be worthy of a separate article, or perhps inclusion in an article on notable eBay court cases, if such an article exists. A link in the "See also" section would be sufficient here at that point. It's definitley an interesting case, one that I had not heard of before, but it does need to follow WP notability policy and guidelines to be covered anywhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps even a single link to good newspaper article in the EL section would be suficient if the other options don't pan out, but I don't think such a lengthy section belongs here, esp one not based on third party sources. - BillCJ (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the case is notable (which does not appear to be the case as it is not that uncommon on ebay!) it would be either in an ebay article or an article in its own right as the problem was to do with the way ebay works and contracts of sale. Nothing to do with the aircraft it is only the subject of the sale and should not appear here other than as BillCJ suggested as a see also. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the eBay material does not really contribute anything to a reader's understanding of this particular aircraft type; the fact that the item in question was a Wirraway (as opposed to some other aircraft, or a boat, a car, or a house) is pretty much irrelevant to the shenanigans that transpired. In its original form, the section relied on News media reports (secondary sources), rather than court reports (primary sources), which made it more acceptable policy-wise; but just because it's in the news doesn't make it encyclopedic. I agree with BillCJ - if this material has a place, it's not here. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick seach in Google will provide you with many link to press articles about this aircrafft. Channel 10 also flew out to Parafield Airport to meet the aircraft after its delivery from Albury. I have a copy of the DVD used in the news article, showing over 30 minutes of edited and raw footage. All up Channel 10 spent about 3 hours of their time on this plane.

I think this is an important part of the plane's history. The history doesnt have to be all about its wartime activities, this is just another chapter from the planes history of Service. From wartime to restoration to being restored to flying status (it wasnt when Mr Thomas owned it). 203.13.128.102 (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is against re-adding the e-bay info back to the article, and has not changed since you posted here. Please leave it out until a solution can be agreed on. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wirraway accidents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion moot as the other article in question has been deleted at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw someone suggested the Wirraway accidents page should be merged into the main Wirraway article. This is too much detail for a Wikipedia article, according to the style guide, so it should not be merged. It appears that the point of the Wirraway accidents page is to say that the safety record of the Wirraway was poor. This could also be debated since the Wirraway served as a training aircraft where accidents would be expected, but the making this point could also be achieved with a comment in the main article and a link to the specialist content page on the ADF-Serials website which is summarised in the Wirraway accidents page. Other aircraft articles on Wikipedia do not have long lists of individual aircraft crashes under their "Accidents and Incidents" heading, but only a brief summary of high-profile or important accidents or incidents. Derek B 15:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbu (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK Allocation

Anybody known why 245 CA-1s were reserved the British serials between HP532 and HP843 ? MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 1940 Australian Wirraway airframe production exceeded that of the engines and so as not to waste the completed airframes Britain agreed to take 245 of the airframes surplus to RAAF orders on the understanding that they would be fitted with engines on arrival in the UK, with a further order for 500 in October 1940, with 300 for delivery by 1943. These were later cancelled with the introduction of Lend-Lease, with Britain instead paying for a number of Wirrways for use by the Empire Air Training Scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Airworthyness

A new 'crash' section. I've noticed in Wikip that it is not customary to list crashes for warbirds. Crashes are listed for ex-military types, when they see widespread commercial use. Wirraways saw commercial use only as crop dusters (Ceres) so a list of crashes is not a requirement. There were a lot of Cere crashs, but no more than for other types of dusters as it's a high-risk activity. The beach crash at Maroochydore (Maroochy air crash) in 1950 gained a lot of bad publicity for the machine. An experienced pilot flying slowly simply lost control and crashed into a group of children.220.244.73.10 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CAC Wirraway. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CAC_Wirraway&oldid=886156512"