Talk:Aviation Traders Carvair

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Wreckage sites?

It is believed that the remains of the 7th Carvair still remain on a sand and gravel bar in the Chandalar River near Venetie, Alaska. The cockpit section of the 8th Carvair, CF-EPV remains near the former Halesworth Airfield in Suffolk, England,

Anybody know the coordinates for these sites? --24.21.148.155 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interseting website: http://www.ruudleeuw.com/search116.htm. It has the plane from Alaska somewhere further down. Quatzalcoatl (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors

"There was just one airworthy example as of April 2008. The Zambian registered 9J-PAA, the 21st and final Carvair built was in South Africa with Phoebus Apollo Aviation, although now removed from the Zambian register the owner plans to return it to the skies for airshows. The second (N89FA / "Miss 1944", the 9th Carvair) is based in Denison, Texas, and flies with Gator Global Flying Services on ad-hoc cargo charters throughout the United States."

Doesn't make sense. If there's just one, there can't be a second... Could the author clarify please? JohnB57 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated my earlier deletion due to an error on my part. It was Carvair 16 that was destroyed in a crash, not Carvair 18 (both once flew for Dominicana, hence my confusion). Unfortunately, the excerpt of the book I found online cuts off right at the point at which the fate of Carvair 18 was about to be revealed. If I can find this book in its entirety I will update.

orca99usa (talk) 18:49, 07 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18/HI-172 was withdrawn for use in the 1970s and then broken up according to my 1991 piston aircraft book. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was broken up for scrap, the possibility still exists that perhaps the forward section of the fuselage was repurposed as the previous poster suggests. I doubted that the entire aircraft was saved, since it was associated with a hotel rather than being a stand-alone night club. I am reluctant to remove this reference until we are certain, even though it is only speculation. The Carvair book I was referencing (The ALT-98 Carvair: A Comprehensive History of the Aircraft and All 21 Airframes by William Patrick Dean) is quite expensive. Hard copies are selling for over $100 on eBay, and even the Kindle version is $40. The author did extensive research into the history and fate of each airframe. I was hoping that his account would be definitive, but I have yet to read the complete account of airframe #18. I even checked my local public library, to no avail. orca99usa (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Dean book is viewable on Google Books including part of the story of eighteen: p299 is missing, p.300 the wings were removed in November 1978 and the fuselage transported to the Embajador Hotel on Avenue Sarasorta in downtown Santo Domingo. It was to become a restaurant but it didnt happen and became a nightclub "DC-4 Piano Bar" instead. It was messed about with the engine cowlings mounted on the roof and the outer wings were mounted vertically, surrounded by old buses Dean describes it as "a transportation junkyard" It still existed in 1995. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MPr2FmWyZFoC&printsec=frontcover MilborneOne (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found that excerpt. It cut off tantalizingly close to giving me the final fate of Carvair #18. I appreciate the assistance. orca99usa (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aviation Traders Carvair. 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/20061209073336/http://www1.airliners.net:80/info/stats.main?id=49 to http://www1.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=49

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) 13:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References to numbers built

Any references to complete list of numbers built ? Cheers. agljones(talk)19:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of images

As this can be a matter of personal preference, I will offer my thoughts on the current selection of images.

The Infobox / lead image shows a professional air-to-air photo, taken in 1979 towards the end of the Carvair's operational life, showing an aircraft about to be delivered to a fairly unknown operator (Falcon Airways, USA). It replaced a previous image showing a busy scene at Bristol Airport from 1965, with a vehicle being loaded on to a Carvair via scissor-lift. The earlier image was not perfect, but at least it conveyed the main purpose for which the Carvair was designed. Currently there is no image anywhere within the article identifying either the large swing door at the front, or the carriage of vehicles, which is surely a major oversight.

Channel, BUA/BUAF & BAF Channel Air Bridge, British United Air Ferries and British Air Ferries were three incarnations of the same airline, and the main justification for creating the Carvair in the first place IIRC. BUAF had nine Carvairs on strength in 1967, out of a total production of 21, and yet these airlines are barely mentioned. I confess I cannot see any text describing Channel or BUAF as the 'launch customer', but that is how I remember things. And in terms of numbers and longevity, these airlines were by far the biggest element in Carvair operational history. But in terms of images, all we have is one head-on shot where the airline cannot be ascertained. Ok, so many of these older images are black & white, reflecting the era in which these airlines operated, but that aside, I would like to see something better to cover this huge void in Carvair history.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WendlingCrusader WikiProject Aviation has a de facto consensus to prefer in-flight photos of left-facing aircraft in a clean configuration (raised flaps/landing gear) with a clear background. From my observations of all Carair photos on Commons, this photo, which is already in the article, comes the closest to this standard. I believe this photo should be moved to the infobox as it best represents the type from an encyclopedic point of view. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA Firstly, thanks for your input. It's good to know that I'm not just talking to myself.

I like the idea of a de facto consensus - does that mean I won't find it actually written anywhere? Although I'm sure I have read something about left-facing (towards the text), and a clear (or uncluttered) background is just commonsense, assuming one has a choice of photos. That probably applies to most subject matter, not just aircraft. As regards an aircraft in clean configuration, that implies either an air-to-air shot, a low pass at an airshow, or catching an aircraft shortly after take-off. That last one is the most accessible for amateur photographers, but is also the one that is most difficult to pull off. In fact these days at Heathrow I would say it's next to impossible. Southend in the 60's was probably much easier, except how many had even a basic telephoto lens in those days?

Enough of the waffling already; I have changed the infobox image as suggested, and somehow found a colour photo of a BUA machine from 1967 for the main body, so from my perspective it's all good now. Thanks again.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:AIRMOS does say "Infobox or lead images should show the aircraft in flight whenever such a picture is available." The rest about a left-facing aircraft in a clean configuration has been passed down in discussions for many years, but I'm not aware of it being written in a style guideline. As you mentioned, such an image is indeed difficult for amateur photographers to pull off. Most aircraft types do not have such a perfect shot available on Commons, so we often have to find a compromise. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]