Talk:Blackburn Beverley

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.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Merge proposal

The Blackburn B-107 article really should be merged into this one I think, as both the B-107 and B-107A covered stubbishly there were unbuilt variants of the Beverley. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd favour a guideline that unbuilt, paper or unflown versions of flown aircraft should normally be covered only on the "home" page. Readers are more likely to find them there, where they are seen in context. Blackburn B-107 could always have a redirect to Blackburn Beverley.TSRL (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not really enough content available for this unbuilt proposal for a sensible stand-alone article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted above un-built paper variants of production aircraft do not warrant their own articlesPetebutt (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted aboveDirk P Broer (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as I proposed same on B-107 page.BGinOC (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I think this is wrong...

Empty weight: 79,234 lb (35,950 kg) Loaded weight: 82,100 lb (37,240 kg)

Really? It could carry under 3,000 lbs of cargo and fuel? Seems a little sad, given the four Centaurus engines...

I realize this is some weird definition, but I can't find that definition anywhere on the wiki. One can hunt about in Google to find it specified only in the template documentation, which isn't terribly useful. This definition states it is "The weight of the aircraft when loaded for a 'typical' mission". I find it very difficult to believe this aircraft ever flew with less than 3,000 lbs of crew and fuel - I'd be surprised if it managed that during taxi tests.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MTOW is 135,000 lbs which gives a load of about 53,000 lbs, I suspect loaded weight is just crew and equipment. MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I suspect a similar definitional slight-of-hand, but I can't imagine what it might be. The crew of 6 doesn't do it, and equipment IS included in empty weight. Perhaps this number adds nothing but confusion and should simply be removed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Payload is 50,000 lb - see here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]