Jump to content

Talk:Bristol Freighter

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

Carvair comparision?

[edit]

If you compare this aircraft with the DC-4 Carvair which got retractable landing gear, it seem old fashion with the fixed landing gear? Never any plans to make with retractable landing gear? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 May 2007

Perhaps the extreme high mounting position of the wings on the fuselage explains it. A retraction mechanism in the typical style would have required significant engineering (and perhaps weight) to maintain strength. Either way, it's not really something we can put into the article unless there is some discussion of it in a reliable source which would be relevant to cite. – Kieran T (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it explains the original requirement was for an aircraft to operate out of jungle strips - an environment in which having the wheels down and bolted has an advantage.MilborneOne 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Freighter was intended for operation in places like Burma where forward maintenance facilities would likely be rudimentary. For that reason, it was designed with the attributes of a "Bush" plane, similar to say a Noorduyn Norseman or a de Havilland Canada Beaver. Although this is only a guess, I suspect the original intended load may have been a Bulldozer which would then have been used to clear the trees and create a runway capable of taking other aircraft. Ian Dunster (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian replacement?

[edit]

Was there no civilian replacement? I remember the service from Lydd to Le Touquet. I’m rather surprise that the idea of flying people bodily with their cars, from England to France, died out. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Aviation Traders Carvair although it didnt last long. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The air ferries filled a niche that was available for a time before the widespread introduction of Ro-Ro car ferries. Previously, cars had to be loaded on board ship by crane, which caused a considerable delay for the passengers, as the travellers arriving first had to wait for all the later arriving cars to be loaded. This delay meant that taking one's car abroad could be more trouble than it was worth to a lot of potential holidaymakers. The arrival of the Freighter, and later Carvair, made taking one's car abroad as simple as driving to the airport and then transferring to the plane while the car was driven aboard the aircraft by airline staff. The plane would then take-off and you were on your way.
People who travelled abroad then didn't mind paying a bit more for the air ferry, as they considered the time and trouble-saving worth it, however, once Ro-Ro ferries became available the difference in time and trouble-saving became smaller and ticket price then became more important to the passengers. Sea ferry ticket prices had been able to be reduced simply because the Ro-Ro ferries were quicker to load than previous ones and so spent less time in port, and this meant that people who had previously not been able to afford to take their cars abroad, now could, whereas it was not possible to reduce the air ferry ticket price in the same manner. In addition, there was additional competition in the shape of the then-new cross-Channel hovercraft service, which was also Ro-Ro. So the air ferries died out. They just became uneconomic in comparison to the newer sea ferries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article on the Channel Air Ferries in a 1959 Flight issue here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reference Source

[edit]

Copy-edit from the article: "Ref:- The "Bristol 170" page describing the Bristol Type 170 Freighter airliner. I would like to add to the page that a book on the Bristol 170 is now available, written by myself and is a very comprehensive history of the 214 Freighters built. It contains over 300 photographs, many unpublished before plus some 50 in colour with a selection of side-view drawings depicting operator liveries. The book includes detailed technical and structural details with comprehensive histories of all the companies and air forces which operated the type over some 50 years. The book is published by Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd, and is available from Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd on www.air-britain.co.uk Sales dept:- 41, Penshurst Road, Leigh, Tonbridge, Kent, TN11 8HL, England. Full details follow:

  • King, Derek A. The Bristol 170, Freighter, Wayfarer and Superfreighter. Tonbridge, Kent, UK: Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd., 2011. ISBN 978-0-85130-405-2." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

40 Thousand Rivets

[edit]

I'm sure many aircraft have been described thus: I'm deleting it. And the history section completely disagrees with Barnes, who states that it was a private venture. I'm amending, but will probably leave a bit of a mess behind me: time is short today.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back...TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The basic Freighter was originally designed to the 1944 Air Ministry specification 22/44. This was when the war was still going on and the requirement was for a simple and easy to maintain aircraft suitable for use in the very rugged conditions of the Burma Campaign.
Later, with the war then over, the 22/44 specification was replaced by G9/45 in 1945 and the final Freighter was the result of this spec., although by then it may well have been continued by Bristol's as private venture.
I suspect that the original idea was for something to replace the General Aircraft Hamilcar glider which had the drawback that if it had been used in Burma and landed during an operation, would not have been able to be extracted again, even the powered Hamilcar X didn't really have the power for this to be possible in the semi-permanent 'hot and high' conditions there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The design was a private venture, later backed by the ait ministry who wrote a spec. around it.TheLongTone (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bristol Freighter. 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) 18:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bristol_Freighter&oldid=1206436559"