Talk:Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Britten-Norman Islander)
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

The article says Design of the Islander started in 1963 and the first prototype BN-2 first flew on 13 June 1965,

I'm sure I saw the Islander at an air display when I was at RAF Colerne about 1960. It was certainly before 1963-65 since I'd left the forces by then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.114.84 (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The company's webpage (www.britten-norman.com/links/about.htm, accessed 11 March 2008) lists the 1963 and 1965 dates, so they are probably correct. Perhaps there is a similar-appearing aircraft out there that you remember. Raymondwinn (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a Rockwell Aero Commander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Best-selling commercial aircraft[edit]

"The Islander is the best-selling commercial aircraft type produced in Western Europe"

Only source is the Britten-Norman website, which you can hardly call an true objective source of info. I find this hard to believe, and at least airbus with it's a320 would be the best-seller. Does anyone have any objective source on this statement that I find very hard to believe. Whale plane (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I corrected your typo in the heading, hope you don't mind. I think you are right to question this claim. Probably not good to have an unqualified claim from the company in the lead section, the external link should be converted to a reference in any case. It could be written that Britten Norman claim that it is the best selling aircraft in Western Europe (which is a fact) but whether it is or not can be decided by the reader. I was under the impression that they were only producing a small number of new aircraft and were refurbishing old airframes.Nimbus (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Toss it: As an unqualified claim, it's rather useless in an encyclopedia. Besides, the same link is already in the EL section as the company product link (and rightly so), and it's right at the top of the page if someone clicks on it. - BillCJ (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some attention, will put it on my list of things to look at. I would dispute the recent police use, sure they have been using them for a long time. Nimbus (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem with deletion of claim, but it could be true from a BN point of view as 1280 units is a lot for a European aircraft but it has been overtaken by the A320s nearly 2000 built. Although most of the Islanders were built in Romania which is not normally included in Western Europe. Certainly can claim to be one of the best selling European commercial aircraft. The aircraft is in current use with at least the Cheshire, Hampshire and Greater Manchester Police in the UK, certainly the Hampshire Police have used an Islander for a number of years (at least eight since the failure of the Optica) and Cheshire for five or six years so yes not recent MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This aircraft does deserve some work but I am struggling for references, I have a published flight test on the Trislander but that's it. Needs an enthusiast. Nimbus (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Started a tidy up but still needs some work, the original badly written bits still need sorting! MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Off course I don't mind you correcting my spelling error in the heading. I'll try to come up with more sources for some of the other statements in the article, but it seems info on the Islanders is very hard to find. Whale plane (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifications (BN-2A Islander)[edit]

The specs here look to be for a mixture of models, but I can't figure out how to separate them out and still maintain readability. For example, the BN-2A-21 (which I fly) has IO-540s, the "I" being for fuel-injected. Also, although the max gross weight is indeed 6,600 lbs, there is an STC for wing tip fuel tanks which not only allows the carriage of 330 lbs of extra fuel, but also adds 140 lbs to the max gross weight.

I don't really have much experience with editing on Wikipedia, so I will perhaps leave this re-organization to someone who does, and then can add in any data from my AFM.HiFlyChick (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I just compared the figures to the reference which I put in a while ago. They are accurate (or agree) apart from the length as the model in the reference is a BN-2A-8S ('S' for stretched).Tip tanks are mentioned, increasing the range to 1000 miles. Several figures are given for the range, depending on the speed flown. These specs tables have to be a little bit generic, some articles insert tables for the different variants but I don't think that is necessary here. I assume the '8S' must have had O-540's instead of the injected version. Using a flight manual or POH would give extreme accuracy but there might be a problem with verifiability as not everyone has access to them. I was lucky enough to ride with the pilot of the aircraft in the infobox for four days, great fun. I'm not twin rated or commercial myself. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, though - for a source to be verifiable, it doesn't necessarily have to be online, does it? I mean, strictly from an aviation point of view, I would think that the aircraft flight manual is pretty much the best source on a particular aircraft type, regardless of whether or not everyone has access to them (pilots and owners do, so there should be enough people to prove the accuracy of information). I guess to me the fact that an engine is fuel injected or not is important, since it indicates whether carb ice will occur. Should we consider a small table/list of key differences between models, then? (Quite possibly the -21 is the only model that is fuel injected, but I'm not as familiar with all the other models)
I guess I don't really have a firm grip on the depth of information that should be given on any subject...HiFlyChick (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The specs tables for variants seem to be used only in the more 'notable' aircraft articles, you have to argue which are the most notable though!! There is no rule about not putting one into an article like this AFAIK, I am no Islander expert by any means, just spending a little time to expand this article. Yes, a flight manual is the ultimate reference for specs I suppose but some editors will check the references. I think 'reliable third party sources' is one of the criteria for references. As far as the level of detail in the specs goes, the fields are laid out using a standard aircraft template which can be filled out as required. It is usual to add metric conversions (or Imperial to a metric aircraft)and possibly some alternate speeds and ranges. I use the aircraft project featured articles [1] as a guide. Cheers. Nimbus (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Operators?[edit]

Is it time for a separate List of Britten-Norman Islander operators article? The long list is unbalancing the article IMO. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this section has grown like topsy. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC).
Hi Bill, looks like we're both back from breaks! Don't know why it's so popular, I suppose there were lots of small operators with only a few aircraft. I'll do it now. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dont have an objections to a child article but I would suggest that as most operators of the Islander has one or two each we probably have over two thousand operators. It may be better to describe the operators in general terms in a narrative and not try to list the hundreds of operators which has been done on some aircraft types like Gulfstream IV. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I also think that the Islander has been operated in most countries of the world outside of the old soviet block. You may get flag overload!! MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I've created the list now, what happens to it is up to whoever might like to 'mediate' it! My main intention was to restore the balance on the aircraft article page. Not really been involved in lists, guess there is room for photos (and some refernces!)in there. I would have thought an 'operator' would be an organisation with a WP article or even a red link rather than just a country as far as 'lists of' goes. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidents[edit]

Just wondering why this list is so detailed when other aircraft have just a few items (i.e. PA-31 Navajo) or a summary (i.e. Boeing 747). Not sure that listing specific accidents for a certain aircraft type is a really good thing to do, unless (1) all (or at least most) are listed, and (2) a concerted effort is made to list all accidents for all other types (or at least type of similar size, such as airliners, small GA aircraft, etc.) To list all accidents for all types is a really horrendously large task, but with things the way they are, it makes aircraft such as the Islander appear less safe that others for which the list contains only a few select items. As an Islander pilot and fan, I find it distressing that this aircraft comes off looking bad by comparison.

My apologies that this probably should have been posted in the WikiAircraft section, but I am too inexperienced a contributor to figure out how/where it should go in there.--HiFlyChick (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Found some supporting documentation in the WikiProject Aircraft/page content/Accidents and incidents section. According to the criteria for inclusion of accidents of light aircraft, none of the listed events qualify. In case anyone has any opposition, I will wait a week before deleting the current content of the section.HiFlyChick (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth adding the crash which happened in Shetland on 20th May 1996.
It was an air ambulance flight returning from Aberdeen. On approach to Tingwall Airport in bad weather the aircraft crashed short of the airfield. The pilot, Alan Young, was killed. But the doctor and nurse who were on the flight survived.
As a result of the crash approach lighting was improved at Tingwall. Not that, IMHO, that would have made any difference, the weather was terrible.
The Islander, again only IMHO, is likely the safest aircraft I have ever flown in. I have fantastic respect for the pilots and medical staff who fly them on air ambulance duty, saving many lives each year.
It might also be worth mentioning that the air ambulance service for Shetland, could well boast the highest number of airborne births for any service (not sure how to check that), but there are a lot of premature kids alive now thanks to that small aircraft.
Just a few thoughts about the best aircraft in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.1.39 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The 3 criteria for inclusion of an accident/incident for light aircraft, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_content are
1) fatalities
2) severe damage to aircraft
3) changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an AD for the aircraft type
After reading a summation of the Tingwall accident at http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_501869.pdf, it would appear that the first 2 are met, but the only recommended change was to the lighting at that particular airport, which would not seem to fall under the category of a change to procedures. Therefore, for the time being I will eliminate this section, but that particular accident could be included if a looser interpretation of the criteria is proposed (by someone with more "Wiki-authority" than I have). HiFlyChick (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

main photo change[edit]

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

other candidates
While I dont have a problem with the change of image in this case it would be polite to leave it more than three or four hours before making the change to let others comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's short but this one was too obvious. An open discussion is needed when it's more controversial, like if the current one is already pretty good and the proposed isn't an obvious enhancement.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)