Talk:Waco Standard Cabin series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

There are two entirely unrelated Waco C series - the first series were cabin biplanes (distinguished by having ailerons on the lower wings and unbalanced rudders) and the later sesquiplane C series which were larger than their predecessors. Waco referred to them as Standard Cabin and Custom Cabin types. When the custom cabins came out, the original cabins went from having the last letter of their designation changed from C to C-S, then to S so that the UKC, UKC-S and UKS were all the same basic design (with some extremely minor changes to trim). Perhaps this page should be Waco Standard Cabin Series, with a separate page for the Waco Custom Cabin series.NiD.29 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On the difference between the later C series and the S series: JAWA1938 shows the former larger, as you say (span up by 1' 6" and length by something over 2', depending on engine). Wing areas were almost identical, though. Do you have figures to back up the stress you put on the "sesquiplane" nature of the C series (as JAWA calls them)? I guess the upper to lower wing area ratios would provide an answer. Jane's just calls them both unequal span biplanes, which are much more common than true sesquiplanes.TSRL (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
On type notation, there is an existing article on the YKS-7, which we don't list here. We do have the YKS-6. According to aerofiles on the YKS-6 (1936) and YKS-7 (1937), the data are as similar as one might expect, apart from the load (?). Do the year codes really say much to a general reader (to whom these articles are addressed)? Do you think they could be dropped, in the interest of simplifying an already rather complicated designation? Or were some year on year mods to the same model so radical as to seriously change the aircraft? I'd be inclined to drop them if possible, though certainly pointing out their existence and significance somewhere (Waco Central?).TSRL (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to note the link to the Waco YKS-7 article is included in the Waco nav box, but it probably should be linked from the article text as well. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Added and linked now.TSRL (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


There seems to be an aweful lot of overlap between this article and the Waco S series article. Can these be combined or better separated to reduce the overlap? - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree that there is overlap, and some sort of combination or separation may be an improvement, but strongly suggest we take our time on this. Any change should follow consultation and discussion; no fait accomplis, please.TSRL (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree - no need to rush that. There is lots of good information in both articles, but it needs an expert on the designs to do a bit of careful untangling. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree that the Waco S series should be merged into this one if possible - the S series constitute a subset of the standard cabins and only have a page due to the tendency to lump everything into Waco 'X' series categories that didn't fit in this case (afaik it was also the subject of a copy and paste move between the pages and redirects). Wing spans and chords varied a few inches each way but upper/lower span for the standard cabins was around 33.25'/28.25' while the customs were around 35'/24.5' - an almost 4 foot shorter bottom wing and an extra 2 feet on the top wing compared to the standards, and the wing chords changed similarly, from being nearly the same ~4.75' for the standards to 6' over 4' for the customs. Definitely sesquiplane territory wing wing areas at approx 165 sq.ft. over 73 sq.ft. for the UOC as per Juptner 1974 p.244 and I have seen the term used in print. I'll see if I can find a reference if one is needed. Many sources don't distinguish them but I think it is helpful for clarity.NiD.29 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Aerofiles identifies custom cabins as sesquiplanes (4-5pCswB = 4-5 place Cabin sesqui-wing Biplane) and the standatd cabins as biplanes (4pCB = 4 place Cabin Biplane).NiD.29 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That is a pretty minor distinction - sesquiplanes are really a subset of biplanes. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
All sesquiplanes are biplanes yes, but not all biplanes are sesquiplanes. May as well make no distinction between Humans and primates since all Humans are primates, even if not all primates are Humans. It is THE major noticable external difference between the two groups aside from minor details like pointier balanced rudders (all customs have balanced rudders, and no standards do - that's still OR but I am looking) and window counts don't help as not all customs had extra windows (the E & N series did not). We have one sourceable external distinction so I'd rather keep it, even if it needs a wikilink.NiD.29 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to admire your tenacity at it! Keep going! - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I just added the merge tags to both articles.NiD.29 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Support - Ahunt (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Support - not sure how to take it from here tho...NiD.29 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well we indicated we should take our time on this, but it has been almost two years, so I think we should either proceed or remove the tags! I don't have the knowledge to merge these two subjects so my default is to remove the tags. Comments? - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never done a merge so was holding off until I'd seen one done which hasn't happened yet so I guess I could just wing it - no better way to learn than by doing.NiD.29 (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Not a lot to it! WP:MERGE. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)