Jump to content

Talk:Avro Canada CF-103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAvro Canada CF-103 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 24, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that design work on the Avro Canada CF-103 began before the aircraft it was supposed to replace entered service?

Dubious information

[edit]

This article is an example of finding information on the Internet without considering the source or verifying the information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the joys of open editing! Par for the course. - BilCat (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fun, compare the first entry with the article at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It was a real crud puppy, wasn't it? Now though I'm seriously pondering submitting it for GA! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The complex interplay of company and military served to doom the project from the outset, not unlike the tragic melodrama still to come with the rise and fall of the Avro Arrow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Avro Canada CF-103/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Fix the small problem with "coupled" noted by the awkward tag. Might do well to break up that long sentence.
Fixed. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Would do well to describe the structure in more detail. Is it pretty much the same as the CF-100?
Added detail explaining the airframe fuselage structure was essentially the same but wing and tail surfaces had major alterations.Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Failed, no response from editor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the changes were made but didn't know a response was necessary. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Avro Canada CF-103/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

When this article came up for GAN before, there was only one concern with the article, and it was addressed, however the article was failed essentially due to a procedural mix-up. The quibble having been addressed, it should, I believe, be reconsidered, as it should easily pass now, I think. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"insignificant gains"?

[edit]

going from Mach .85 to Mach .95 doesn't exactly seem "insignificant" to me. That's a 10% increase in speed and pretty much par for the course for any of the jets that were transitioned from straight wing subsonic to swept wing transonic. They didn't think it was not worth building the F-86 just because it wouldn't quite break Mach 1, or the Cougar, or the F-84F. Those all went from around .85 to around.95, and that was a valuable gain.

And I don't buy the paragraph about the test pilot breaking Mach 1 in the CF-100 being the end of the 103 at all. That's some hyperbolic nonsense. What, they tested it and found out that in a power on dive the straight wing could actually exceed Mach 1 so they just said "ah, see we don't need no stinking swept wings at all, these are fine!" What does a power dive have to do with operational speeds, are you going to dive at the enemy bomber though your whole intercept? Starting at 85,000ft because of course you just happened to be cruising around up there just waiting for the enemy to show up. And if you can reach Mach 1.06 in a dive in your straight wing version, how fast might you go with swept wings?

Although I find the entire story dubious. How was this verified and by who? Just because your Mach meter is saying "1.06" doesn't mean you actually reached that speed. An F-86 was only just capable of breaking Mach 1 in a dive.

Although supposedly they did it with a DC-8 so why not? Idumea47b (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is means is that the performance increase wasn't enough to justify spending the money to develop what amounted to a new aircraft. Canada has always had limited budgets, especially compared to the US. You're going into forum territory with the rest, as most of your talk page comments tend to do. All the information is cited to apparently reliable sources. Wikipedians can't do research to "verify" that the CF-100 actually passed Mach 1, as that is OR. Your personal views on how likely it was are irrelevant to the article. BilCat (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avro_Canada_CF-103&oldid=1263828600"