Talk:De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver

message: The article contains the following: 
:"Soon the factory was producing hundreds a month, and orders started pouring in from around the world. When production finally ceased in 1967, 1,657 DHC-2 Beavers had been built." 
... given that the Beaver was in production for 20 years, this seems implausable... 100 a month would mean 1200 a year. Perhaps trying to source this would be a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch - the statement is obviously incorrect. Because the whole section is unreferenced it is very hard to tell where that came from. I have reworded it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible discrepancy 

message: As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Images I suggest that this new image be removed from the article for three reasons: 
# the technical image quality is very poor - washed out colours, poor focus, etc 
# The primary focus of the picture is of a woman posing in front of the aircraft and not the aircraft and 
# very little of the DHC-2 can be seen in the photo. 
This is really a "tourist photo" and not of the normal image or subject quality one would expect in an encyclopedia. If anyone objects to removing it please indicate your reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, also introduction of the image has caused a white space problem. The image is still viewable in the commons category so little is lost IMO. There were possibly already too many images in the article before this one was added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input, the image will be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image added

message: Minor quibble, the intro paragraph states, "The U.S. Army Air Corps purchased several hundred;"  The U.S. Army Air Corps became the U.S. Army Air Forces in June of 1941, which became the United States Air Force on September 18, 1947, shortly after the aircraft's first flight.  It is possible but highly unlikely, especially in peacetime, that the Army Air Forces ordered the Beaver before its first flight, but I believe the Air Force selected the Beaver in 1951.   I changed the name and link as appropriate. JPAnalog (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are quite right on your dates and such, but it was the US Army that bought them and operated them along with its fleet of Caribous, Hueys and such though the 1950s and 1960s as per the ref. The USAF had some too, but not as many as the Army did. The link that was provided to The U.S. Army Air Corps was the wrong link as you quite correctly pointed out, so I have fixed it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the United States Army Air Corps was once the correct page, as it did at one time cover modern US Army air operations since 1947, for lack of a better article to cover it in. That content was split off a couple of years ago to a new article, United States Army Aviation Branch. So it's really a case of a link not being updated when the split was made, which is probably understandable as there were/are many links to the United States Army Air Corps page. Just an understandable oversingt, but a good catch on JP's part. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill: That makes good sense! I think we have it fixed now. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, minor quibble, thanks for correcting my correction! JPAnalog (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem that is how Wikipedia works - collaboration. We are collectively much smarter than any one of us.  - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect nomenclature 

message: I know the correct answer is "it depends," but what sort of runway length are we looking at for one of these things? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of STOL aircraft, which has a referenced field length for the Beaver amongst other aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Take off Length?

message: wtf is with each when it has single engine and when clicking edit theres no each there, really strange snuff that wiki is  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.252.55 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Jr. radial engine, 450 hp (336 kW) each 

message: I recently took a new photo of this aircraft. Compared to the existing photo, my photo is technically superior in terms of resolution, sharpness, noise, as well as in composition. Would it be okay to replace the current lead photo with the new one? dllu (t,c) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your cropped version is pretty good. What would be ideal is if we could get a good in-flight image as per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've swapped a pretty decent in-flight image into the infobox and inserted my photo into the article body in its place. dllu (t,c) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that in-flight image was the worst one in the article, just poor exposure, hard to see any detail and flat. I went though all the commons images and found a better in-flight one. See what you think of that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me dllu (t,c) 05:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Noting that WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES is a wikiproject guideline of WikiProject Aviation rather than a Wikipedia policy, it seems to me that in this case :File:De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver N72355 Kenmore 2 crop.jpg is the best image for the lede. This is far larger than the current lede image, and shows the aircraft's ability to float on water. It seems to me that this new image is highly informative and of the best technical quality, and is therefore best suited for the lede. --Pine✉ 07:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The size of the image is not that relevant. The current image has sufficient resolution to be used and also shows the aircraft in flight, which is preferred in the consensus standard. There is no need to show that floats fitted to an aircraft do actually float. Also the image you have proposed is a high aspect ratio which doesn't work as well in the infobox. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new lead photo  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824095652/http://aiabc.com/artman/publish/printer_47.shtml to http://aiabc.com/artman/publish/printer_47.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220185851/http://www.airforcemuseum.co.nz/collections/featured-collections/?c_type=aircraft to http://www.airforcemuseum.co.nz/collections/featured-collections/?c_type=aircraft
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717002319/http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270 to http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419182557/http://www.kenmoreair.com/parts/beaverRebuildProgram/rebuild.html to http://www.kenmoreair.com/parts/beaverRebuildProgram/rebuild.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717002319/http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270 to http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)