Talk:CAC CA-15

message: This article really needs a photo. Does anyone know of a photo not covered by copyright? The AWM's excellent database doesn't seem to have any photos of the CA-15. --Nick Dowling 07:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nick, I have searched quite a bit myself and had exactly the same experience with the AWM. The RAAF Museum website has a small pic, which looks like it's been scanned from a book or display. If the museum is a government body we could probably get away with using it, but there is no source given. Grant65 | Talk 11:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo needed

message: The top image looks like a wildcat, and the bottom image looks like a kittyhawk. Have they been verified?--08:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: The specifications were coming back, it was just taking me a minute to get them into the new template. - Aerobird 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK sorry. Grant65 | Talk 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. - Aerobird 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the listing of the guns as it seemed very unlikely they would put what was essentially a Russian/Japanese caliber in a prototype. I don't know what they actually were, if anyone does please change it.Ca 16 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: 4 and 6 March 1946 are both given as date of first flight. Which is correct? Drutt (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First flight 

message: The Crick webpage does not say that the CA-15 was not based directly on the P-51 Mustang. It does not say that later stages of development showed it a viable replacement for the P-51. It does not say "shallow dive", it says 4000-foot dive. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "NOTE: This is not true. The fuselage and all flying surfaces are nearly identical in shape to the P-51 Mustang. Comparison of multi-view drawings show this to be true. (In addition, this "fact" uses this very page as it's citation, not an outside source.)" was the section in question, but the caption note: "(Photographed from the rear turret of an Avro Lincoln bomber.)" was also removed. The following response perhaps clears up the issues. 
== Edit of CA-15 article 13 Feb 2011 (you can't introduce personal opinion) ==
Hi Bzuk,
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I appreciate that the rigour applied to the monitoring of edits is what makes Wikipedia such a useful reference.
I note that you recently removed the statement "(Photographed from the rear turret of an Avro Lincoln bomber.)" from the description of a photograph I contributed to the CA-15 article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15), with the comment (you can't introduce personal opinion).
However, it was not my own opinion that the photograph was taken from a Lincoln, it was the opinion of the pilot (my dad). The difficulty I have now is proving it.
If you examine the roundels on the wings of the CA-15 in the photograph I contributed, you will see that the red dot at the centre exists. This dates the photograph to the second series of CA-15 tests (May 1948 - March 1950), carried out by RAAF ARDU (Aircraft Research and Development Unit). There is a brief ARDU history at http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/units/ardu.htm, which confirms that ARDU was flying both the CA-15, and at least one Lincoln bomber.
My dad's log book has him flying the CA-15 on the 18th, 20th, 21st, 24th and 25th of May 1948. The 25th was the day of the 'gentle' dive over Melbourne at 502.2 mph. It also has him piloting the ARDU Lincoln A73-20 on May 20th and May 26th 1948. It seems extremely like that the photograph was taken from the Lincoln A73-20, but does this constitute sufficient proof?
What do you think?
Regards, John Archer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyOneSpeed (talk • contribs) 12:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the citation to the original submission by JohnnyOneSpeed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is stated to be from the rear turret of a Lincoln in the Wings of Fame article.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry on commons says it was taken by JohnnyOneSpeed in which case I am confused by the statement "extremely likely" as odds are you would know exactly when you took it? Perhaps the commons category Category:P-51 Mustang in Australian service needs to be changed as well. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is credited in the Wings of Fame to Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The licencing of the photo, as PD-Australia is probably OK- however, at it was taken prior to 1955.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont have a problem with the PD but I think the image should be correctly credited on commons to CAC. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification tag 

message: Any reason we are not using the 3 view that the italian wikipedia entry uses?
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CAC_CA-15_vs_CA-18_(P-51D)_(Greg_Goebel).png
Yakumo (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows a comparison with the P-51 which gives the impression of some sort of relationship, which it hasnt. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a 3view available without the comparison then? Plus the article clearly states that it was not based on the p51 design. I just like 3views and saw one on the italian article. If one does not exist, one does not exist. cheers mateYakumo (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I can make one. - ZLEA  (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And done, it will be on the article shortly. - ZLEA  (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 View