Talk:Bush plane

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bush airplane → Bush airlines — Bush airlines allows to increase article scope as it allows the article to tell how the airlines function; namely like public transport; people board as a bus and they leave when full; much unlike regular airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 11:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
yo why  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.122.119 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: DC-3 doesn't comply with any of the criteria stated in the first paragraph, starting from the fact that it's not a general aviation plane and ending with it requiring a BUILT airstrip. I think it should be removed from the list. Nomad (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The DC3 can match all the items listed in the "Common traits" section and Buffalo Airways, to name just one airline, have been using it for years for commercial non-sked flights, one of the criteria for general aviation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That they do - along with C-54s and Curtiss Commandos (and from frozen lakes to boot).NiD.29 (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Who needs a frozen lake? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC-3!?!? 

message: Wondering if this should be renamed? what does everyone think? Normal use seems to be bushplane - I don't recall anyone using the full form anywhere.NiD.29 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been thinking about this as well. I thought of bush plane rather than bush airplane but either bushplane or bush plane is better than the current title. I know it's only a rough guide but I checked Google and got "Bush airplane", "Bush plane" and "Bushplane". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved from bush plane. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article using bush airplane will result in lots of hits under that name from all the sites that rip off wikipedia. not sure whether a space is required or not - could go either way. Just because someone moved it before doesn't mean it was right - I have seen quite a few pages that had been renamed from what they should have been to the current title, often from ignorance of the subject combined with an excessive zeal to make the name match some arbitrary standard that shouldn't have been applied in that case. In any case no discussion occured on this page - they just upped and moved it. Since no-one has commented against the move back I'll go ahead and do it.NiD.29 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush airplane vs. Bushplane 

message: Military aviation is not bush flying, which as per most definitions covers non-scheduled general aviation only. 
A significant portion of army air operations takes place from unimproved airstrips (think L-4 operations, forward air strips, etc), but that is not considered "bush flying" regardless of location. I have yet to see any evidence that the Fi 156 was ever used commercially or by a general aviation operator. (The later M.S. Criquets maybe, but even that is doubtful)NiD.29 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  military aviation