Talk:Taylorcraft B

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Jacob's antics

@Ahunt:@Carguychris:@M16A3NoRecoilHax: Should this incident be deleted as non-notable? This edit comment claims that the incident is notable because it has harmed the type's reputation. I cannot verify that claim from the cited sources. As far as I can tell this is just an ephemeral stunt with no lasting footprint on the aviation world. So I see no reason to post it in a section on "notable" incidents. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an odd claim. I can't see that it harmed the Taylorcraft's reputation, it has harmed the pilot's reputation, though. It doesn't meet our usual accident-inclusion criteria for lasting effects, unless you count his pilot certificate revocation, but then this was not an accident. It was however widely covered in the media, both aviation and general press, and so meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds of stuff gets wide press coverage, that does not make it notable. Per WP:SBST policy, "It takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. ... In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering." We do not regard other, comparable minor aviation incidents following which, say, a pilot's license is revoked, as notable. So we should not make an exception for this one. And if we deem the controversy to be notable, a controversy is not an accident or an incident and does not belong in that section. This is especially so here, as the incident is unrelated to the aircraft type. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is hard to disagree with. I could also throw in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I do agree that the aircraft type is not relevant to the event, as it was not an failing with the aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of other aircraft type Wikipedia articles have incidents listed where the only notable thing is the circumstances of the incident or the person involved, whereas the type of aircraft had no impact on the incident whatsoever. To cite an example, the Sikorsky S-76 accident section for example lists the widely publicized 2020 crash, presumably only due to its wide discussion in the media and the notability of the people onboard, the fact that the involved helicopter was an S-76 had no impact on the situation, it could have been any other type of helicopter and the crash would likely still have occurred. I'm sure if you go looking around other aircraft type Wikipedia articles, you will find many similar instances. I think the incident is notable, even if not because of the aircraft type. — M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus was that this crash is notable enough to sustain a standalone article, then you might have a point. However the consensus emerging at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#A notable GA accident? is that it is not. This is precisely why I started the present discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Ahunt: that the aircraft type had no bearing on the event, and in fact, it's hard to imagine a crash where the aircraft itself had LESS influence; my edit comment about sullying the aircraft's good name was an attempt at sarcastic humor (I enjoy trying to spice up page histories). That said, to add to @M16A3NoRecoilHax:'s comments, the controversy has clearly become notable due to sustained press coverage; for a nonfatal accident outside the confines of The City That Never Sleeps, garnering TWO articles in the New York Times is a pretty impressive feat. It may be unprecedented in the history of aviation for a reckless stunt that seriously injured no one to attract this much controversy. Carguychris (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications - Use main model: BC-12D

Per "Wikiproject: Aircraft: Aircrqaft Specifications guidelines, it's recommended to use the specifications and performance data of the most common variant of a specific aircraft.

Accordingly, the "Specifications" section, realistically, should provide the specs of the main Taylorcraft model: the slower BC-12D -- which was produced by the thousands. (over 4,000 units, double the next most popular model, and nearly as much as all other models combined.), instead of the currently spec'd Model 19, which was only produced in the mere dozens.

And the vast majority were built with 65hp Continental A65 engines, not the 85hp model. So that should be the basis of article's specifications (not an 85hp model).

Model 19 was actually an 85hp BC-12D-4-85, with a fresh Type Certificate. (The later revival as the Taylorcraft F-19 Sportsman, under a different company, is documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]