Talk:Avro Canada C102 Jetliner

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Avons[edit]

the British were not willing to release the new engines to a foreign company for a civilian airliner after the embarrassment of the Rolls-Royce Nene engine being sold to the USSR. Consequently, the decision was made to replace the two engines with four less powerful engines

According to [[1]] the Avons were not used because Rolls-Royce anticipated a delay in getting the engine certified for civilian use, and they might therefore, not be available in time. Also, I can't see how Avro Canada would at that time be regarded by the British as a 'foreign company' Ian Dunster 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - BillCJ 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stacking"?[edit]

I'm sure it meant something to the person who wrote it, but the phrase "to allow 45 minute stacking" doesn't mean anything to me. I know enough about aviation that I can hazard several guesses, but it would be even worse for someone who knew less than me. Can we please avoid using obscure technical terms that don't mean anything to the average person, unless you take a moment to summarize in parenthesis? I keep finding that recently, terms that mean absolutely nothing to the average person, technical jargon and slang lingo that only people who work in the industry would be likely to understand..45Colt 21:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It's clear enough to those familiar with aviation, but maybe not for the layman. I've linked it to a descriptive page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I thought that was likely what it meant, but I wasn't sure, so I didn't dare to do anything about it myself..45Colt 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another good call. :) Better not to screw something up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like DC-4[edit]

The text says that it looked similar to the Avro Tudor, but I don't see where they get that idea from. I don't really see any resemblance at all. When I first looked at the photo, I thought for a second it was a jet-engined DC-4. That's what it looks like to me. The cockpit windows are slightly different, but the vertical stabilizer and "mid" T-tail look like they are straight off of DC-4. Not sure what the wing planform looks like, so I can't judge by that..45Colt 06:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the resemblance is a bit superficial, but it gets to this, & with the podded engines, not entirely unreasonable. You're right, it could be clearer. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Tudor 8 (aka Avro Ashton), which it is almost an identical twin of.--Petebutt (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]