Talk:Avro Canada Chinook

A fact from Avro Canada Chinook appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,804 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that while only three Avro Chinooks, Canada's first jet engine design, were ever built, they led to the very successful Orenda design that followed?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February.

Wikipedia

Aviation: Engines

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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

--- Claimed differences from the Jumo 004

This wiki article claims "The primary difference in design was the use of six separate flame cans instead of the singular annular combustor of the Jumo." Yet the Jumo quite clearly uses 6 flame cans (the BMW 003 used an annular design, but there's no mention of that being used or studied by Avro engineers).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Junkers_Jumo_004_(1941)_used_in_Messerschmitt_Me262_and_Arado_Ar234_at_Flugausstellung_Hermeskeil,_pic2.JPG

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4683/39349648272_0c4943e8c1_b.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.103.59 (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't[edit]

"This source from Trent University claims that the TR.3 was also an axial-flow design, and Boyd decided to spin off the TR.4 as a smaller version of it."

It doesn't say anything of the sort. It says they were working on the TR3 and then decided to make a smaller design, the TR4. It does not imply or even slightly suggest the TR4 is a smaller TR3, it simply says that it's smaller than the TR3. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]