Talk:Canadair CL-84 Dynavert

Similar appearance?

{Bill, you can answer this when you're done with your rewrite.)

How is the CL-84 similar in apperance to the V-22? The XV-15 and V-22 are much closer in appearence. And while the XV-15 and CL-84 are closer to each other in size, they look nothing alike. This is like saying the Dash 8 and C-130 are similar in appearance! I understand the point of the paragraph, but the appearence part needs need to be changed. Their function is similar, yes, and that can be expanded upon. - BillCJ 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment as you can see is not mine; check the following site: [1] where there are photographs of the two aircraft in flight. What you can see are general similarities in layout and design. Both designs feature a cargo-transport hold, are convertiplanes and use more-or-less conventional structures apart from the obvious differences in thrust systems. Although you are right to note that the earlier Bell Vertol XV-15 and CL-84 compare more favourably in size and dimensions, the fact that most people would identify with the Osprey design is why the comparison has some validity. Disregard the size differences and what you see are two designs with similar not identical features. The more utilitarian CL-84 profile is as much a product of an experimental design compared to that of a more refined and much more contemporary production aircraft which the V-22 Osprey represents. For a striking comparison, superimpose the two side profiles and you will see some commonalities. IMHO Bzuk 18:45 15 March 2007. (UTC).

Gotcha! No use arguing over minor points here. Oh, don't forgot to put on the 747 page that it resembles the C-102! ;) (Totaly in jest there!) - BillCJ 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill- send me an email and I will send you back an image with an overhead of both CL-84 and V-22 designs as well as side profiles. You can see a number of similar design elements when the two designs are placed close together. Remember, all that is being stated is that there is a superficial similarity in the two designs; it's isn't as much a stretch to see common features including twin tails, similar bulbous noses, slim fuselages, cargo door as well as rotors. There is no connection between the designs but there is an obvious convergence in designs inherent in their convertiplane planforms inevitably being based on cargo transport requirements as well as VTOL characteristics. Bzuk 19:32 15 March 2007. (UTC).

Nationality

At very bottom under the Trivia section is statement "At the time of the CL-84 project, Canadair was a subsidiary of General Dynamics." I think this fact should be moved up on page and given more importance. Reason is that Canadair and Canadian are very prominant at top of page. Page provides impression development aim was for United States Military as customer. It is a well known fact that Congress is very big/prefers to buying American built equipment for for the military.

Wfoj2 12:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the statement carefully, it refers to the name of the aircraft and is not related to whether General Dynamics is a U.S. concern, it was simply a public relations decision to create a catchy name, especially coming from a larger parent company. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

Don't know about you gents, but that section just smacks of hearsay in it's current form. Could it be rewritten at least by someone knowledgeable about the subject as right now, it looks like a teacher has gone through it with 'old red' (Bobbo9000 192.43.227.18 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Cl84.jpg

Image:Cl84.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cl84.jpg

Image:Cl84.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dynavert name

Since the paragraph about the name "Dynavert" could only be verified by someone who was there (like myself) and this is construed as "original research", I propose deleting the paragraph. It doesn't belong in the main text, anyway. I originally posted it as "trivia", but somebody moved it.

I may be the last person living who cares about the name, anyhow.

I don't know why Wikipedia abhors trivia. For me, the trivia is the most interesting part of articles I look up, like the cherry on a sundae.

Wadamsgn (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia abhors trivia, so much as separate trivia sections. Information like this can be easily incorporated into the article text and not made into separate trivia sections. See Wikipedia:Trivia sections. The problems involved in including WP:OR are big ones. Everything has to be referenced to reliable sources, OR is banned as the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. There are good reasons for this, too. If anyone can just add unreferenced opinions and reminiscences then Wikipedia just becomes a blog. There are millions of blogs on the Internet and most are worthless. You also have the problem of someone else coming along and saying, "well I worked on the CL-84 the year after you left the project and we never called it the 84" and so on. It also stops so-called subject matter experts from overruling editors writing from sources. In the end the policy works because otherwise Wikipedia would be as useless as Yahoo Answers - sixty opinions on every question, all of them contradicting. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have restored the section partially as there are references that are available to validate the statement. Frederick C. Phillips, programme manager has written a number of authoritative articles on the project and never once referred to the aircraft as the "Dynavert" which was considered more of a promotional/marketing name that Canadair employees never used. To them it was always the "84." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Adding reliable refs is always the best solution! - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the revision. Thanks Bzuk 24.215.93.194 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Legacy"

Some 30 years after the end of the CL-84 program, the present-day V-22 Osprey VTOL aircraft has revived the convertiplane concept, although, unlike the tilt wing of the Canadair CL-84, it utilizes a tilting engine design. (Laissus, Jean-François. "The CL-84 Dynavert: Canada’s Convertiplane." aafo.com/news. Retrieved: 15 March 2007)

I've removed this paragraph as WP:OR/synthesis, which has been removed before. It was restored at that time with the comment "hard to remove a section that is also backed up by a citation". However, the source doesn't make that assertion "the present-day V-22 Osprey VTOL aircraft has revived the convertiplane concept". Further, this appears to be a commentary or blog-type site, not really a reliable source per WP:RS. All the cited article says is that Canada had developed a tilt-wing aircraft 30 years before. In addition, the piece is comparing the "Bell Boeing 609" (now the AW609), not the V-22! Let's wait for a consensus before we re-add this agian, and have better sources, though that's probably not likely to be found. Remember, the V-22 was based on XV-3 and XV-15, which aren't related to the CL-84 in anyway, and XV-3 predates it by at least a decade. - BilCat (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Rumor" of attempted climb speed record

Is there a reference for the "rumor" that the test pilots in the 8 August 1973 test flight were attempting to set a climb speed record? If not, I think that sentence should be deleted. (Full disclosure: the US Navy test pilot was my father, and in personal conversation when I asked him about this "rumor" he said there was no such attempt; the pilots, not just on this flight but any test flight, were far too busy with the test protocol to think about trying to set any records that weren't an authorized objective of the flight.)

2601:14C:8300:3437:DC3E:CFF6:B7EE:1695 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The ref cited is "Boniface 2000, pp. 76–77." which is a paper book. Anyone have access to it? - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a magazine article to me, from the March 2000 issue of this magazine: https://aeroplanemonthly.keypublishing.com/. Unfortunately back issues visible on their website don't go back that far.

2601:14C:8300:3437:3C85:6387:ACEC:411A (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, it is an edition of Aeroplane magazine. Would be helpful to see just what it says. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have emailed the magazine to see if I can get a copy of that issue.

2601:14C:8300:3437:3C85:6387:ACEC:411A (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Super! - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it. Looking at the article's history, the claim existed long before any sources were added to the article. That said, even if it were in the source, Wikipedia doesn't generally report rumors like that. It would have to be quite widely reported in credible, reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the specs list the CL-84's rate of climb as 4,200 ft/min, while the F-4's climb rate is 41,300 ft/min, about 10 times as fast! It just doesn't seem credible to me, even if it was just to 10,000 feet, that a seasoned pilot, especially a test pilot, would think he could break such a record in a CL-84. - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Good call. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Performance

So judging by this article, this just happens to be the only tilt-wing aircraft that performed flawlessly and efficiently, with none of the inherent issues that generally turned users away from other similar projects even when they technically functioned? It was superb in all aspects and ready to go into combat any time anyone was wise enough to buy it, which they weren't? No issues with mechanical complexity or fuel use, or payload limitations compared to fixed wing aircraft, no noise or propwash issues? The cost was reasonable? All I can think with i read this is that it sounds like it was written by the guy responsible for polishing up the image of the Canadian defense and aerospace industry or just an extremely partial fan who is on a mission to convince the world that this would have been a world beater if only anyone had the wisdom to buy it. And that's before you get to the part that reads like a manufacturers promotional material gushing about the "impressive display" it put on shooting up ground targets with a mini gun. Those displays are usually meant to be impressive, they are trying to sell aircraft. That doesn't translate into a demonstration of effective capacity. Every other contemporary tilt wing ran into a variety of inherent issues that led potential buyers to decide against buying them, but we're supposed to accept that this effective prototype or proof of concept had no drawbacks or issues and the only reason it wasn't immediately bought in huge numbers is that short-sighted officials just didn't see it in the budget at that time? Idumea47b (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)