Jump to content

Talk:Aeronca Champion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


7CCM

[edit]

The article talks about a civilian version of the 7CCM L-16B and infers not all 100 were delivered to the military. They appear from the article to have differences from the military 7CCM. I would have thought they would be re-designated. The article text is not referenced, has anybody any more on this particularly a reliable ref. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello Aeronca Champion editors! I've uploaded a few pictures of the Aeronca Champ, see the gallery below.

I don't want to change up an article you already have so well organized, so I will leave the pictures here and let you guys use them as you see needed. The pictures are not edited, so on some the Champ is not the main subject of the image. If you like one of those, feel free to crop it, but please do it under another file name so that the original is retained. If you do, let me know so I can add it to my gallery as well. Blue skies! --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merger proposal

[edit]

Just another variant, which will be more than adequately covered by the main article, once the merger takes place--Petebutt (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be merged! - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing worth merging, already there, redirected. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

segregation proposal

[edit]

Suggest segregating out Bellanca 7ACA Champ as a separate wiki article (currently, Wiki searches for that page are redirected here). The 7ACA is a hybrid between Aeronca 7AC and Bellanca 7ECA, with completely different engine from both, and other anomalies. If you'll segregate it out (i don't know the mechanics of the process), and confirm by a note here, indicating the article name (i very strong recommend "Bellanca 7ACA Champ"), I'll have someone flesh out the article with more details and references, soon.

~ 68.103.182.44 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 7ACA is just another Champ variant. Why would it require its own article?
- Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I put some effort into the 7ACA topic in this Champ article, it is quite arguably a distinct aircraft, technically. Ahunt is mistaken to say "The 7ACA is just another Champ variant." The 7ACA is a hybrid of Champ and Citabria -- two separate Wikipedia articles -- and with a unique engine (not used, so far as I can recall, in any other aircraft). And it was quite decidedly peculiar for its time (as it was intended to be) -- as compared to the Aeronca Champ and its other variants through the Champion era, which were planes fairly typical of their time.
The 7ACA definitely merits detailed mention and attention within the Champ article, because of its attempt to reinstate the Champ concept, using the same type certificate (as with the rest of the Citabria line), and the Champ name, concept, features (and lack thereof), and functionality -- and because of the 7ACA's illustration of the transition to obsolecence, and eventual market rejection, of the Champ, as a design concept and as a brand.
However, the 7ACA was so different from other Champs, and even Citabrias, and so intentionally peculiar within its era, that it merits a separate article (which will allow for detailed coverage of its very significantly distinguishing characteristics, and detailed explanation and coverage of its extraordinary conceptualization, introduction, and failure -- compared to the original Champ's extraordinary success with essentially the same formula).
Two key Wikipedia precedents offer proof of the relevance of segregation:
1.) The separate Aeronca L-16 article (frequently, and appropriately, referenced in this Champ article), which is strictly about military variants of the Champ which have hardly any significant differences from the Champ models they are derived from, except for greenhouse windows on some of them. In fact, legally, they are certified under the same FAA Type Certificate: (A-759.) And the L-16 variants MUCH more-closely match their Champ counterparts than the 7ACA does.
2.) The separate Citabria article (about another Champ derivative -- also with the same Type Certificate (A-759), pre-dating the 7ACA -- is given a separate article (also frequently cited in this Champ article). And the 7ACA -- while arguably a Champ functionally -- is (quite obviously from appearances) more of a derivative of the Citabria (which, in turn, is a derivative of the Champ). If the 7ACA's second-generation Champ-derivative progenitor (the Citabria) has its own Wikipedia article (quite appropriately), then why not the third-generation 7ACA variant?.
The 7ACA's official FAA type certificate is the same Type Certificate (A-759) as the Champ and Citabria, but just as those two merit separate but overlapping articles, so, too, does the 7ACA (arguably, even more overlapping, because of the design intent of the 7ACA to revive the role of the original 7AC Champ, tweaked with elements of Citabria).
Go ahead and make the 7ACA article (and you might be wise to use my 7ACA references from the "Operational History" section of this article), but don't delete much of the 7ACA stuff in this Champ article, please. They very necessarily overlap, and neither article is complete without a brief discussion of the other aircraft.
NOTE: The 7ACA should also continue to be listed with Variants listings at the end of the Champ article -- but with an added wikilink to the suggested new "Bellanca 7ACA Champ" page as "main article" on the 7ACA.
~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We generally keep aircraft from the same type certificate in one article, but there are exceptions when it is justified, hence my question above. If you like you can create a sandbox version of the article and we can see how much material there is and whether it is enough to make a stand-alone article. If we do move it to mainspace we would have to reduce the detail on that model in this article, to avoid redundancy, but of course we would link to the new article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aeronca Champion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aeronca_Champion&oldid=1204560063"