Talk:Airports for antique aircraft

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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... (I added enough text to start an article.) --Rhadow (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PROD discussion

An aerodrome (in the international definition) for antique aircraft has different characteristics from a normal airport. The optimal field is round and turf. It should have repair facilities for fabric-covered aircraft. Rhadow (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, that is not my understanding of what an aerodrome is, very few aerodromes/airfields are round if any. I have no idea what antique aircraft are but I suspect some of them are metal. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Experimental Aircraft Association defines antique aircraft as any built before August 31, 1945. It's an arbitrary distinction. Before the war, almost all civilian aircraft were fabric covered. Until the 1930s, almost all aircraft were built on a wood structure. They were so clumsy in a crosswind that a practical airport was round, so all takeoffs and landings could be made directly into the wind. Aerodrome is a term defined by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization. The term is used daily in the U.S. For example, it is standard procedure to to get a Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF) before every flight. Rhadow (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK so you are talking about making a list of aerodromes that are round, grass, that pre August 1945 can be repaired at ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antique aircraft don't need a grass/turf runway to land on. If you are going to list airports that they can land on then almost all airports in the world can be listed as the Douglas DC-3 can land almost anywhere. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CambridgeBayWeather, MilborneOne -- This article is fundamentally about airports that serve flying examples of antique aircraft, often in a museum setting. Turf runways offer these aircraft the advantage of a landing surface with a low coefficient of friction. They are forgiving of landings in a crosswind condition, something that early aircraft were intolerant of. If you land crooked, the wheels will slide sideways without flipping the aircraft over. Turf runways were replaced with asphalt or concrete as aircraft weights increased and their crosswind capabilities improved. In 2018, it is too expensive to built a round airport; it takes too much real estate.

I'm not sure that the DC-3 is the best example of aircraft that would use an Airport for antique aircraft. I would more at examples like this EAA Pioneer Airport]. Rhadow (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed out above that aircraft built prior to 31 August 1945 and using that criteria a DC3 counts. The TAF is given for lots of registered aerodromes and certified airports and there is even a template for getting Canadian airport weather ({{Can-arpt-wx|CYYZ|Toronto Pearson International Airport}}) and has nothing to do with the type of facility. We also have Category:Airports for antique aircraft which had Green Lake Aerodrome and Plattsville (Lubitz Flying Field) Aerodrome neither of which have any evidence of being used for antique aircraft. All Canadian airports/aerodromes are sorted in categories by type (Category:Registered aerodromes in Alberta) but not all of them are grass/turf and I doubt many are used by antique aircraft. At present the way this article is set up would indicate that any qualifying aerodrome could be listed here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we're discussing the term aerodrome, except that is a common naming element of the examples provided. The word sounds good when applied to a museum of flying antique aircraft. While we're at it we could replace antique with wood, fabric and wires. There are enough of them them that I believe the category deserves an article. I will add references and remove the PROD tag. If you want to take it to AfD, have at it. Rhadow (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries, like Canada, an aerodrome is just any place that is used for take-off and landing an aircraft, but that is not a licenced airport. The main issue this article has right now is that there are no refs cited that indicate that the subject exists. The one ref cited doesn't discuss the subject at all. Unless it can be shown from reliable refs that there is a distinct class of aerodromes for antique aircraft, then this article should go for deletion as a non-existent topic. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs have been added that generally mention the sort of facilities that pilots of old aircraft look for at existing airports and aerodromes, but I am not seeing anything there that established this as a distinct topic. Is there any reason this shouldn't be just merged into Aerodrome? - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt said, "an aerodrome is ... is not a licenced airport." That's news to me. Nav Canada describes its Aerodrome Directory as Data and sketches for Canadian aerodromes and heliports and selected aerodromes in the North Atlantic. It would hardly be useful for Nav Canada to publish a list of (only) unlicensed facilities. Aerodrome is defined by United Nations agency ICAO, which is based in Montreal, so I figure if anyone knows what an aerodrome is, it would be Canadians.

It seems I am adding to this article in the face of editors who have already made up their minds, definitions be damned. Put me out of my misery please and take the article to AfD, rather than tagging every assertion. Rhadow (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Aeronautics Act says "aerodrome means any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or associated therewith; (aérodrome)" and "airport means an aerodrome in respect of which a Canadian aviation document is in force; (aéroport)". In Canada a licenced aerodrome is an airport and an unlicenced airport is an aerodrome. Of course that is just Canada. In the US they seem to call them all airports.

I don't think we need to go to AfD. I think this should just be merged into aerodrome with some general statements and refs indicting what sort of facilities antique aircraft require. I can't see anything in the ref that supports that this is distinct topic by itself. There seem to be lots of people watching this page, let's hear from them on this proposal or whether they think it should be retained as a distinct topic. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great quote from statute. The conclusion is faulty though.

All airports are aerodromes
Some airports are licenced
Some airports are unlicenced
Therefore all unlicenced airports are aerodromes
It does not follow that only unlicenced airports are aerodromes Rhadow (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are partly right. As far as Canada goes:

All airports are aerodromes - true, but licensed aerodromes are called 'airports', by definition.
Some airports are licenced - no, all airports are licensed. That is what an airport is in Canada, a licenced aerodrome
Some airports are unlicenced - no, if it is unlicensed then it is not an airport, just an aerodrome
Therefore all unlicenced airports are aerodromes - true.

Basically all places to land and take-off are aerodromes and the licensed ones are airports. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still have a problem with the concept of this article (hence why I proposed deletion), I still dont understand what "Airports for antique aircraft" really are and I originally thought it was a bad translation of something else. As far as I can see you can land an aircraft built before 1945 at most airport depending on size, although you would be hard placed to put a B-17 into some of the places listed. So with a pretty meaningless name and a wide remit of "antique aircraft" it is all a bit of nonsense that should go to AfD. That said some of the stuff about early aerodromes should be in aerodromes not here but I still think that we need a reliable souce for a round aerodrome (do they really exist). The list here has been expanded but it is really a list of museums that are on airfields (a list that could get very long as a good percentage of aircraft museums have runways. MilborneOne (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deisenbe -- If I had known that there was already a meeting in the star chamber [1] deciding the fate of this article, I wouldn't have bothered to spend the time. Next time tell me that the airport cabal and an administrator have already made their decision. I wouldn't have had to spend the time having every edit challenged, even the size of the image. Rhadow (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]