Talk:CallAir A-9

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CallAir A-9. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140807063751/http://www.soarelsinore.org/docs/a9.pdf to http://www.soarelsinore.org/docs/a9.pdf

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) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It seems this specification is rather ambitious, but I'm not sure what the correct value should be.

Wing loading: 850 lb/sq ft (4,200 kg/m2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.117.148 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

'Naco' should be removed

The IMCO CallAir A-9 is never going to make a substantial article, but an unfortunate sequence of events has resulted in the article being hi-jacked. How so? The infobox contains a nice picture of a two-tone Callair A-9B (a sub-type that isn't even mentioned in the main text). It is a fairly ordinary crop-duster, similar to most other types.

But lower down in the article itself there is a photo of a well turned out bright yellow Mexican Air Force AAMSA A-9B-M Quail 'Naco'. This is a wholly different aircraft, with every suggestion that it is a basic military trainer. There is no explanation as to the name 'Naco', so it appears it is just a casual name. Meanwhile the Specifications are also attributed to the AAMSA A-9B-M Quail, which matches up to the image and makes it the two seat military trainer.

But this is all wrong! 'Naco' isn't just a nickname, it signifies a wholly different sub-type.

The Callair A-9, and A-9B, and the IMCO versions, and the Rockwell Aero Commander versions, and even the Mexican AAMSA versions (A-9B-M), are all the same basic crop-dusting aircraft, with a total production somewhere in excess of 400 units.

'Naco', the bright yellow trainer, has somehow borrowed the same designation, probably to get around requiring a new type certificate, but is a totally different aircraft, with a production run of .... one! However, as the article stands, the reader is drawn to the single outlier, instead of the 400+ unit main event.

Of course, these are only my numbers, derived from original research, and there is no specific source to back them up, so they cannot appear in the article.

I have, here in 2024, tracked down a total of fifteen (15) A-9 aircraft by serial & construction number, 14 of which can be cross-referenced via the FAA Registry. There are six A-9s, plus eight A-9Bs, across three different manufacturers, plus one wreck languishing in Iran that defies full identification.

Separate from these is the single AAMSA A-9B-M Quail 'Naco', conveniently identified as EPA-1. It isn't finished very well, and reportedly flew like a brick. In all the confusion, somebody has lumped it together with the real A-9B-M Quail, and I have even seen sources claiming that 40 were made for the Mexican Air Force. Er, no!

From this starting position of utter confusion, repeated across multiple sites on the internet, it has been quite a challenge piecing together the truth. Here are the five basic types.

• The Callair A-9, also manufactured by Intermountain (IMCO), also manufactured by Aero Commander. In reality we are probably talking about the same factory, same workforce, just with different Corporate owners.
• The Callair A-9B, pretty much as above, same airframe, bigger engine. I am guessing this has been erroneously transcribed as the 'A-9 Super'
• The Callair B-1, if the esteemed J.W.R.Taylor at Jane's says it existed, I'll buy into that. But on the basis that it has subsequently sunk without trace, I suggest it was just a prototype, and maybe a handful of examples, no more. I've got nothing on it.
• The AAMSA A-9B-M Quail, identical to the A-9B but with the suffix 'M' for Mexico, with a slow production run amounting to maybe 40 units.
• The AAMSA A-9B-M Quail 'Naco', a one-off hand-built attempt to make a two seat military trainer, without employing an actual aircraft designer (yes, that is just my personal analysis). Unfortunately, because it has somehow avoided crashing horribly into terra firma, it is now on display at a museum, and pictures of it can be found everywhere, ad nauseum. It is a distraction, barely relevant to the Callair A-9 family of agricultural aircraft. It is just about worthy of a brief mention, but that distracting photo has got to go! WP:PROPORTION

That's all folks!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

We should base articles on what reliable sources say, not by WP:OR. Callair (as an independent company built) no A-9s of any version, as it first flew after IMCO took over Callair. IMCO built its aircraft at the CallAir's old Afton, Wyoming plant - they seem to have built three versions according to Simpson, the original A-9, the A-9A ("minor modifications") and the A-9B (with the IO-540). Rockwell purchased IMCO in 1966, with production initially remaining at Afton, but in 1969 production of the A-9 series moved to a new factory in Albany, Georgia with the rights to build the B-1 (or Snipe Commander when a radial engine was fitted) being sold on to SL Industries of Oklahoma City - it isn't clear whether they did anything with these rights. In 1971, the A-9 programme was transferred to AAMSA in Mexico, who built IO-540 powered aircraft as the A9B (101 built), before switching to the improved A9B-M (36 built by the time production petered out in ~84). They also seem to have built kits for a further 17 aircraft which were assembled in the US and then mainly sold back to Mexico - According to Simpson, these were A9B's (i.e. powered by the IO-540 engine) but there are hints in Jane's that they may have been lower powered (235 hp O-540-engined) Sparrow Commander equivalents.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The A9 and A9B seem to be on the same type certificate as the earlier CallAir models [1], but the A9A is on a separate TC for some reason [2].Nigel Ish (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As you clearly have access to better sources than myself (I'm a long way from any library that might provide a copy of Jane's), and because you clearly know what you are talking about, I could leave it there. With humble gratitude thrown in, and a cherry on top. For a start, you have dug up production numbers, which you have incorporated into the article. Kudos! It was quite a shock to find that some 36 model B-1s were built. What happened to them?

Meanwhile, from my position of semi-ignorance, I will offer some comments.

Jane's 1982 edition was most likely referring to what was current in 1982, i.e. the A-9B-M. I was going to argue that it did not preclude this model from having the same specs as the Callair A-9B, except you have come up with useful detail such as cut-down fuselage and increased wing dihedral, which I now see may have impacted the performance data. But I strongly suspect the Mexican version did not undergo full flight testing in order to come up with any new performance data - they just re-hashed the old. Of course Jane's doesn't say that, but it would be interesting to find an earlier Jane's to show me if I'm wrong.

I also admit I was going with the idea that AAMSA only made around 40 aircraft in total, but again you have nailed it with much better numbers, which goes some way to justifying the Specs being tailored to the AAMSA product as opposed to the one of the original more widely produced versions.

That just leaves the question of whether CallAir ever made the A-9. Your source says not, but I relied on the FAA Registry as a reliable source, and they quite specifically identified N8234H (the aircraft in the image I added) as a Callair produced A-9 c/n 1211. To verify this wasn't just lazy FAA shorthand, I compared it to later production.

i.e. N7263V (c/n 1315) is identified as an Intermountain produced 'CallAir A-9B'.

And FYI, just four aircraft later, c/n 1319 is listed as an Aero Commander produced Callair A-9B.

Presumably we are getting into the 50-shades-of-grey area of who actually had got their hot sweaty mitts on the Type Certificate at any specific time?

Am I wrong to suggest the FAA Registry is a reliable source? Am I getting dangerously close to WP:OR? Partly I am taking into consideration the reality that a company take-over (first IMCO, then Aero Commander), does not instantly mean that aircraft change, particularly if they are already halfway down a production line. From a certain date they will suddenly be marketed with the new company name, as will any completed airframes that are sitting around waiting for a buyer. But making a categoric statement that CallAir never manufactured any A-9s is a very black-and-white statement in an otherwise dodgy area. You cite Jane's and Simpson, I cite FAA, you say potato, I say tomato. You've got to admit it's messy, but I'm not fighting you on it, just chewing the fat.

I will freely concede that I overstepped the mark in some aspects, and just wish I had online access to the sources that you clearly have available. I assure you I would have approached this differently with that at my fingertips.

So, where are we at now? Do I need to edit the article some more, especially that photo caption. Or shall I just quietly tip-toe away from the mess I made?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources are pretty clear that the A-9 was an IMCO design, developed after the takeover (or rather after IMCO purchased CallAir at a public sale - which indicates that CallAir may have not been in a healthy condition) - However Jane's does refer to the type as the IMCO Callair A-9, so Callair seems to have been kept as a trade name.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)