Talk:List of aircraft of Canada's air forces

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 aircraft project.

Canada: Military Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force

Military history: Aviation / Canadian / North America CL‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force

B-47 Stratofortress

I removed the link to "B-47 Stratofortress" from this page:

The B-47 was called the Stratojet. The B-52 was called the "Stratofortress"
The U.S. loaned one B-47 to the RCAF from 1956 to 1959 for testing (see B-47 Stratojet#Conversions and special modifications) This aircraft was used for 35 hours of engine flight testing and was never an operational RCAF aircraft. --rogerd 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by aircraft type

What do people think of the idea of sorting this list by aircraft type (then listed either chronologically or alphabetically in each section)? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to do something; this list is confusing because of the various designations. I'm not sure whether using the various designations (USAF, RAF) is necessary unless it there is a WP guideline somewhere that dictates this. Several aircraft are listed twice (e.g. T-33 and Dakota) under different designations. Other aircraft are listed only once, even though there are different designations (e.g. Starfighter). Bottom line: clean up and preferably list the aircraft once, and sort in alpha, chrono, or manufacturer order, or sort them according to which air force they were used in. In the latter case, some aircraft would need to be listed more than once. We do have to decide which designation/name standard to use. Probably the designation that all of them fit into ("RAF" style?). I like the way the aircraft on List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy are listed. Charts are used, and a notes section in each chart adds more information (in the case of this list, information about which air force the aircraft were used in could be placed in the notes section.)BC (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking if I get some spare time that I'll go through the current list, and resort it into 3 or 4 main groups, then subdivide them by type. Pre-WWII service, WWII service, PostWWII/Coldwar Service, Currently in service. I'm just wondering how best to handle cross group planes, ones that were in service cross the bounding lines. I think likely the best way would be to include them twice and make note of it in the list. For the subgroups, Utility/Recon, Fighter, Bomber, Fighter-Bombers, and make note of what type, ie night fighter, daylight bomber.--Talroth (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea has merit. I would go ahead and try to do this. We should probably use just one designation, however, to avoid confusion and duplication. Perhaps we could have the "RAF-style" name designation with the modern designation in brackets after the RAF-style name. The List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy uses a chart form which we may want to eventually adopt. BC (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may tackle this, since no one has taken the bit. The most common eras are World War I, Inter-war, World War II, Cold War (here 1946-1968 would be useful), 1968-. Also, the year the aircraft became operational is the era they are normally placed into. Subdividing by type may become cluttersome. The RCAF's designation should be the one used (i.e. North American Harvard, not AT-6 Texan).--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title change proposal, template, and CAC

Since this lists aircraft used for all of Canada's air forces, (late WWI and post-WWI CAFs, RCAF, and Air Command) should we be using the Air Command template? This template is strictly for Air Command and may lead to confusion since it does not apply to the other air forces in Canada's history (which this list is all about). Also, the title is misleading because this technically is not a list of aircraft of the Canadian Air Force. It is a list of aircraft used by Canada's air forces, however. Also, any thoughts about including the Burgess-Dunne, which was used by the Canadian Aviation Corps?BC (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Air Force is back to being called the RCAF, I am thinking the page might be better named List of Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft or List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force - other air force lists only use the current name, and it is less awkward than the current title.NiD.29 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Aviation Corps

We should include the Canadian Aviation Corps and its second-hand Dunne D.8 shipped at vast expense to England where it never actually flew. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also tweaked the Dunne D.8 link. BC _{talk to me} 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Sam Hughes must have been quite a character. Imagine buying a US copy of a British plane, shipping across the Atlantic, then abandoning it without ever even a training flight. It's the Great Canadian (military) Story, right up there with the Avro Arrow, the refit of the Bonaventure, and the purchase of surplus submarines. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of stupidity and waste. The idea for the corps was actually Janney's. He was a con who managed to pull the wool over Hughes' eyes (for whatever reason). Hughes was a yes-man who had no idea he was being taken for a ride. A good plot for a movie. BC _{talk to me} 04:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well...Hughes seemed to attract this sort of person; I've just read about the shovel you could shoot through, and the rifle that worked fine as long as it was kept absolutely clean. I ran across an account of the maiden (and only?) flight of the Corps, where the pilot was arrested when he landed because no-one had thought to get clearance to fly into Canada. It should be a movie, or at least a Canada Post Heritage Minute. They couldn't dismiss Janney because he was never officially hired (or paid)! --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant list?

This list repeats much of the same information found in the List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and to add to the confusion, the term "List of RCAF aircraft" redirects here even though the other article includes "Royal Canadian Air Force" in the title! Has anyone considered combining these 2 seemingly redundant lists? Carguychris (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force only list "current" aircraft while this one list all aircraft that are or have been used. So they serve different purposes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other list also includes retired aircraft. Carguychris (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good point perhaps it shouldnt, perhaps it should become List of active Canadian military aircraft and the retired aircraft moved here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support User:MilborneOne's suggestion above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Ahunt's motion. Carguychris (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with a proviso. This list should contain ALL the aircraft used (ever) as a listing of just the retired aircraft would not be particularly useful as readers are more likely to want to know what was in service during a particular time, than a list of types the AF isn't using anymore. Also it would require that both pages are updated every time a type is retired and I think the current format clearly shows the distinction without undue size or clutter.NiD.29 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation of renaming the other page I have replaced the very incomplete history section (which if completed in that format would produce an unwieldy page) with links to this page and the List of Royal Canadian Navy aircraft pages. I am unable to rename the page due to to redirect used above having been changed at some point.NiD.29 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a lot of planes listed here that seem to make no sense, there was never a p-40, b247, b17, ever serving for rcaf, get your facts straight. you should also organize them by date and by by if its active or not...theres a website that shows all the rcaf planes and yours does not line up..it feels as if you took suggestions from people making photoshops, and never deciphered on what is true or not. Get your facts straight. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenvox (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky H-19/HO4S (S-55) question

I do not have the Griffin books. Can anyone confirm whether the total of 15 Sikorsky H-19/S-55 helicopters shown in the chart includes former RCN HO4S "Horse" aircraft? Another source indicates that the RCN had 5 HO4S-3's on unification. Carguychris (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin gives 15 R-1340 powered H-19's for the RCAF and 13 R-1300 powered HO4S-3's for the RCN - a total of 28.NiD.29 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—page updated to reflect this, plus additional source for HO4S aircraft.Carguychris (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article XV squadrons

What's the justification/logic for excluding RCAF Article XV squadrons? These were part of the RCAF, under RCAF command, and while personnel were shared, they were still paid for by the Canadian government, and for every non-Canadian aircrew in them, a Canadian was serving in an RAF or Article XV squadron of another Commonwealth air force.

It seems like an illogical exclusion when trying to present data on aircraft of the RCAF. 209.195.104.150 (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've got Article XV squadrons. Tell us, what aircraft did they use? It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and you're anyone, too! Be Bold! used to be our slogan a decade or more ago...don't know what the current one is. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]