Talk:Ultimate Aircraft 10 Dash

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the Air sports project.

Incorrect designation?

FWIW, The FAA US Civil Aircraft register (always uppercase) records no similar types containing the word "DASH", but has examples of "ULTIMATE 10-180", "ULTIMATE 10-200", "ULTIMATE AERO 10-200", "ULTIMATE 10-300", "ULTIMATE 10-300", "ULTIMATE 20-300S".PeterWD (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, I didnt make it up but I dont have access to the Janes I used anymore. Try and look around and see if I can see any other references to it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is an issue that I believe should be addressed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, perhaps by a specific task force. Too often, designations are taken from Janes AWA, apparently uncritically. We need to be aware that entries in Janes often start from (unaccountable) journalists getting their material from press releases written by marketing people, sometimes in advance of first flights. That then gets fixed in history, no-one corrects the headline stuff, and eventually the likes of Wikipedia further reinforce the errors. While the FAA USCAR and other registers mostly reflect (often flawed) data submitted by aircraft owners, the FAA Type Certificates should be regarded as more authoritative than Janes, since they are legal documents of major importance. The online FAA TCD system is notoriously hostile, and I haven't found the one for the Ultimate biplanes. Others that should be investigated are Convair CV-240 (ugh) with TCD A-793, Lockheed L-749 TCD A-763, Dornier Do 228 TCD A16EU (or equivalent TCDS EASA.A.359). For CV-240, see also several images on Commons of Convair documents showing a more correct designation of Convair 240 and Convair Model 240.PeterWD (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the designer, Gord Price. I am building a model of an Ultimate 10-300 from an American kit, the lead in information on the type refers to it as a 10 DASH. I guess that's what you would call it without knowing the engine size. In the model world it is always known as an 'ACME Ultimate', ACME being whatever the kit manufacturer is, my model is known as a Goldberg Ultimate as the kit was made by Carl Goldberg Products. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I suggest that the kit manufacturer got the name from Wikipedia? BTW, I see that the FAA TCD A13NM (also Canadian TC A-142) for DHC-8 has no mention of the word "dash".PeterWD (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, the kit pre-dates the start of Wikipedia by 17 years. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps of interest for this article, I see that in the FAA USCAR September 1982, Gordon Price had N36MD an "Ultimate Wings Pitts", as well as N325GP an "Ultimate 10-300S" plus N6521R an "Ultimate 10-300". I also found N44ZZ registered as an "Ultmte Pitts 10-201".PeterWD (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Ultimate 10-200 the same aircraft perhaps we should merge them if they are. Interestingly the image on that article has "DASH 200" actually painted on end of the wing of N872D. It looks like the dash designations are "marketing names" rather than any official name. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it is - I failed to spot that one. I agree that a merge is best way forward.PeterWD (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a website that offers a lot of relevant historical stuff: https://moleski.net/ULTBIPE/ulthist.htm PeterWD (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of moleski.net and the author of the history of the Ultimate Biplane that is found there. I had an extensive correspondence with Gordon Price about his work in the early 2000s. "Ten Dash" seems to have been shorthand to refer to all three sizes that he developed: "We built kits for 3 types of the ten dash series at Ultimate Aircraft Corp in Guelph Ontario: the 10-100, 10-200 and 10-300."

I know that Wikipedia discourages original research, but there is no doubt that no model of the Ultimate Biplane was called a "10 Dash." Cf. the Canadian registry entry for C-GIKZ, serial number 001. Gordon wrote: "The 10-100 prototype was last seen on hwy 6 on the west side of the road north of Hamilton. The owner was and maybe still is, Ken Gamble. He has a landing strip on his farm. He bought the aircraft for around $1500 at a bank auction about 1990. The 10-100 was a marvelous airplane but tough to fly airshows because of the limiting horsepower."

From Gordon's own website, Gordon Price Shows: "He founded Ultimate Aircraft Corp where he and his team designed and built the Ultimate 10-100, 10-200 and 10-300 series of aircraft featuring a swept lower wing and an integrated control system and some other aerodynamic improvements over the Pitts. At Sun and Fun, Gord opened one air show with 3 vertical rolls … on 100 hp."

Here is a poster of Gordon flying a 10-300S. In the lower right corner is the contact information for his Ultimate Aircraft Corporation in Guelph. In the lower left corner, it reads, "The following models are available in kit form: 10-100, 10-200, 10-300, 20-300."

Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]