Talk:Canadair CL-415

Thank you to whoever created this page!

This article does not have the correct aircraft description. Somebody please add this!!! Nate 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The only" in the first paragraph??? What about Beriev Be-200 that is first of all firefighting plane? (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

The Beriev is not a dedicated firefighter (they offer a firefighting variant). It's also a much newer plane than the 415. However "the only" is still wrong because the 415 is based on the CL-215, which was designed as a dedicated waterbomber in 1969. 99.230.231.234 (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The map of "World operators" shows Syria and Iran as operators, yet these countries are not mentioned in the text. Who can clear this contradiction? Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Payload of 6400lbs and retardant capacity of 13,000+lbs seem rather different. ?? 2001:56A:F414:D300:6D38:393A:750A:E7BD (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The figures under the "General Characteristics" don't make much sense. It would suggest that carrying a full water load would mean not carrying much fuel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.83.94 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not uncommon for an aircraft to be unable to carry a full load of fuel plus a full load of cargo. A water bomber would be based out of a relatively close airfield when fighting a fire, negating the need for a heavy fuel load. It would only need a full fuel load when moving from one airfield to another, and thus not carrying water. Sario528 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

not the.way to do it > I only renamed in the article. I tried to move it also, but since CL-415 is a redirect, I asked an admin. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Marc Lacoste: WP aircraft articles generally follow the Manufacturer-designation-name format, or in this case, Manufacturer-designation, per WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. There are exceptions, but they need to be discussed first. Please not that Lockheed has owned the F-16 for 23 years now, but the title is stll at General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, by consensus. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, but the CL-415 have no manufacturer anymore. Viking only supports it, and the Twin Otter is still a DHC. Best bet should be the designer for Canadair CL-415? Worse still, the de Havilland then Hawker Siddeley then BAe 125 then Raytheon then Beech BAe 125 :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know for you, but in France those water bombers are known generically as Canadairs :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, manufacturers do make it difficult for us sometimes, but we try to determine the most commonly known manufacturer, and use that. Obviously, not everyone will agree, which is why the F-16 is still at GD, while I've supported LM in move discussions on several occasions.

Also, all aircraft had manufacturers, as those are the one who made the aircraft in the first place, and that still counts, even when they don't currently own the type certificate. I'd be fine with going back to Canadair CL-415, but I'd like more input than just you and me. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Should be at Canadair CL-415 which is by far the most common name. MilborneOne (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

So, @BilCat:, can you move it to Canadair CL-415? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. Sorry, I had forgotten to do it. - BilCat (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Spanish crashes Incidents http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhjFvra4K4g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.205.34 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

On March 13, 2020 Marc Lacoste placed a {{mergeto}} on Viking Air CL-515. However, they skipped the important step of complying with WP:Merging#Step 1: Create a discussion, and creating a section explaining why they thought a merge was in order, here on Talk:Canadair CL-415. The only explanation I see was the laconic claim "same aircraft" in their edit summary.

Yeah, that claim is highly questionable:

1. The CL-215 and CL-415 were not equipped for flying at night. The 515 was designed for night operations, and had superior modern avionics.
2. The 515 was designed to serve other roles, like aerial and marine surviellance, during the months when there were no fires and the earlier aircraft sat idle.
3. The 515 design differs from the 415 in several other ways, including, a larger rear door, large enough for search and rescue technicicans to launch a boat to go and retrieve shipwrecked swimmers.

On June 8th, Marc Lacoste redirected CL-515. But they made zero effort to actually merge the two articles. This is a serious mis-use of a {{mergeto}} tag. Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I did not bother to start a discussion in talk for a merge, as well as you did not bother to start a discussion for a split either. I proposed a merge on 13 March. No one cared to add a comment for two weeks, so I went ahead (Step zero of Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger). Those discussions usually attract no one, as exemplified by your very late reply more than 4 months later. Life is short.

The CL-515 is not a new design, it's just a (proposed) derivative. New avionics (BTW, implying the previous 215/415 can't fly IFR is dubious and this claim should be addressed) and a larger door, even for a new mission, aren't sufficient ground to start a new article. See the Dash 8 or ATR 72 maritime surveillance derivatives, they don't need a new article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Best approach in my opinion would be to merge the CL-215 and CL-415 articles as well. It is basically the same design with different engines, there are various variants, for example a CL-215 has been modified into a CL-415 EAF. The CL-515 is probably more of a technological step from the 415 than the 415 from the 215 was. It is better to explain this on one page, instead of having two rather short articles which are quite a bit redundant. Similar to the C-130 or the CH-47, the latest model is very different from the initial ones, but they are on one WP page, and that is very appropriate. Only issue would be to find a good article title, maybe "Canadair CL-215/415/515", not sure. But you would have a common intro, then four paragraphs for the 215, the 415, the 415EAF and the 515 (this can both cover the history/developement aspect as well as explain the details/improvements of the variants), and then one operator list across all variants, same with the accidents list. Having two articles is a mess.--91.41.35.230 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree the CL-215 should be merged with this one into in a single article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose merges. They just make messes. BilCat (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose merger of CL-215 and CL-415 - I feel these two articles have enough content to justify separate articles at this point. Kyteto (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Revert merges (unmerge) per BilCat -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply