This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
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:
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
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
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 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
@
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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