Talk:De Havilland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gypsy - Gipsy

Discussion of de versus De becomes tiresome, though I do agree it's important. But perhaps a diversion is in order.

In reading the article I was surprised to see the model name spelt 'Gypsy': I'd previously seen 'Gipsy' relating to de Havilland engines. Anyone care to delve into this? Citroënist 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lowercase "de"

What's the authority for a lowercase "de" in the company name? Note that the company logo included as a graphic has the "DH" symbols. Gene Nygaard 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It must come from his name Geoffrey de Havilland, however both ICAO and Transport Canada (type GFYN in the box named mark) show it as De Havilland.

Can you cite any authority for your changes to various De Havilland articles? Please reply on Talk:De Havilland, and note the comment there and the logo on the De Havilland page. I think you should backtrack and remove your templates. Gene Nygaard 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gene.

When written in full, the correct name is 'de Havilland' but it is written as 'DH' when abbreviated. I changed the pages because the name spelt with a 'D' didn't look right. As for my sources I have just checked a considerable number of [Aeroplane Monthly] magazines and they spell it with a small 'd' as de Havilland.

I'm not sure about when the name starts a sentence though as I can't find an example ATM - it's possible it should be capitalised then, but not being an expert in Norman-French, I may have been a bit over zealous!

BTW, the 'template' I used was the one from the top of this (De Havilland) page, which was already there, so I just added it to the others. Ian Dunster 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd go with CambridgeBayWeather's ICAO and Transport Canada rather than some magazine. Can anybody find any other authorities? Certainly it should be "De" at the beginning of a sentence; I suspect it should always be "De". Gene Nygaard 16:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bombardier Aerospace is the current owner of de Havilland Canada. Google shows that most of the hits on bombardier.com use the lowercase d, so I'll go along with that at least for the Canadian branch. But I still think that at the beginning of a sentence it should be uppercase. Gene Nygaard 16:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Canada's Digital Collections, an official government archive site, uses a lowercase d. So does de Havilland Support. I suggest we do the same. ericg ✈ 19:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with eric on this one. de Havilland means "from Havilland". de is always lowercase. Look in any reputable aircraft book. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• ICAO and Transport Canada are not authoritative sources on correct spelling of aircraft manufacturer names. Aeroplane Monthly, on the other hand, is a reputable publication with respect for and understanding of history. Please refrain from baseless attacks on other editors' good research. There is a significant historical aspect to the de Havilland marque that is completely ignored with the uppercase "De." An article about a century-old British aircraft maker is no place for ignorance of history. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"de Havilland" might always be lower case, but the rules of English demand that sentences start with an uppercase letter. "de," "al," "ab," "von," and all the other words used in names are old enough in English that we can get away with capitalizing them at the start of a sentence; things like iPod, etc., are things that aren't so simply done. I strongly suggest we get rid of the lowercase template. --Golbez 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as strongly, I disagree with changing a person/family's name. If you can't figure out a way to start a sentence with "de Havilland," may I suggest "The de Havilland company" or "Geoffrey de Havilland." Bzuk 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

We aren't changing their name. In English, "bin Ladin" would be "Bin Ladin" at the start of a sentence, and "bin Ladin" anywhere else. I do believe the same rules apply to "de Havilland." And those options aren't exactly useful for the name of the article, are they? --Golbez 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, be creative- find a way not to use de Havilland at the start of a sentence.Bzuk 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

... You're... You're missing the point which I have now put forth twice. This isn't about starting a sentence. This is about the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE. I think we should get rid of the lowercase template. --Golbez 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, as stated, before, it's a person's name; this is an exception to the standard rule, and if you check the commentary, that point has been made already and if you can't recognize humour, well so be it. Bzuk 15:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

de Havilland Marine

Is it proper to have a section on this page devoted to the marine section of de Havilland including the yacht division? There are many de Havilland water craft from fishing and sailing dinghies to large commercial and defence craft. Some of which were built at Homebush Bay on the Parramatta river at Sydney Aust. I have an old fibreglass sailing dinghy, a Vagabond 3.7 sail no 176. Its build plate not dated, says it was built by DE HAVILLAND MARINE YACHT DIVISION. 60.240.67.76 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Bruce Knowling brucek@jista.com.au

Perhaps it could go in the De Havilland Australia article, assuming it is the same company and that you have references for it. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you're thinking of something else, de Havilland builds aircraft, ranging from military aircraft to pivate transports.

Blueteamguy (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Several British aircraft manufacturers branched-out into boatbuilding after the war, including Fairey Aviation with their Fairey Marine spin-off. Possibly the DHA company did the same, as the DH company were familiar with building techniques using moulded plywood after building the Mosquito, Hornet, and Vampire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.78.10 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a twist ... my father was the first Manager of DH Marine in Australia, and oversaw the initial design & production of DH aluminium boats under the Topper name, Production started around 1960 at Bankstown Airport, Sydney. Many designs from 12 foot open 'tinnies' to off shore commercial vessels and even an experimental leiser cruiser names 'trucanini' cheers all! Grahame Richards (added Jan 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cergos (talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 1. De Havilland Marine (Large Craft) was located on the waters edge at 5-7 Burroway Road, Homebush Bay. Due to a lack of new business it closed it's doors in 1982. In the years prior it manufactured various large craft including 6 Patrol Boats for Burma & the hulls of the Nepean Bell which still operates on the Nepean River. David Woods

Refer: DeHavilland Marine Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003650448812 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.84.181 (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Jet Fighter Design Tendency

From what i've seen, de Havilland had a tendency to design fighter aircraft in this descrption: A flying Boomerang straightened out with a Twin-Chassis, similar to that of the P-38 Lightning, the best example of this is the Vampire.

Blueteamguy (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Blueteamguy

Just to add a twist ... my father was the first Manager of DH Marine in Australia, and oversaw the initial design & production of DH aluminium boats under the Topper name, Production started around 1960 at Bankstown Airport, Sydney. Many designs from 12 foot open 'tinnies' to off shore commercial vessels and even an experimental leiser cruiser names 'trucanini' cheers all! Grahame Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cergos (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

what makes an aircraft expensive?

why doesent somebody replicate a beaver/otter desing plane for a moderate cost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.17.214 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chairman Turner

The company's first chairman was an Arthur Edwin Turner 1875- presumably George Holt Thomas's nominee. He was a career civil servant in the War Office long before 1914. He is replaced as chairman by the big new investor, Alan Samuel Butler but he does continue as deputy to Butler. Unfortunately Turner became unsuitable for the post in 1926 when various companies he was connected with went into liquidation. (£8,000 a year man. Debts of a former civil servant and aircraft company director, Gloucester Citizen, 5 April 1932). Eddaido (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Innovative designs: Comet, Mosquito... Tiger Moth?

I can understand why the lead section should include one innovative design other that the first jet airliner ever, but I fail to see how the Tiger Moth was innovative. It certainly was a very good trainer, easy to handle where the Boeing-Stearman Model 75 was difficult, but was there anything about it that was truly innovative?

The lack of innovation in the Tiger Moth becomes more obvious when it is compared to the Mosquito, a bomber so fast that it would defend itself with speed instead of with guns, and using a bodyshell made from wood instead of metal. The Mosquito was successful not just in its intended role as a fast bomber but in repurposed roles as a night fighter, a fighter-bomber with guns used for offence instead of defence, and a photo-reconnaissance aircraft.

Therefore, if the lead section is limited to one innovative aircraft other than the Comet jetliner, I propose that the one innovative aircraft listed there be the Mosquito and not the Tiger Moth.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed to a point and I have changed it to DH.60 Moth, DH.83 Fox Moth and Comet - though Mosquito could be there too. The entire general aviation movement in Europe was based on the DH-60 which was built in France and Italy and the US under licence, and copied widely. The Tiger Moth in contrast was just a warmed over DH.60 for the RAF, and was even developed as a version of the Moth differing primarily in having improved cockpit access. The DH.60 Moth was the first aircraft a middle class individual could afford to own and operate from new, and it is hard to understand in hindsight how important that was - something of a Piper Cub of its era but more not only because it set the stage for the Cub, but it was nearly as fast as the airliners of the day. The Fox Moth was so cheap to operate that the airlines using it didn't have to rely on carrying mail (and the subsidies that when along with that) to operate at a profit. The DH.84 took this to the next level and made it much more useful since the 83 was limited to two passengers, and kept DH in business when a lot of other firms were disappearing. To put that in perspective, many US publications deem the DC-3 the first to make a profit without a subsidy, however that was only the case because the US military built tens of thousands - the 83 and 84 preceded it, and worked without this indirect subsidy. They didn't look like much - biplanes in an era when monoplanes were coming to the fore, but their innovation wasn't in their appearance, but in their cost per seat mile, which thanks to the DH engines, was very low. The Mosquito wasn't as innovative - it wasn't the first unarmed bomber and the Germans had "Schnelbombers" (ie the exact same idea) before then, and the construction techniques weren't new either. It was however very successful and well known and could be included for that. Also wondering why Aer Lingus gets a mention so early - pretty sure the 83 and 84 were first operated by a Scottish airline.NiD.29 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right, however I would suggest that the Mosquito was more than a little innovative. It wasn't just that it was a fast bomber, it was an unarmed fast bomber that relied entirely on its speed and altitude performance for evasion of defending fighters. So successful was this formula that no succeeding RAF bomber - Canberra, Valiant, Vulcan, or Victor, ever carried any defensive armament. Neither did the cancelled TSR.2.

The Mosquito was also pretty-much fully aerobatic, which was unheard-of for any preceding twin engined aeroplane, never mind a bomber. The other thing is that whereas other aircraft had been used for multiple roles, the Mosquito was pretty much superb at whatever it was called upon to do - with the possible exception of its use as a makeshift airliner/transport, where although it could only carry one passenger, it was without doubt the fastest 'airliner' in the world at the time, and would remain so until the jet-powered Comet in 1949. As a matter of fact, the Mosquito still holds the Atlantic crossing record for a twin piston-engined aircraft, which IIRC, was set in 1944-45.

The Comet was innovative because it was the first purpose-built jet airliner, designed to fly high and fast. It halved flight times over the preceding piston-engined airliners, and indeed it enabled flight times not very different from those current jet airliners achieve today. It also used cheap kerosene as fuel rather than the expensive high octane aviation petrol of the piston-engined airliners, which allowed fares to eventually come down. The Comet also pioneered such things as four wheel bogies, underwing pressure refuelling, powered controls, and the use of compressor bleed air for cabin pressurisation and heating, the previous cabin heating arrangements using separate heaters in piston-engined airliners occasionally giving rise to carbon monoxide poisoning. The Comet was also the first airliner with a swept wing. Although best remembered perhaps for the unfortunate accidents early in the Comet's career, it should be pointed out that unlike some, de Havilland didn't actually try and conceal a known fault in the design, but actually co-operated with the RAE after the two accidents and shared the subsequent knowledge about metal fatigue with everyone, thus making aviation safer all round.

BTW, although often overlooked as-such, the Trident, HS 125, and the BAe 146 were all DH designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.131 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect markup in History, 8th paragraph

Sorry - newbie here.

There is an incorrect markup in the 8th paragraph of the history section:

[[File:Assembling wooden-framed Mosquitos at the De Havilland Factory in Hatfield, 1943 TR1426.jpg|thumb|right|Building Mosquito Aircraft at the De Havilland Factory in Hatfield, 1943]] The high-performance designs and ...

I don't know how to fix the problem, but I thought I would at least highlight that it exists.

Hope someone who knows what they are doing can correct this!

Thanks,

Greenja1 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC) J. Greene Müllheim (Baden), Germany

Fixed, a recent edit must have jumbled the code up (caption text had replaced the image name). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft article titles

A discussion has been started here about the consistency of article titles for the various de Havilland aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be worth searching and reading the archives of the aircraft project talk page as this subject has been discussed before at length. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Bishop's and Bishop

Looks like there is a bit of confusion between "Bishop's" and "Bishop". Hatfield was called "Bishop's Hatfield" into the c20th and that influenced names such as "Bishop's Hatfield Girl School" and "Bishop's Rise".

R.E. Bishop was an engineer at De Havilland and his work is celebrated in the name "Bishops Square" situated on the old aerospace site. AdrianMoss (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)