Jump to content

Talk:History of the Royal Canadian Air Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Arrow

[edit]

I suspect it was less "the changing nature of the Soviet bomber threat" than pressure from USG that led Canada to cancel Arrow in favor of Bomarc. And if I was the suspicious type, I'd suspect Arrow's perf was a threat to U-2...& CIA, always suspicious of Canada, believed there were Sov spies in the program... Trekphiler 01:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree with you, and perhaps we should mention something. But its important that we stick to claims that can be sourced and backed up. -User:Lommer | talk 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But this's a talk page, & I needed to vent... More or less, I just want to lay to rest the myth cost killed Arrow; it was inability to pay for both Arrow & Bomarc that did it. Unless somebody can substantiate the claim there were Sov spies... Trekphiler 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective of an American who served in the USAF Air National Guard and who is an "at-large" member of the Air Force Association of Canada...I think that probably simple chauvinism and jealousy played into US pressure on the Canadian Govt to cancel the production of this very-ahead-of-its-time aircraft. After all, it would look bad on the mighty USA for its northern neighbor to have a wholly-indigenous fighter aircraft superior to anything in the USAF inventory at that time, with significant export possibilities (I believe the UK and Australia were interested in the Arrow). As far as the "Soviet spies" issue goes, at the time, McCarthyism was running rampant here and Americans were being led to believe there was a Commie in every bedroom, including senior positions in the US Military. So, naturally (dripping sarcasm here), with Canada moving toward what many uninformed Americans still regard as "socialism" (health care etc), I'm not surprised that some in the US Govt played the "red card" as a method to try and defeat the CF-105 and pressure the RCAF to buy Bomarcs and F-101's. Just a theory.--MarshallStack 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on only 1 point. After the Arrow was scrapped (a horrific act I still can't believe), RCAF had little choice but buy F-101s. (I doubt Hawker/BAe could offer such attractive terms even for reman'd Hunters...) I should also point out, tho, since that post, I've seen news reports that call the Arrow's performance into question (& I personally have begun to wonder: I see no sign she was area ruled. Was she really capable of Mach 2? Or were the "faked" numbers elevated, rather than reduced, as Dan Aykroyd's miniseries suggests?) Trekphiler 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Arrow *was* area ruled, although it isn't obvious. Look at the spine on the top of the fuselage -- It's a reverse taper relative to the wings.
Although some people have misrepresented the performance of the Arrow (It is commonly thought that the Arrow Mk. 2 was a Mach 3 design, which is ludicrous), there's little doubt that the Arrow Mk. 2 would have been a Mach 2 aircraft. Even the Arrow Mk.1 (with lower power engines) flew at Mach 1.96 on its fastest flight (Arrow 25202, Nov. 11 1958), and it might not have been pushed all the way. On the Mk. 2, the speed limitation would probably have been some combination of airframe heating, engine inlet design limitations (the inlets weren't really designed for these kind of speeds), and/or engine turbine inlet temperature limitations, rather than lack of power. I would guess an absolute maximum speed of Mach 2.2 - 2.3, with a Mach 2.0 limitation for regular flying. Keep in mind that this was a time when Mach 2 was the world speed record for an aircraft that took off under its own power.--64.201.38.62 14:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCAF

[edit]

Can somebody check the dating of the maple leaf roundel? As I recall, it was intro in the '20s (with the creation of RCAF 1924?) but hasn't always been current. And can we cred W/Cdr Wilfrid Oulton, 58 Sqn, RCAF Coastal Command? During May '43, he sank U-463, U-563, & U-663. Trekphiler 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by current? I know there's been a few variations on it (the styling of the maple leaf has changed) but AFAIK its always been the roundel used by the RCAF (though Canadian pilots often flew RAF planes in WWII). -User:Lommer | talk 21:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the maple leaf roundel was adopted during the Second World war, but it was not actually placed on aircraft until after the end of hostilities. Several books have sections on the history and variations of the roundel on RCAF and RCN aircraft -- Pat Martin's book about paint schemes on RCAF aircraft comes to mind. If you look at any restored RCAF aircraft with a paint scheme prior to the end of the Second World war, it always has the appropriate RAF roundels for that location and period.
For a short period after unification a roundel was trialled that replaced the outer blue ring with red, along with the redesigned Maple Leaf. It wasn't adopted, of course, but I remember seeing a picture of an Argus with the red roundels.--MarshallStack 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure how this should be changed, but the section at the side of the page with the list of aircraft is for the contemporary Air Command rather than the RCAF. One possible option would be to change it to reflect a list of significant aircraft through the history of the RCAF -- alternatively, it should be removed. --209.202.70.226 17:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the Air Command Ensign should be removed and replaced with an image of the former RCAF Ensign, as this article is about the RCAF. Air Command is a later and completely separate entity.--MarshallStack 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The page is somewhat confusing. Everything on this page should be related only to the RCAF. Links could point to Air Command topics perhaps, if warranted. While we are considering changing things to be more "RCAF", the RCAF Ensign should be more "RCAF". The Ensign (and the Air Command Ensign for that matter), are the wrong color. The backgrounds should be sky blue, not gray-blue. BrianC 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the CAF/CFAC infobox because it was not related to the RCAF and would cause confusion. If someone is good at putting together infoboxes, I think an RCAF infobox would be a good idea. Let's also make sure that if the RCAF ensign is placed in the box, it's the correct color. BrianC 18:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thought -- would it be a good idea to create 'stubs' for the 400 series RCAF Squadrons (400 - 449, originally, plus I think 450 squadron existed right at the end of the RCAF era), linked from here (and where relevant, from the CAF Air Command page)? With them in place, information about the history of individual squadrons could be added/linked by those interested in the subject, as well as relevant links from other articles here. I think there are already two or three of these. Just an idea.--64.201.38.62 14:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the non-400 series squadrons in the home-based WWII RCAF as well (an example of which today is Canadian Forces Air Command 103 Rescue Squadron)? These are often overlooked, even though they did sterling work for Canada with their Hurricanes, Kittyhawks, Cansos, Lysanders etc.--MarshallStack 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the section on WWI and RCAF formation . . . Why is no mention made of Raymond Collishaw and the Black Flight? (See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Raymond_Collishaw and http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/collishaw.html .) Excepting only Billy Bishop, "Collie" Collishaw is the greatest airman Canada ever produced.

Last, when did the Canadian Armed Forces adopt that most beautiful of all flight suit colors known as Canadian Air Superiority Blue?

You're not elves

[edit]

Didn't RCAF participate in the ferry service? Trekphiler 10:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roundels

[edit]

Why was the low vis roundel removed from the article? The RCAF - Roundels page seems to show one on there... And so does the markings section of the 2005 edition of Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide. J.P.Lon 14:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The low-vis roundel was never used by the RCAF (which existed until unification of the services in Feb 1968). The low-vis roundel was and is still being used, however, by the CAF (Canadian Forces Air Command), which was what Canada's air force was called after Feb. 1968. This WP article is only about the RCAF (1924 - 1968). The Canadian Air Force has its own page where the roundel could properly be illustrated. The RCAF.com page webmaster has taken a broader approach in what he includes in his website and has decided for some reason to include post-unification (CAF) information and symbols for historical reasons. The RCAF - Roundels page does label the roundel as CAF (post-unification) rather than RCAF. BC 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

[edit]

I've prepared some userboxes for different Air Forces freaks - if you would like to use it, feel free to copy & paste following code in your Babel Tower or another place:

This user edits RCAF related articles
{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RCAFhv}}
This user edits articles related to Canadian Forces Air Command
{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RCAFhv2}}
This user edits articles related to Royal Canadian Air Force
{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RCAFlv}}

Piotr Mikołajski 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice design, but those are post RCAF roundels. They would be perfect for CAF editors. Could you re-do the design with a 50's-era RCAF roundel?--64.201.38.62 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted one completely new and one older improved userboxes. Unfortunately there is no other Canadian roundel so I'm limited to those two. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From [1]: "in 1965 the eleven point, stylized maple leaf of the new national flag became the centre-piece of Canada's roundel", which means that the high-vis roundel was used for a period of three years with the RCAF.--BC 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the particulars right at hand, but from memory -- This roundel may have been used right at the end of the RCAF era. Initially, the 11 point maple leaf roundel had a smaller maple leaf -- In fact, I think the small maple leaf was a 'stickie' on a white background that went over the old 1950s roundel. There was also a brief interval (circa 1967) when the roundel had the proportions of the modern roundel, but had a *red* outer circle. I know some of the CC-106 Yukons got painted with these. Finally, they went to the modern one. There's no precise timing for this, and likely at unification, you could see all kinds of variations. I guess the easiest summary would be that the big, 11 point maple leaf was in service at the very end of the RCAF era. But the 'silver maple' roundel is really more representative of the 'classic' era of the RCAF.--Voodude 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to find people from the past who were in the air forces in 1968-69??

[edit]

To Whom is reading this post:

I am looking for a man named WILFRED SMITH. He was Sworn in to the Canadian Armed services in November or December of 1968. His father was an Anglican Minister and he spent some of his childhood in P.E.I. His basic training in the Armed forces was in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. From there he was posted in Cold Lake Alberta, where he also trained as a cook. He was discharged from the services in May 1970.

Last Known where abouts was a phone call from him from Halifax Nova Scotia 1971.

If anyone knows Wifred Smith or how to get in touch with him..please contact my dad William Trimble who served with Wilfred Smith in Cornwallis, N.S by emailing him at scamp1949@hotmail.com.

Thank you

Tamara Trimble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.217.85 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto RCAF Hurricanes football team?

[edit]

The Wikipedia article for Grey Cup Champions mentions the "Toronto RCAF Hurricanes" as the winners or the 1942 Grey Cup. Does anyone have information about them? Monado (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of info if you Google. BC (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan

[edit]

I think an image of the RCAF tartan would complete the Symbols and insignia section. Anyone know where to get one we could use?-BC (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCAF and CAF Roundels (for reference)

[edit]

According to insignia expert Bill Burns in London Ont. (http://www.canmilair.com), all incarnations of the current 11-point-leaf roundel , including those used in the transition period 1965-67, are known as the CAF roundel to distinguish it from the "RCAF roundel" which has a different leaf pattern (the silver maple leaf). The current CAF roundel (with the 11-pointed leaf) was standardized in May 1967 because after 1965, there were so many versions of it. This standard (current) design (purists refer to it as the "CAF revision E" roundel) has changes made to various internal spacing and has a comparatively wider blue circle and larger leaf than the 1965-67 version used in the transition era, and is certainly a different design from the silver maple roundel (the true "RCAF" roundel). There are also subtle color differences. BTW, the RCAF roundel is copyrighted by the Air Force Association of Canada. The following links have more information: http://www.canmilair.com/prints.htm and http://www.canmilair.com/products.asp?cat=77. -BC (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft list, etc.

[edit]

A list of RCAF aircraft has been started here. Since the RCAF article is getting long and since there already is a list of Canadian Air Force aircraft (that could be reorganized to separate out the aircraft used by each incarnation of Canada's air force), I feel that this new list included here is redundant. Also, if a list of aircraft is included here, we may as well include a list of stations and squadrons - all of which also already exist. All these lists are linked to in this article, so there is no reason to relist them here. I vote we should not include the aircraft list. Opinions?  BC  talk to me 00:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I have removed it again. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's interesting that Canadian Forces Air Command includes a list even though there is a separate list of Air Command aircraft, and the same aircraft are listed here: Canadian Air Force aircraft. I still think a list in this article is redundant, however.--  BC  talk to me 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan origin

[edit]

The tartan section explaining its origins was recently changed to an uncited "verified correct version". This was lifted verbatim (copyvio) from a government web site that would seem to be reputable. The government web site the lifted content was from is by no means reliable as a source; I have seen errors, and indeed some information on the government site has been lifted from Wikipedia (e.g. CFB Edmonton). This story has been around for years and cannot necessarily be considered to be "verified" (how would you do this unless you do some OR). Is it true that G/C Fullerton, colored pencils in hand, drew the prototype and that Loomcrofters in Gagetown completed it? It's a nice story, but unless this is truly verified we have to go with the "most reliable" information on hand. The best I can find right now is from an authority on tartans, which is the http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/1343/royal-canadian-air-force-military. This site essentially repudiates the popular story of who the designer was. Loomcrofters may have put together some prototype samples which led to the story that it was designed by them, but the Tartan Authorities web site is clear that it was actually designed by Kinloch Anderson in Scotland. The story here is much more credible to me.  BC  talk to me 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks

[edit]

Does the RCAF really use the RAF rank names? I have a National Defence Canadian Forces Rank Insignia pamphlet that lists the Air Forces ranks as (from lowest to most senior): Private, Corporal, Master Corporal, Sergreant, Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer, Chieft Warrant Officer, Officer Cadet, 2nd-Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Lieutenant-Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier-General, Major-General, Lieutenant-General, General. IE, exactly the same as the army.70.49.247.2 (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I've realized my mistake. I thought that the current air force was the same as the RCAF. This section can be removed.70.49.247.2 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCAF Badge.JPG Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:RCAF Badge.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-establishment of the RCAF

[edit]

On 15 Aug 2011 news agencies published the return of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) along with the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and Canadian Army. According to a Globe and Mail editorial the official announcement is on 16 Aug 2011. The change is purely symbolic and the Canadian Forces will remain integrated with the component parts returning to their original names. This brings Canada's military structure into line with the other Commonwealth Realms as well as providing a link to the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.229.36 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force&oldid=1202734706"