Talk:Cessna 208 Caravan/Archive 1

Skydiving use
With interior and seats fully removed and the standard metal door replaced with a sliding lexan model, the Caravan is a popular skydiving aircraft It can carry from 12-18 fully geared jumpers, depending on the model. The Caravan 675 in particular is a quite fast aircraft for flying full altitude (13,000ft AGL) jump runs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tznkai (talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 May 2005  (UTC-7)

SA military use
Add South Africa to Military users. This type is currently in service with 41 Squadron Based at Waterkloof AFB. Not sure which version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Air_Force#Current_order_of_battle

Roger 07:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Avionics section needs an update
New Caravans only come with the Garmin G1000 system available. I am unsure since which year this has been the case, or I would already have made the update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.56.156 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just finished looking at Janes fighting ships, 2007-2008, and the Namibian navy uses these for coastal patrol. Should this be added, or is there a page for patrol versions?216.208.38.26 (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)trainman 2

Image
File:MAF Amphib Caravan.jpg Even though it was removed from the article, I thought this was a good photo and could be re-inserted lower in the article, however it is lacking any copyright info. Without this added it will be deleted fairly soon. If the copyright is resolved I would be in favour of putting it back in somewhere. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree - I didnt move it further down due to copyright problem. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see if the copyright gets solved - then we can put it back in! - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Soloy website problem
The Soloy website no longer mentions the Pathfinger 21. Whats the deal here? --24.21.148.155 (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably because the project has been abandoned refer Soloy Pathfinder 21. MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RCMP
There is a picture of an RCMP operated 208. Since the RCMP is a civilian police force, should it be listed as a Civil Operator? -M.Nelson (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - done - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos causing whitespace problem
The way the photos are placed in the article is causing large chunks of whitespace which looks really untidy. I Propose we move the photos into a properly formatted gallery. Roger (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, no, there's plenty of room in the article, but the photos can't be placed in A"relevant" sections like that. Galleries are generally unnecessary, and are redundant to COmmons anyway. I'll try to clean it up. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Floatplane photos
'''Undid revision 433472610 by FlugKerl (talk) Not a goodpic IMHO. There is already a much better pic of a float version on the page. Dodger67 '''  - Sorry, I did not realize there was only room for one floatplane in this article. You are right, floatplanes on water do not make for good pictures. Thanks for removing it right away. FlugKerl (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kenya Police Airwing
I am not sure that the Kenya Police should be listed in the Military section. The civil section does mention police use generally, and if we add every police force using them in the military list, it will get very long. The Kenya Defence Forces article mentions the Caravan under "a paramilitary wing of the Kenyan Police" but that surely is not the same thing - again, I suspect that many countries could be listed in a similar light. My inclination is to remove Kenya from that list, but I would like to know what others think. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually having looked at the cited source I can't see where it mentions the 208 anyway. Am I going nuts? Probably, but for now I have boldly removed it - the combination of my concern above plus "can't find 208 listed anyway" is enough for me for now, but I would still be pleased to hear what you think! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I double checked the ref and it specifically does not mention the C-208, so you were right to remove it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the checking and confirmation. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Image replacement
As WP:BOLD seems to be suspended on aircraft related pages I'm coming here to propese a replacemnet of an existing Grand Caravan image, with a shiny new one that I have recently taken at Los Alamos municipal airport with a Canon EOD 5D Mark II.

The improvement is not revolutionary, but IMO the new image has better framing (rule of thirds and a bit more room in the front of the plane), less tilt, less clutter (making the plane stand out a bit more). Well, you be the judge... --Dschwen 21:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the proposed image offers much over the existing one and the existing one has one advantage, it is not advertising an airline. - Ahunt (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the second image is superior, it is better centered and has a less cluttered backgroud. Concerns of "advertising an airline" are irrelevant, Wikipedia is not the BBC and does not have a proscription against incidental showing of a company name. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur with BR on this one. Also, WPAIR is only usually concerned with changes to Lead images on high-traffic articles such as major fighters and airliners, where we get people who try to promote their own coumtry's ailrine or airforce on several articles at a time, or with replacing images from a country they don't like with one they do (Israel/Arab nations, India/Pakistan, etc.) As to advertizing, I'm actually somewhat surprised that aviation companies haven't begun uploading free images to Commons to promote their products in bulk, but that would actually be a good thing in my opinion, as good free-use aviation images of certain products are hard to find. That such companies in general seem more inclined to hire PR firms to rewrite their wiki-articles for them than to use free images to promote themselves is odd to me, as pictures are usually worth a thousand words. - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay it looks like most people prefer the new image so I will swap them back. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi Armed Caravans
A recent issue of AVIATION WEEK described the armed Caravans going to the Iraqi military. They have a video / laser target designator turret on the belly and were fitted with pylons for two Hellfire missiles. I would suspect the new 100 pound laser bombs and 70 mm laser rockets will also be useful stores. Just a heads up for those who have staked out this article as their turf -- I can add details if desired. MrG 168.103.81.99 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No own can "stake out a Wikipedia article as their turf". You can add the details as long as you have a reliable reference. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that Wikipedia is not under the effective control of the editors and factions of interested parties, then I can make a real deal for you on a bridge I'm trying to sell. MrG 168.103.81.99 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course Wikipedia is under control of the editors, the editors are everyone who writes and edits content, including you and me. I have been editing here for more than four years and I can honestly say that articles are shaped by consensus building amongst editors working on an article. Certainly there have been disagreements, but generally consensus prevails, especially within WikiProject Aircraft where we have a very dedicated group of editors to help make sure the content is encyclopedic and referenced and not just a bunch of unsourced rumours and opinions. Anyway that is not at issue here, since no one has reverted anything yet. Do you have reliably sourced information relevant to this article or not? - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no contributions to this article. I have my own website to work on (www.vectorsite.net) and neither time nor inclination to fuss with Wikipedia. I was passing through, spotted the comment on armed Caravans, and decided to leave a heads-up for interested parties. If they're honestly interested, they'll go to the library and look through the recent AVIATION WEEKs. If they ask I'll even go through my notes and give the exact issue. MrG 168.103.81.99 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg: Okay, well thanks for stopping by. - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And rather than depart on a sour note, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. MrG 168.103.81.99 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet another source of armed version already operational and not just "marketed to" Iraq. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140112/DEFREG02/301120018 Hcobb (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Performance question
Why is the V:NE slower than cruising speed? And why is the Cruise Speed the same as Max Speed?

Maximum speed: 213 mph (343 km/h; 185 kn) True air speed Cruise speed: 213 mph (185 kn; 343 km/h) True air speed Never exceed speed: 201 mph (175 kn; 323 km/h) Indicated air speed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothpickst (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As described in the specs the Vne is in IAS, whereas the cruise is TAS. The Cessna ref only lists one cruise speed, the max cruise speed, so they are both the same. - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This does not explain the 10 knot/hr lower "never exceed speed". It is likely for a specific model, but should be indicated as such in the text. GioCM (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you understand IAS vs TAS than it does make sense. I have linked them both to make this easier to understand. The cited Cessna ref confirms this. - Ahunt (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

specs table
I transformed the specs to a table because there is 2 main variants : the 208 and the stretched 208B, each with its own dimensions, engine, weights and performance, plus their own amphibian variants with again specific weights and perfs. User:BilCat revert it asking for consensus first. Since the previous info is still there and the article is just enriched, I don't understand why the article couldn't have this? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Because our consensus is "These specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting pictures
Curated from the nearly one thousand pictures on commons, often difficult to browse, to illustrate particular article sections : User:Marc Lacoste/Cessna 208 gallery --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it not be useful to do some organizing on Commons to make these easier to find though adding categories, etc? - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the goal is to select, not to organize --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But if the photos are properly organized on Commons that makes it much easier to select the photos for articles. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two ways of approaching it on Commons, and you can use both if you like. One is to put the images in suitable subcategories of c:Category:Cessna 208 - there are already over 100 subcats, but around 300 images remain in the primary category, perhaps they can be assigned to some of the subcats. The other approach is to create a gallery on Commons - Commons doesn't have articles, instead it uses mainspace for galleries, see for example Cessna civil aircraft. Commons galleries can have headings to split them up, see for example Cessna T-37 Tweet. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I was seeking! so I moved it to Cessna_208_Caravan--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Cessna 208 Caravan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831142334/http://850caravan.com:80/index2.htm to http://850caravan.com/index2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522152655/http://www.blackhawk.aero/commercial-products/details/xp42a-upgrade/cessna-caravan/ to http://www.blackhawk.aero/commercial-products/details/xp42a-upgrade/cessna-caravan/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322122057/http://www.lebaneseairforce.info:80/news.htm to http://www.lebaneseairforce.info/news.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205015320/http://aviation.confero.info:8080/ac-208-fms-africa-middle-east/ to http://aviation.confero.info:8080/ac-208-fms-africa-middle-east/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

main photo change
While browsing through commons, this is the best left-pointing inflight photo I found. It has a nice livery but even if the current one isn't pointing towards the text, the light is much better. An even better is available : File:Caravan "Skyward 676" (105092313).jpg but is seen from below in a banked turn. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (other candidates)


 * The current one is fine. - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree I think the light on the current one is better and it shows the aircraft shape and layout just fine as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Variants table
, You are welcome to explain how adding referenced, pertinent information, within the guidelines is not an improvement. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Because we have a guidelines, precedent and consensus on how these articles are done and the table is non-standard, and differences in variants are normally explained within the description of each variant and not in a "comparison" table, really needs to be discussed at project level if you want to change how we do things, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * in WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft), there is only "Describing major subtypes or variants of the aircraft." so form is free. As Steelpillow said in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft), "just add tables to the variants information where appropriate". If you find a better way to present the referenced information I added, feel free to propose a change but you shouldn't delete information. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted the revert on the grounds of BRD - the use of tables for variants is a currently contentious subject; and you are privy to that matter. Regarding removal of adequately sourced information - it was half sourced. That it was badly laid out was a lesser point but had I thought it warranted staying, it would have received a hefty editing to bring it into line with MoS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the table added I am not sure it contributes much to the article. It presents a lot of duplicate information that could better be mentioned as "differences" in the variants text. - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the use of tables in the #specifications section is controversial, at the moment in #variants it is free and was advised by other editors as linked. Since it was half sourced, I completed the source. The layout can be improved if you prefer, but as it is it complies with WP:AVILAYOUT as previously linked and WP:WHENTABLE ("Tables might be useful for presenting [...] comparative figures").
 * I understand your concern, but I found it contributes to the article and it is sufficient to add this information. I Agree there is some duplicate info, that's why I proposed to put those in #specs as discussed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You put this in three times and it has been removed three times. So far he consensus here is that it doesn't belong in the article. Let's complete the discussion here before putting the table in and only then if there is a consensus to d so. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay I have now had to warn you for edit warring, you have reverted three times and are at risk of being blocked for your action. Rather than edit warring to get your way you need to make a case here that convinces other editors. So far no one else agrees with you here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed it as asked by GraemeLeggett for complete source. I motivated everything, I agree it should be discussed before being reverted again. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is for reverts, not adding info. Reverts have to be motivated. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You reverted the removal of the challenged text three times so if you do it again you would get blocked, when the addition is challenged it is up to you to gain a consensus to add not to edit war. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion is open : I stated my addition complies with WP:NNC, WP:AVILAYOUT and WP:WHENTABLE. Its deletion isn't motivated. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You still need to gain a consensus for a challenged edit however much of an alphabet soup you can quote, please read the posts above for reasons why, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I did read and answered each challenge. The alphabet soup are our rules. I try to comply, and explain why. --Marc Lacoste (talk)

When you revert an addition, You have to do it for good reasons: either Unsourced, Inaccurate, Irrelevant, Inappropriate or moved to another article. Please answer point by point if you disagree with these statements : I understand the presentation isn't what you prefer, but if you want you are free to improve it. Not to remove it. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is sourced
 * It is accurate
 * It is relevant
 * It is appropriate
 * this addition complies with Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article
 * this addition complies with Describing major subtypes or variants of the aircraft
 * this addition complies with Tables might be useful for presenting [...] comparative figures


 * Well I think we are mostly disagreeing on "It is relevant" and "It is appropriate" - which are editorial, not Policy or Guideline issues. Addressing some of your other points. Notability is neutral on presentation - so that's neither here nor there. Equally the Aviation style guide - except for referencing Messerschmitt 163 as an example; an example in which variants are entirely described in prose. And if you'll let the devil quote scripture. From Tables MoS "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. In WP:RVREASONS:
 * * relevant means related to the article subject. This is the case, these are cessna caravan variants, not citation variants
 * * appropriate means no OR, no personal POV, no advertising neither badmouthing, no external links other than refs, no how-to guide, no vandalism, no spam, no copyvio. These is the case also.
 * Notability is on the information, not its form. It would be OK if you transform the table in prose (I'm not sure it would be better than a table, but we could try). But the information should not be removed. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You missed a key requirement, all information presented in any article is also subject to the WP:CONSENSUS of editors working on the article. So far you don't have that. Clearly, form the above discussion, no one but you think it is appropriate to present information in the form of a table. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:Consensus is a Conduct policy, not a Content policy. The information present in an article is subject to content policies. I would be glad if we can find a consensual way to present it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:WIKILAWYERING doesn't help here. Just because the rules allow something to be added doesn't mean that the consensus of editors means that it should be included in the article. It still needs consensus here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wp:wl "the charge of wikilawyering is used [...] to avoid giving careful attention to their claims". Consensus comes with wp:civility: "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors". Is a fair study of my position possible?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You advocate that certain information should go in the article in a certain format. I suggest that the information you propose adding is not actually relevant nor appropriate in an article pitched for the general reader. I can be a bit more specific and say that the differences in height and take off difference are trivial between similar models and twixt conventional and float undercarriage. Ditto stall speed. And that to compound that in the form of a table is uncalled for. That's my analysis of our respective positions, viewed from my end. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I'm supple on form. Anybody can transform the proposed table into another presentation. Relevant here means related to the article subject, and it is. You can find it doesn't add much to the article but if someone else find it useful, this is reason enough for inclusion. Same for appropriate : this isn't inappropriate in regard to wikipedia limits, so it's free to add. Minute differences are interesting for some, e.g. I find it useful to know that one have better short field perf than the other, and so on. I would be glad if someone else find a better presentation, I proposed a different table following your suggestion below and other input are welcome. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Any propositions for this presentation? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are really not listening here. No one supports the inclusion of tables for this, regardless of your attempts to make technical definitions of appropriate versus inappropriate to shut down dissent. This is what I meant by wikilawyering earlier. You are not helping your case here. So far no one supports replacing the existing text descriptions with tables. - Ahunt (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm listening and said multiple times I'm not attached to a table presentation, but to the information I added. I was asking for a presentation (separated from data) to content everyone, but so far nobody proposed anything apart GraemeLeggett and my proposal in reply below, which seems unsatisfactory for some given the harsh response.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a half-decent table even possible
Even tidying up formatting, and moving things around. Junking some excessively petrolhead stuff. We are still left with a wall of numbers.

and how is that to be resolved? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer without amphib versions?


 * The usual order maybe more familiar.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that in prose, the numbers would still be here. Sure, the metric/imperial conversions do not lighten the presentation, but what could we do about that? (IIRC, airbus, dassault or gulfstream have a toggle on their spec tables to avoid that) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Really need to gain a consensus first rather then discuss detail. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have an other idea for the presentation? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Which part of "we don't want these tables" are you finding difficult to parse? The clear consensus is that these tables are not wanted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't want absolutely tables. They convey useful information, but I am eager to use another satisfactory presentation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Here it is in prose :--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The 208 Caravan is 37 ft 7 in long and 14 ft 11 in high, with a 12 ft 9 in long cabin. Its maximum takeoff weight of 8,000 lb implies a lb/ft² wing loading, its maximum landing weight is 7,800 lb for a basic empty weight of 4,730 lb. Its maximum payload is 3,070 lb with a fuel capacity of 2,224 lb or 332 gal. It can cruise at 186 ktas and its range is 1,070 nm. Its stall speed is 61 kcas, it can take off over 2,055 ft and land in 1,625 ft. Its ceiling is 25,000 ft and its climb rate is 1,234 fpm. Its Pratt & Whitney PT6A-114A transfer 675 hp to its McCauley propeller.
 * The 208B Grand Caravan is 41 ft 7 in long and 15 ft 1 in high, with a 16 ft 9 in long cabin. With a lb/ft² wing loading, its maximum takeoff weight is 8,807 lb and maximum landing weight 8,500 lb for a basic empty weight of 5,585 lb. Its maximum payload is 3,165 lb and its fuel capacity is 2,246 lb or 335 gal. It can cruise at 195 ktas and have a 964 nm range. With its 61 kcas stall speed it can take off on 2,160 ft and land in 1,871 ft. Its ceiling is 25,000 ft and it can climb at 1,330 fpm. Its Pratt & Whitney PT6A-140 generates 867 hp to a Hartzell propeller.


 * Not really much better what you should describe is the differences not squeeze in your table data into prose. No need to mention trivial differences and stuff that is already in the spec table like service ceiling. So bascially what is the main difference between the variants. As far as I can see most of is already in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Then :


 * The 208 Caravan is 37 ft 7 in long and 14 ft 11 in high, with a 12 ft 9 in long cabin. Its maximum takeoff weight of 8,000 lb implies a lb/ft² wing loading, its maximum landing weight is 7,800 lb for a basic empty weight of 4,730 lb. Its maximum payload is 3,070 lb with a fuel capacity of 2,224 lb or 332 gal. It can cruise at 186 ktas and its range is 1,070 nm. Its stall speed is 61 kcas, it can take off over 2,055 ft and land in 1,625 ft; its climb rate is 1,234 fpm. Its Pratt & Whitney PT6A-114A transfer 675 hp to its McCauley propeller.
 * The 208B Grand Caravan is feet longer and  inches higher, with a  feet longer cabin. With a  lb/ft² wing loading, its maximum takeoff weight is 807 lb heavier and its maximum landing weight 700 lb heavier for a basic empty weight of  lb more. Its maximum payload is  lb more and its fuel capacity is nearly the same. It can cruise  ktas faster but have  nm less range. With the same stall speed it can take off on  ft longer and land in  ft longer; it can climb at  fpm more. Its Pratt & Whitney PT6A-140 generates  hp more to a Hartzell propeller.
 * --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to wax more lyrical in the text and get a flow between related items. Eg "The 208B Grand Caravan is 4 ft longer than the 208; extending the cabin by the same amount. [and now say what is the extra length used for]. The unladed weight is 807 lb more but maximum payload is only 90 lb more. While the more powerful 867 hp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-140 gives a higher cruise speed (by 11 knots), and better climb - by 94 ft/min, range is less (964 nm) on a fuel capacity more or less the same as the original model. It requires a longer take off and landing (2,160 ft and 1,871 ft respectively). "
 * GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Operators list
It seems to me that the operators list is getting quite long for this article. The Cessna ref I just added indicates that there are close to 2000 C-208s in over 100 countries now, so it may get quite a bit longer yet. Is this list notable or not? Should it be removed as we have done with some other aircraft types articles or spun off into a separate article, as we did with List of Bell UH-1 Iroquois operators? - Ahunt (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the list can easily get out of hand. If it is really necessary to have such a list at all, maybe it should be limited to "notable" operators meaning those that have at least X number of the type in their fleet. I'd easily believe that there are a large number of operators that have only one, as is the case with most GA aircraft types. Alternatively we could limit listed operators to military and airlines only. Leave out the small charter, personal, corporate, skydiving club, etc. operators. Roger (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your idea of only "notable operators". How about this then - we limit the list to operators that are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, in other words remove the redlinked operators? - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We should "send it upstairs" and get a wider consensus at the WikiProject level. This aircraft type is right on the margin/transition between general/corporate aviation and airliner types. I've noted that articles of GA types usually do not have an Operators section at all. I'll start a topic - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. Roger (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For a start, very few of the entries in the operators section are referenced - by trimming back on the unreferenced /unreferencable items, then we may help to keep the section under some sort of control.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nigel brings up a good point, requiring refs often limits lists and prevents spam from creeping in. Thanks for taking that to WP:AIR, hopefully we'll get some more ideas added here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that Mission Aviation Fellowship maybe a notable operator - as they do appear, to operate several, but what nationanality would they be listed as?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are kind of a multi-national charity, but based in Idaho, so I would list them under USA. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a new workable guideline at WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content based on the discussion and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. I have incorporated this into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that this is a good move. There is always a tension between editors who, for perfectly good reasons, want articles to contain - well, everything - and those who would rather err on the side of tidiness and readability. I thought the article was getting pretty messy with the potentially-endless operator list, and this is a welcome improvement. If other editors are keen to still have (and maintain!) the complete list then, as you say, List of Bell UH-1 Iroquois operators is a good example which exists but does not clutter up the main article. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Returning to this topic
please see the above discussion and the related Wikiproject discussion. The clear established consensus is that civil operators of light aircraft are not listed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really care for the thailand gov operator, but if you want to remove it, then don't leave the picture without context in the article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The caption has a wikilink to the relevant article - that is the whole reason why wikilinks were invented. Many of the other photos have no such links anyway - because the name of the operator is not directly relevant in those photos. The main point is that civil operators are not listed - which is what you have repeatedly been doing. Providing contextual information for a photo, and listing an operator are two completely different things. A photo's context is explained (when necessary) in the caption. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is about the Cessna caravan but this picture is showing 4 small aircraft silhouettes in formation, it illustrates an operator capabilities, not a specific aircraft. It is used conveniently in this operator article. The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting [things] described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.WP:IUP --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Date of first flight
The article′s info box places the date of the first flight of the Cessna 208 on August 8, 1982, while the text says the prototype first floew in December 1982. Internet sources claim both August 8, 1982, and either "December 1982" or "December 8, 1982" as the date of the of the first flight, although I have not dug into which of these sources are authoritative and which simply are copying and propagating the contradiction in the Wikipedia article. Does anyone have an authoritative source for the date of the first flight that would clear up the confusion? Or, absent that, how should the internal contradiction in the article be resolved? Mdnavman (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)mdnavman


 * "Airlife's General Aviation" by R.W.Simpson has N208LP first flight as 9 December 1982, just to confuse. I will check some other sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a reliable source but http://rzjets.net/aircraft/?typeid=238 also has the 9 December 1982. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.pooleys.com/media/5683/caravan_look.pdf another vote for 9 December 1982 (flown by W.K. "Bill" Bergman from Connell AFB). MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1990–91 has the first flight on 9 December (p. 394).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the date to 9 December 1982 and provided a ref. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Military users
There used to be an actual list of military operators but it was replaced by a simple brief sentence, why? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It was split off to List of Cessna 208 Caravan operators, as linked to right below the Operators heading. I'm not sure why it was moved, apparently without any discussion, as the list wasn't comparatively long. It should probably be merged back in. - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done it on 22 march after doing the same for others as proposed in the WikiProject. Not the longest list, but above ~10, it's a WP:MOSLIST, better suited to a separate liste than in an article. A list of major operators (say, the top ten) would still be useful in the main article, but I've got no source for that.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to propose that it merged back in when I have more time online tomorrow. - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

pictures
I am in an edit war with over pictures. This was the apparence of the article since I renovated the pictures on December 6, 2016, explained in edit summaries : diff and following. Two days ago YSSYguy made a WP:BOLD change with multiple modifications summarised as "Updated unit costs; expanded content; other copyedits and tweaks" but also changing the pictures to his own preference. I reverted it but it was a mistake as I thought he removed referenced info but this wasn't the case, so I went back, but then I restored the previous consensual pictures.


 * 1) YSSYguy reverted to his preference (Copyedits; extra images did not add anything to the article, (→‎Variants: image that's more illustrative than just 8 fuselage windows, (→‎Operators: more illustrative image - previous image already used in the operators article), and I went back to consensual pictures pics: illustrative 208/208B pics for comparison, helping id; Amphibian for Amphibian, illustrative parachuting operations, prettier operator pic, front and planform view. please discuss pic change in talk.
 * 2) YSSYguy: Undid edits by Marc Lacoste, the point isn't to have pics just showing how many windows each model has, but to illustrate a variety of features mentioned in the text. Any image of a non-Cargomaster can serve to illustrate the number of windows and →‎Variants: re-added image of amphib on water - probably getting to the stage of there being too many images now. So I put them back with details plain side views to illustrate the base model and 208B, better amphib pic, better skydive pic, planform and front view in specs. discuss your proposals in talk
 * 3) YSSYguy: (You need a more convincing argument than "these are better and these are plainer", so I cited wp:BRD
 * 4) YSSYguy: ....and you need a better reason to undo something than "BRD", so WP:BRD : you have to discuss non consensual changes
 * 5) YSSYguy: Well, how about you open a discussion then? I have given decent, sound reasons for my choices of images in my edit summaries and you made a BOLD edit, it wasn't consensual and you were REVERTED, then you have to DISCUSS it
 * 6) And As per my previous edit summaries

I'd really hope collaborating on wikipedia was less abrasive.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * To help make it less abrasive, please focus on the content. This wall of text with every detail of last edit ("I did this, they did that") does not interest anyone.
 * and please stop carrying out debates in edit summaries. Your arguments in favor or against specific images would be welcome here on the talk page. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Renewing my call to use the talk page to discuss content of controversial changes, as it appears you are just resuming the edit war. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion, I'm open for it. In the meantime, I restored the consensual pictures.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your preferred version is obviously not consensual and resuming your edits by reverting again (without so much as an edit here) will not get us closer to a solution. Please start discussing the content here instead of in the edit summaries. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was consensual since December 6, 2016, YSSYguy's modification aren't. I replied in edit summary because I'm waiting for YSSYguy to move his reply which is in his talk page for now.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are way too many photos in the article, which has a continuous column of photos down the side. The number of photos could easily be halved without any detriment.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Undoing sound edits just because you don't like them is pretty abrasive.
 * Person A: Why did you rape him?
 * Person B: I didn't rape anybody, it was consensual.
 * Person A: But he had passed out, he didn't know what you were doing.
 * Person B: Well, he didn't say anything or try to stop me.
 * Person A: But he couldn't say or do anything, he was unconscious, he was unaware of what you were doing.
 * Person B: But he didn't complain - it must have been consensual. YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comparing wikipedia arguments with rape slides towards WP:GODWIN.
 * That was just a scenario to demonstrate how preposterous your assertion was, the Silence and consensus essay notwithstanding. YSSYguy (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit stretched nonetheless.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Marc Lacoste, are you going to argue anything other than "I don't like the images I chose being replaced" then coming up with some spurious 'reason' to undo an edit you don't like ; and claiming non-existent consensus? After all, a lack of comment does not equate to consensus - or have I missed a discussion over your image choices somewhere above? Anyway, let's talk about the images. YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. It was a mistake, I went back and even apologised. 2. You've doing the same thing by putting back the RCMP pic. 3. Indeed an edit that last 6 months without disagreement is a consensus, but not the strongest I agree. Still strongest than a consensus over your proposed changes which didn't last a day.
 * Again, silence is not consensus; perhaps your unwillingness to compromise elsewhere has led other Users to conclude that it isn't worth the effort to engage with you and this is why they have been silent here. I don't understand what you mean by "putting back the RCMP pic", I also put the Loch Lomond pic back in and added the Panama pic. Anyway, I have since removed the RCMP pic because of space constraints. YSSYguy (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not the best but WP:Consensus can change anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, all choices were in accordance with the requirements of MOS:IMAGE, for instance I removed an image that was in violation of the requirement to "avoid sandwiching text between...an image and [the] infobox"; the first thing MOS:IMAGE says is "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative"; and there's only room for so many images - on the computer I use, even with the reduced number of images they already run down past the references on the screen. Others seem to be also of the opinion that there were too many images, judging by their actions and the thanks notifications I have received. (I later re-added the image in question -the yellow Amphib. - in a different location on the right-hand side of the article, as it is illustrative of the use of the type on water.) YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, perhaps a real three view diagram could unclutter the article. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The image showing the skydivers is quite nice to look at, and it might be useful in an article about skydiving; but this article isn't about skydiving and as an image of a Caravan it's pretty poor - the aircraft is not the subject of the image, the people jumping out are what the image is about. There is mention in the text of a roller door for skydiving Caravans, so I found an image of a 'van with a roller door and replaced the image that does not show a 'van in any great detail. The fact that the skydiving 'van is in Dubai was also a consideration in my selection, as it serves to illustrate the widespread use of the aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree : The section is about operating the aircraft, not technical details, and showing the operation is more illustrative than showing a technical modification facilitating that. A closeup of a roller door cloud be useful in a roller door article though. Nothing tells about Dubai in the picture, and I'm not sure Dubai is notable for operating caravans either. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the third image is much better, if I had found it the other day I would have chosen it over the Panamanian one. YSSYguy (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have picked the best pictures in commons:Cessna 208 Caravan--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the images taken from front-on and from below because I think they don't really illustrate the subject (I am not a fan of three-view silhouettes either) and we shouldn't "overload an article with images" - their removal helped with the problem of the number of images. However, if there is a consensus to put them back in (an actual consensus, not an imagined one) I'm not going to cry myself to sleep. YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, I'll put all three views in with the front-on and planform in a makeshift one.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Cockpit photo - I lean towards the view of Graeme Leggett that it isn't required but I'm really not fussed either way. I'm not in favour of the photo of the passenger seats either, but again not too fussed either way. I get why the image of the 'van with the Kodiak is there, but that sort of comparison image is not seen very much in WP articles about aircraft (I actually can't remember ever seeing a comparative image like that); again not fussed either way. If others think that there are still too many images, then any or all of those three could be removed without detriment to the article in my opinion. YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. The cockpit view is useful to understand the era of the plane, between a steam gauge laden postwar design or a glass flight deck brand new airliner. 2. The cabin view is useful to understand the interior space. 3. Comparison pics are rare but I try to add them when I found it, thy're often rare because pics are generally categorised with only 1 AC type, not multiple ones.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, not a for-or-against - the later-model 'vans are fitted with glass cockpits as standard. YSSYguy (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it continues to be updated with its time.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cessna 208 Caravan. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://caravan.cessna.com/airline.chtml%23
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416113835/http://www.netheravon.com/aircraft.html to http://www.netheravon.com/aircraft.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)