Talk:De Havilland Canada

CS2F inclusion
I agree that the CS2F probably shouldn't receive equal emphasis as original DHC designs.

Rather than starting an update war, how about adding another section titled "Aircraft Produced Under License" under the Dash 8 section, then placing subsections about the Gipsy Moth, Tiger Moth, Fox Moth, and Tracker there? Since DHC produced relatively large numbers of aircraft under license, I think this would be fair treatment for these historical aircraft. (Carguychris 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Reply: I agree that there should be some differentiation of original de Havilland Canada designs compared to any licence-built programs. I would like to see the new section: "Aircraft produced under license" (note the capitalization that is recommended by Wikipedia for section titles). (Bzuk 18:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC))


 * The Gipsy Moth, Tiger Moth, Fox Moth, Mosquito, etc., weren't built under licence. They were built when DHC was part of the UK de Havilland parent company. In effect, DHC was treated as just another DH factory, albeit on another continent. The same applied to DHA in Australia at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.226 (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of DHC aircraft in article
Why is the DHC-6 Twin Otter placed before the DHC-4 Caribou in the article? It's out of numerical and chronological sequence, although I do understand that it's a design development of the DHC-3 Otter. (Carguychris 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)) Exactly because of the development history but putting the order into the correct alphabetical/numerical sequence is fine with me as long as the reader can determine the connection between the Otter and Twin Otter and its lineage. (Bzuk 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Possible international Twin Otter production
I'm very skeptical about the information in the two Indonesian articles. First, both talk about dealing with DHC which not only doesn't own the type certificate for the Twin Otter anymore, but DHC itself doesn't even exist anymore! Both articles also seriously downgrade the number of Twin Otters in the world today (they say about 20). The one article also talks about the Twin Otter seating about 40 passengers. Viking may very well move production offshore (I thought I read something a few months ago about Russia), but I don't trust these 2 references. Can anyone provide a better reference about Indonesia or anywhere else? Greg Salter (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to get rid of the bit on Indonesian production. One of the links (http://www.bataviase.co.id/node/563165) is SO amazingly inaccurate and unrealistic as to be laughable. It says, among other things, that the passenger capacity is about 40 seats, and that the current NEW YORK-based manufacturer is in danger of folding. Heck, it doesn't once name Viking or any other manufacturer. The other link is dead but I found the article anyway (http://www.bisnis.com/articles/twin-otter-to-be-produced-in-indonesia), and it says the deal is with cooperation with the manufacturer... DE HAVILLAND CANADA. These aircraft will have a capacity BELOW 100 PASSENGERS (well I should hope so; a 120 seat Twin Otter would be... interesting). And... De Havilland will close their Canadian plant. Anyone against this? Greg Salter (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Havilland Canada. 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/20060824095652/http://aiabc.com/artman/publish/printer_47.shtml to http://aiabc.com/artman/publish/printer_47.shtml

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) 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on De Havilland Canada. 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/20100807103901/http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=2083 to http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=2083
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726111509/http://www.londoncityairport.com/aboutus/ViewRelease.aspx?id=1111 to http://www.londoncityairport.com/aboutus/ViewRelease.aspx?id=1111
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070810192949/http://www.aircraft.airframe.org.uk/dehavillandcanada/ to http://www.aircraft.airframe.org.uk/dehavillandcanada/

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) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Longview-de Havilland-Viking Relationship
I am trying to figure out the relationship of Longview, DHC and Viking Air. Does Longview own de Havilland and Viking Air, which remain separate companies? If so, why do Viking's Twin Otters now bear the de Havilland name? Or is it that de Havilland is merely a marque, a banner, to be used by Longview as it pleases?24.108.56.72 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Viking Air?
Viking Air, Longview Aviation, Pacific Sky Training and De Havilland Canada have all been consolidated under the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada name.

Of these, only Viking Air has its own page (Longview Aviation Capital is a redirect to Viking Air). Should we merge the two? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We don't usually merge company articles if companies merge. While the companies themselves have merged, both were separate entities in the past, and are notable enough for their own articles.  For example, McDonnell Douglas (itself a merger of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and Douglas Aircraft Company) merged with Boeing in 1997, but we still have an article on it. -  ZLEA  T \ C 13:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I tend to agree with User:ZLEA here. It would be better to essentially end Viking Air's timeline with "was merged into De Havilland Canada" and then all new history would continue here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge - Keep Viking's pre-merger history separate. BilCat (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose We didn't merge this article into Bombardier, I don't see why it would merge into Longview or Viking. Further, Dodge merged into Chrysler decades ago, yet it has a separate article. As does many other companies in similar situations. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Long product sections
The Post-war history section detailing the individual products is way too long, and needs to be trimmed or eliminated. Each aircraft has its own article for such information. BilCat (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've pared the DHC-1 entry down to one paragraph. I'll start on the others as time allows. Carguychris (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! BilCat (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)