Talk:Max Plan PF.204 Busard

MP. 215
Evening Ruth: the info on this variant comes from Jane's 1956, so I don't know if the Continental engine was ever fitted. Maybe worth a look in JAWA1957, if one could find it. Noticed a difference in designation: you have PF. 204, JAWA uses MP. 204. I stayed with your version. Their photo shows "MAX PLAN 204" on the rudder, so that does not help. At that time it was carrying the French reg on the fuselage. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Having looked more carefully at your photo, I've realised the reg is still there.TSRL (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Milborne: I guess the variant is the PF.204, since the numbers are those RuthAs put in the article under that title. Strictly, the wing area (from JAWA56) is the PF.214, or MP.214 as Jane's has it, but the span is the same and there is no suggestion of wing modification.  Same airframe of course. BTW, there's a response from Ruth on my page.  One puzzling feature is the difference between the performance specs in RuthAs's source, used here, and those from Jane's.  For example JAWA has max speed 270 km/h and endurance 4 hr.  Maybe there was added tankage in the 214 to which JAWA56 refers (though there is no mention of it as a mod), but an extra 60 km/h on the same engine sounds unlikely. Weights and dimensions do agree.TSRL (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that JAWA56 on the 214 says "provision for a drop tank", which might explain the endurance anomaly. I wonder what the CAA rules for civilian drop tanks are! The speed discrepancy remains.TSRL (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) It works quantitatively: JAWA has internal capacity 70 L and maximum capacity 200 L, so if the internal tankage gives 1.5 h, the max should give 4.3 h.  So that's all right.TSRL (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose the merge of this article with Lefebvre Busard as they are essentially the same aircraft. Alternatively merge the other way as there was only limited production of the Max Plan aircraft.--Petebutt (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose; the planes had different designers and different purposes, the first was unique but notable aircraft which spawned the design of the second more commercial venture. I've removed some of the duplication in the articles (and circular linking), which makes them look more distinct. Perhaps that's sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)