Talk:Avro 618 Ten

I've removed the note about the last Ten and the Monospar wing. According to Jackson, British Civil Aircraft the Monospar machine was a Fokker F.VIIB/3m, serial J7986. The same author, in Avro aircraft since 1908 says the last Ten, K2682 was with the RAE Wireless and Equipment flight at Farnborough from late July to late October 1936, with no mention of Monospar though this could have come later.

To add confusion, Peter Cooper's history of Farnborough logs J7986, the Fokker not the Avro as in the Wireless flight at this time. There is an independent web document about cg measurements of the Fokker with this same reg.

Does anyone know more?TSRL (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The July 2010 ed of FlyPast (p.70) has a photo captioned " ... tested by 22 squadron at Martlesham Heath was the ... Fokker VII J7896, which was flown in 1926." However, Fokker Commercial aircraft (pub Fokker) on p. 184 records F.VIIa-3m c/n 4917 going to the Air Ministry as J7986, in agreement with Jackson on serial and the Monospar wing (but F.VIIa not b). Probably FlyPast jumbled the reg. The Fokker book also has K2862, an Avro Ten (licence built F.VIIb-3m) going to RAF in July 1936, in agreement with Jackson.TSRL (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Another two 618 Ten aircraft were also sold to Australian companies"

I'm wondering if this is true, or if the two referred to are UMG and UMH, the survivors of Australian National Airways which were sold on to Virtue? FiggyBee (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked with http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/ who have 8 entries for Australian 618 Tens: the five Australian Nationals, the re-registered UXX plus UNU and UPI of Queensland Air Navigation. These last two have no other Australian reg and must be the two mentioned.TSRL (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New question: Can anyone help my confusion? From http://virtualnewzealandstamps.blogspot.com/2014/12/express-delivery-air-mail-1903-1939.html#comment-form and other sources, "The [New Zealand 1935 airmail issue] design was based on a photograph taken by A H Blennerhasset on 12 April 1934, of the first official air mail from Australia to New Zealand arriving at New Plymouth on the 'Faith in Australia'." Now this page indicates that FiA was Ulm's plane and was an Avro X. And an Avro X apparently was a monoplane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_618_Ten) not a biplane as shown in the 1935 stamps. There's a disconnect - but where?

The stamp image appears to be a de Havilland Express. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avro 618 Ten. 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/20080724170047/http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com/ to http://www.tomcampbellblack.150m.com

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

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) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Avro 619 Five should have its own article.

Looking at the Avro 619 Five in comparison with the Avro 618 Ten, it becomes clear that the 619 Five is a completely different design and should have an article of its own, rather than being lumped in with the 618 Ten. I just reverted someone's attempt on Commons to classify the 619 Five as a version of the Fokker F.VII, which I suspect was inspired by this article treating the 619 Five as a variant of the 618 Ten. (Actually, apart from having three engines, the 619 Five reminds me more of the Fokker Super Universal.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree as it was a new design rather than a licenced Fokker. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)