Talk:Airco

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Gas Equipment Company[edit]

There used to be a major manufacturer, called AIRCO, that made Gas Aparatus Equipment; such as pressure regulators, flow meters and welding equipment based out of NJ. This company was a devision of BOC and was sold off to a private investor who renamed the company CONCOA. Is this worthy of an article under the same name? Jayp1981 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The drill is that if the Gas company is considered notable enough to have its own article (?) it would be under the name AIRCO (Gas equipment company) or something like that - and both articles would need hatnotes to make it clear that they were not about the other company. We wouldn't normally consider (I don't think) that one obscure company necessarily needs an article just because a much more famous one does. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the display advertisement, page 3, The TImes, Dec 03, 1918[edit]

This has been replaced. If it is considered to be inappropriate please list here for others to view any reasons that might be invented for deleting it. Eddaido (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. If you have a photograph or scan of the Aircraft Manufacturing Co Ltd. advertisement from The Times, Dec 03, 1918, then, by all means, add it as a thumbnail, as it would undoubtedly have passed into public domain by now. Please don't attempt to cobble up such an advertisement from an infobox caption. - from Talk:George Holt Thomas#Removal of some weird things from the article.

A scan of an actual advertisement from an issue of a newspaper that has fallen into public domain might have some credibility. Putting together something in a digital infobox that might or might not look like such an advertisement has none. The only value it adds to the article is the photograph of whatever Airco aircraft that is, if it is indeed an Airco aircraft.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the aircraft in the thumbnail "was designed and built in 1919", and "the first prototype flew early in 1920." It is therefore very unlikely that this photograph was used in "the display advertisement, page 3, The TImes, 3 Dec 1918". It therefore appears very much that the gigantic thumbnail caption being used to simulate the alleged advertisement actually bears no relation whatsoever to the image used in the thumbnail. This is highly inappropriate for a thumbnail caption, which is supposed to describe the image in the thumbnail. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of article at WikiProject:Aviation[edit]

I have brought up the issue of the thumbnail being used to simulate an advertisement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Recreation of 1918 advertisement in Airco article. The thumbnail is being discussed there to achieve consensus on whether it should be kept or deleted. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hooker Ltd.[edit]

What's the connection between Peter Hooker Ltd. of Walthamstow and Airco at Hendon. See Hiduminium and Y alloy.

In the metallurgy articles, it's sourced that Hooker's were also known as The British Gnôme and Le Rhône Engine Co., built engines under licence, and then folded (gradually) by 1927. Airco have a similar history. Are they the same company though, or what was their relation? An unsourced redirect at [1] suggests that they were the same company, but this is the first time I've heard of this close a link. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "Peter Hooker" at flightglobal.com history section it appears a few times, in 1920 it was suggested that Air Co and Peter Hooker and BSA were to amalgamate http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1920/1920%20-%200135.html. A later article in 1922 mentions Peter Hooker going into voluntary liquidation and an earlier one in 1917 says that it was formed in 1900 all the shares are held by Air Co. and Mr. Holt, other mentions that it was a subsidary of Air Co. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(now I) Know you're anxious, give us another 24 hours or so. In a sense it is just another name for Airco. Eddaido (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what date though? The Flight piece gives this as a strictly post-war merger (which makes a lot of sense). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some information: