Talk:Barber Snark

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 not 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.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"There are no current plans to build any more Snarks."[edit]

"No current plans" - A citation request was posted, but I removed it as it is impossible to prove a negative. I don't need to declare a conflict of interest as such, but I do have an interest. In 2008 I discussed with Tim Cripps whether the Snark might be brought to the UK. I still have the correspondence, in which Tim explained the difficulties:

"Perhaps you can drum up a consortium to fill the space of an enthusiastic billionaire, but this thing has cost us about £35k already and all we have to show for it is one half fuselage mould and the plug to make the rest of the fuselage (but not the wings, which anyway need revising to new co-ordinates given to us by a top US aerodynamicist (Bill Barber approves)). We also have the mould materials--top quality stuff to make it suitable for the USA and standing out in the sun in the Mohave desert at 45C. My colleague worked for Boeing and USAF and would only consider the top quality for everything, which, of course, we could not sustain. I suppose you realise the huge amount of work involved in getting PFA approval (I'd forget the BMAA and go for VLA/US SLA), but really I don't want to be involved at all. Bill is a great chap and a genius as a designer and I'm sure he would be glad to see his plane made into a world-beater, but .... my guess is he won't want to get involved .... Without him to give you his stress calculations, and build details (e.g how many layers of kevlar and carbon, laid which way etc) you would have an impossible job to reverse engineer it, and the PFA would have to ask you to demonstrate the breaking strength of many parts (e.g the boom), in lieu of calculations or proper stress analysis".

Both Tim Cripps and designer Bill Barber must now be quite elderly, and David Laing has died; and I know of no plans to revive this wonderful aircraft. Arrivisto (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barber Snark. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 06:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources[edit]

This article has just two refs and both are WP:SPS, which means it fails WP:GNG. We really need to find some proper third party sources if this article is to be retained. Do any exist? - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

The previous sentence implies that this page may not "be retained". I'm sad that this page has been pruned; perhaps one can follow WP guidelines too closely. If this page goes, there will be nothing on WP to explain the significance of this lovely little aircraft, of which at least five have been built and which have had rave reviews from top class pilots. Of course it is difficult to find 3rd party material on this plane, but there is Tim Cripps' article in Pilot magazine. I've got it somewhere, and will supply references when I find it. I have more correspondence from Tim Cripps where he exhorts me to try and save this plane. In the meantime, please do not delete this page! Arrivisto (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article sounds promising as a ref. Right now this article doesn't pass WP:GNG, so it needs some real third party refs to stay here! Is it described in Jane's for any year? Our libraries are closed for reference books, so I can't get in to check. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]