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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Australia: Adelaide Start‑class

	Australia portal Parafield Airport is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

I have heard that the trees spelling "PARAFIELD" have been removed a few months ago --59.167.21.107 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also heard rumours that Parafield is going to be closed and developed into northern Mawson Lakes, with the airport possibly shifting to Gawler. How likely is this? I find it a bit hard to believe. --59.167.21.107 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trees have certainly gone - it looks like the commercial precinct (Bunnings etc...) is going to expand to where they were. Havn't heard the moving rumour - seems unlikely as there is still a lot of undeveloped land on the sea side of Pt Wakefield rd that I'd think'd be developed first and nothings been announced about that yet _ Peripitus (Talk) 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper article stated that the trees were diseased hoewver they were axed before any member of the public could object. There are plans to build a Harbour Town style development which will probably affect many nearby busineses. Bunnings killed off most of the local hardware stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.26.122.12 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 April 2007.

It's unfortunate that "disease" is an oft used excuse to cut down trees that are seen as inconvinient to some. Peripitus (Talk) 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Parafield from 1928

Found some fantastic photos of Parafield from 1928, but don't know if they could be used under fair use claim, expiration of copyright maybe? Anyway, take a look [1] --Russavia 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it says for "For personal use only. To publish or display, contact the State Library of Western Australia." so I would suspect not but you might want to try and ask them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Removed "Airlines and destinations" as the only entry below it was Air South Charter, who have not operated out of Parafield for years.

Classic Jets Airshow Crash

@Bidgee

A routine airshow display does not end with the aircraft crashing. A routine display ends with the airfcraft safely landing. The aircraft amy have performed a similar routine at other shows successfully, but by definition todays show was NOT ROUTINE.

BTW "routine" can also mean a sequence of events such as a "dance routine". Which is the sense I used when I originally drafted the article.

Yes I understand the aircraft I've referecned at Aircraft.net is the same aircraft. The reason I added the reference is because you modified the article ro make it read like the aircraft was a real spitfire, not an scaled replica. It is not a warbord - a warbird is a service aircraft. In anycase whether classes as a warbird or not it is still a replica. It is not registered as a spitfire. I aslo don't undertand why you removed my details about the location of the crash or the pilots details, or the aircraft's registration status.

If you want to edit a fact that you think is incorrect or poorly worded, please edit just the part that you think is incorrect. Please don't remove correctly cited facts. On the subject of notability if the pilot is not notable, why is the fact it is a particular mark of Spitfire notable or useful information - especially given that it is a replica? Th e[ilot is notable in that he was a well known airshow pilot and he crashed. The crash makes him more notable.

And why is the location of the crash not relevant? And why is the fact the aircraft experimental not relevant?

Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact said that is crashed " after a routine display at the airshow", I didn't say that it happened during nor part of the "routine" (which could be a "high speed pass" to a "dirty pass"). If you bothered to look at the article I linked to, was the very aircraft model which crashed. The pilot isn't notable (whom was sadly killed) and the fact that most war birds (even those which were flown during WWII) and home builds are classed as Experimental. Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26 (READ the linked article) is the very airframe. Bidgee (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a spitfire, it is a replica. I'd go along with replica Spitfire MK26. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermarine-Aircraft-Spitfire/1308825 - read the remark in the article. As to experimental - it does not matter if most warbirds are or are not experimental. What matters is that the aircraft in question was one (an experimental aircraft). It is not something I made up, it has is registered as experimental. ANd it is important in that most aircraft that are flying are not experimental even inf most warbirds are.

Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]