text:
Talk:Personal property

Changed from redirect
I've changed this from a redirect, personal property is not just property, it is a type of property.Alex756

 * Redirect doesn't mean it is synonymous to the destination because each artcile in wikipedia covers ideas, topics, themes or matters unlike dictionaries. Actually this is part of the debate we have had. I still don't understand why we need to have a separate article for each type of property or related concepts. I think it is a better to have one article discussing ideas related to property for both readers and contributers[sic]. Yeah, the article can be too long then we have to split off some detailed part to a separate article. -- Taku 16:00 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

This is not an article related to property ideas,[sic] that is something quite different—the types of property. It is like saying we should only have an article about computer programs, but no articles about the specific types of computer programs because everything about programs should be on the same page. Better yet, there should only be a page on computers, and no separate page on computer programs because the programs are really just a minor part of computers. Is this kind of reductionism really useful in any subject where you are trying to help people learn about something?

Here is an example of personal property from the 1911 encyclopedia:

 * PERSONAL PROPERTY, one branch of the main division of the English law of property, the other being “real property.” The division of property into real and personal represents in a great measure the division into immovable and movable incidentally recognized in Roman law and generally adopted since. “ Things personal,” according to Blackstone, “ are goods, money, and all other movables which may attend the owner’s person wherever he thinks’ proper to go “ (Comm. ii. 16). This identification of things personal with movables, though logical in theory, does not, as will be seen, perfectly express the English law, owing to the somewhat anomalous position of chattels real. In England real property is supposed to be superior in dignity to personal property, which was originally of little importance from a legal point of view. This view is the result of feudal ideas, and had no place in the Roman system, in which immovables and movables were dealt with as far as possible in the same manner, and descended according to the same rules. The main differences between real and personal property which still exist in England are these. (I) In real property there can be nothing more than limited ownership; there can be no estate properly so called in personal property, and it may be held in complete ownership. There is nothing corresponding to an estate-tail in personal property; words which in real property would create an estate-tail will give an absolute interest in personalty. A life-interest may, however, be given in personalty, except in articles quae ipso usu consumuntur. Limitations of personal property, equally with those of real property, fall within the rule against perpetuities. (2) Personal property is not subject to various incidents of real property, such as rent, dower or escheat. (3) On the death of the owner intestate real property descends to the heir; personal property is divided according to the Statute of Distributions. (4) Real property as a general rule must be transferred by deed; personal property does not need so solemn a mode of transfer. (5) Contracts relating to real property must be in writing by the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. II. C. 3, s. 4; contracts relating to personal property need only be in writing when it is expressly so provided by statute, as, for instance, in the cases falling under s. 17 of the Statute of Frauds. (6) A will of lands need not be proved, but a will of personalty or of personal and real property together must be proved in order to give a title to those claiming under it. (7) Devises of real estate fall as a rule within the Mortmain Acts (see CHARITY AND CITA1mITIEs; CoRPORATIoN); bequests of personal property, other than chattels real, are not within the act. (8) Mortgages of real property need not generally be segistered; mortgages of personal property for the most part require registration under the Bills of Sale Acts (see PLEDGE, and BILL OF SALE).

 * Personal estate is divided in English law into chattels real and chattels personal; the latter are again divided into choses in possession and choses in action (see CHATTEL; CHOSE).

 * Interest in personal property may be either absolute or qualified. The latter case is illustrated by animals ferae naturae, in which property is only coextensive with detention. Personal property may be acquired by occupancy (including the accessio, commixtio and confusio of Roman law), by invention, as patent and copy. right. or by transfer, either by the act of the law (as in bankruptcy judgment and intestacy), or by the act of the party (as in gift, contract and will).

 * There are several cases in which, by statute or otherwise, property is taken out of the class of real or personal to which it seems naturally to belong. By the operation of the equitable doctrine of conversion money directed to be employed in the purchase of land, or land directed to be turned into money, is in general regarded as that species of property into which it is directed to be converted. An example of property prima facie real which is treated as personal is an estate pur autre vie, which, since 14 Geo. II. C. 20, s. 9, 1740—1741 (now replaced by the Wills Act 1837, s. 6) is distributable as personal property in the absence of a special occupant. Examples of property prima facie personal which is treated as real are fixtures, heirlooms, such as deeds and family portraits, and shares in some of the older companies, as the New River Company, which are real estate by statute. In ordinary ‘cases shares in companies are personal property, unless the shareholders have individually some interest in the land as land.

 * The terms heritable and movable of Scots law to a great extent correspond with the real and personal of English law. The main points of difference are these. (I) Leases are heritable as to the succession to the lessee, unless the destination expressly exclude heirs, but are movable as to the fisk. (2) Money due on mortgages and securities on land is personalty in England. At common law in Scotland debts secured on heritable property are themselves heritable. But by the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868, s. 117, heritable securities are movable as far as regards the succession of the creditor, unless executors are expressly excluded. They still, however, remain heritable quoad fiscum, as ‘between husband and wife, in computing legitim, and as far as regards the succession of the debtor. (3) Up to 1868 the heir of heritage succeeded to certain movable goods called heirship movabtes, which bore a strong likeness to the heirlooms of English law. This right of the heir was abolished by the act of 1868, s. i6o.

 * (4) Annuities, as having tractum futuri tern poris, are heritable, and an obligation to pay them falls upon the heir of the deceased (Watson, Law Dirt. s.v. “ Annuities “).

 * The law in the United States agrees in most respects with that of England. Heirlooms are unknown, one reason being, no doubt, that the importance of title-deeds is much less than it is in England, owing to the operation of the Registration Acts. Long terms in sOme states have annexed to them the properties of freehold estates. In some states estates pur autre vie descend like real property; in others an estate pier autrg vie is deemed a freehold only during the life of the grantee; after his death it becomes a chattel real. In yet other states the heir has a scintilla of interest as special occupant (Kent, Comm. iv. 27). In some states railway rolling-stock is considered as purely personal, in others it has been held to be a fixture, and so to partake of the nature of real property. Shares in some of, the early American corporations were, like New River shares in England, made real estate by statute, as in the case of the Cape Sable Company in Maryland (Schouler, Law of Personal Property, I.). In Louisiana animals employed in husbandry are, and slaves were, regarded as immovables. Pews in churches are generally real property, but in some states they are made personal property by statute. The assignment of choses in action is generally permitted, and is In most states regulated by statute. (J. W.)

Now, compare Real Property:

 * REAL PROPERTY. The land law of England and of countries whose law is based upon that of England stands in a peculiar position, which can. be understood only by an outline of its history.

 * History.—Such terms as “fee” or “ homage” carry us back into feudal times. Rights of common and distress are based upon still older institutions, forming the very basis of primitive law. The conception of tenure is the fundamental ground of distinction between real and personal estate, the former only being strictly entitled to the name of estate (q.v.). The division into real and personal is coincident to a great extent with that into immovable and movable, generally used by systems of law founded on the Roman (see PERSONAL PROPERTY.) That it is not entirely coincident is due to the influence of the Roman law itself. The Greeks and the Romans of the republic were essentially nations of citizens; the Teutons were essentially a nation of land-folk; the Roman empire bridged the gul’ between the two. It is probable that the English land la~ was produced by the action of the policy adopted in the lowel empire, finally developed into feudalism, upon the previously existing course of Teutonic custom. The distinguishing features of the Teutonic system were enjoyment in common and the absence of private ownership, except to a limited extent. The principal features of the old English land law before the Conquest, from which the modern law has developed, were (1) liberty of alienation, either by will or inter vivos, of such land as could be alienated, chiefly, if not entirely, bocland, subject always to the limits fixed by the boc; (2) publicity of transfer by enrolment in the shire-book or church-book; (3) equal partition of the estate of a deceased among the sons, and failing sons among the daughters; (4) cultivation. to a great extent by persons in various degrees of serfdom, owing money or labour rents; (5) variety of custom, tending to become uniform, through the application of the same principles in the local courts; (6) subjection of land to the trinoda necessitas, a burden imposed for the purpose of defence of the realm. The rudiments of the conceptions of tenure and of the crown as lord paramount were found in the old English system, and lnnland was an anticipation of the limited interests which afterwards became of such importance.1 The connexion of political privileges with the ownership

 * i The name has not remained as in Germany and Denmark. A fief is still Lehen in Germany, Lehn in Denmark of land is not peculiar to the pre-Conquest or any other period. It runs through the whole of English history.

 * The elements of feudalism so far existed in England under the Anglo-Saxon and Danish kings as to make it easy to introduce it in full at the Norman Conquest. What the Norman Conquest did was not to change all at once allodial into feddal tenure, but to complete the association of territorial with personal dependence in a state of society already prepared for it.i “ Nulle terre sans seigneur” was one of the fundamental axioms of feudalism. There might be any number of infeudations and subinfeudations to mesne lords, but the chain of seigniory was complete, depending in the last resort upon the king as lord paramount. Land was not owned by free owners owing only necessary militia duties to the state, but was held of the king by military service of a more onerous nature. The folkland became the king’s land; the soldier was a landowner instead of the landowner being a soldier. Free owners tended to become tenants of the lord, the township to be lost in the manor.1 The common land became in law the waste of the manor, its enjoyment resting upon a presumed grant by the lord, On the other hand, the whole of England did not become manorial; the conifict between the township and the manor resulted in a compromise, the result of which affects English tenure to this day. But it was a compromise much to the advantage of the privileged class, for in England more than in any other country the land law is the law of the nobility and not of the people. One reason of this is that, as England was never so completely feudalized as were some of the European continental states, the burden of feudalism was not so severely felt, and has led to less agitation for reform.

 * The land forfeited to the Conqueror was regranted by him to be held by military service due to the king, not to the mesne lord as in European continental feudalism. In 1086 at the council of Salisbury all the landholders swore fealty to the crown. In the full vigour of feudalism the inhabitants of England were either free or not free. The free inhabitants held their lands either by free tenure (liberum tenementum, franktenement) or by a tenure which was originally that of a non-free inhabitant, but attached to land in the possession of a free man. Franktene-, ment was either military tenure, called also tenure in knight service or chivalry (including barony, the highest tenure known to the law, grand serjeanty and the special forms of escuage, castle-guard, cornage and others) or socage (including burgage and petit serjeanty), or frankalmoign (libera eleemosyna) or divine service, by which ecclesiastical corpoiations generally held their land.3 The non-free inhabitants were in Domesday Book servi, cotarii or bordari-i, later nativi or villani, the last name being applied to both free men and serfs. All these were in a more or less dependent condition. The free tenures all exist at the present day, though, as will appear later, the military tenures have shrunk into the unimportant and exceptional tenure of grand serjeanty. The non-free tenures are to a certain extent represented by copyhold. The most important difference between the military and socage tenures was the mode of descent. Whether or not a feudal benefice was originally hereditary, it had certainly become so at the time of the Conquest, and it descended to the eldest son. This applied at once in England to land held by military service as far as regarded the capital fief. The descent of socage lands or lands other than the’ capital fief for some time followed the old pre-Conquest rule of descent. Thus in the socalled “Laws of Henry I.” the lands other than the capital fief, and in Glanvill, who wrote in the time of Henry II., socage lands, if anciently partible (antiquitus div-i sum), were divided among all the sons equally. But by the time of Bracton (Henry III.) the course of descent of lands held by military service had so far

 * 1” The relation of vassalage, originally personal became annexed to the tenure of land “ (Palgrave, Rise and Progress of Ihe English Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 505).

 * It is a disputed point whether the manor organization existed before the Conquest; but its full development seems to have been later than that event.

 * Frankalmoign was not always regarded as a distinct tenure. Thus Littleton (~ ITS) says that all that is not tenure in chivalry is tenure in socage. prevailed that, though it was a question of fact whether the land was partible or not, if there was no evidence either way descent to the eldest son was presumed. Relics of the old custom still remain in the case of gavelkind. The military tenant was subject to the feudal incidents, from which the tenant in socage was exempt. These incidents, especially wardship and ma’rriage, were often oppressive. Alienation of lands by will, except in a few favoured districts, became impossible; alienation inter vivos was restrained in one direction in the interests of the heir, in another in the interests of the lord. At the time of Glanvill a tenant had a greater power of alienation over land which he had purchased (terra acquietata) than over land which he had inherited. But by the time of Bracton the heir had ceased to have any interest in either kind of land. The lords were more successful. It was enacted by Magna Carta that a free man should not give or sell so much of his land as to leave an amount insufficient to perform his services to his lord. In spite of this provision, the rights of the lords were continually diminished by subinfeudation until the passing of the Statute of Quia Emptores. Alienation by a tenant in chief of the crown without licence was a ground of forfeiture until 1 Edw. III. st. 2, c. 12, by which a fine was substituted. The modes of conveyance at this time were only two, feoffment with livery of seisin for corporeal hereditaments, grant for incorporeal hereditaments. Livery of seisin, though public, was not officially recorded like the old English transfer of property. The influence of local custom upon the land law must have become weakened after the circuits of the judges of the King’s Court were established by Henry II. Jurisdiction. over litigation touching the freehold was taken away from the lord’s courts by 15 Ric. II. c. I2.

 * The common law as far as it dealt with real estate had in the main assumed its present aspect by the reign of Henry III. The changes which have been made since that date have been chiefly due to the action of equity and legislation, the latter sometimes interpreted by the courts in a manner very different from the intention of parliament. The most important influence of equity has been exercised in mortgage and trusts in the doctrine of specific performance of contracts concerning real estate, and in relief from forfeiture for breach of covenant.

 * History of Real Estate Legislaiion.—The reign of Edward I. is notable for three leading statutes, all passed in the interests of the superior lords. The Statute of Mortmain (~ Edw. I. St. 2, c. 13) ~s the first of a long series directed against the acquisition of land by religious and charitable corporations. The statute De Donis Conditionalibus (13 Edw. I. c. I) forbade the alienation of estates granted to a man and the heirs of his body, which before the statute became on the birth of an heir at once alienable (except in the case of gifts in frankmarriage), and so the lord lost his escheat. The statute Quia Emptores (18 Edw. I. c. I) preserved those rights of the lords which were up to that time subject to be defeated by subinfeudation, by enacting that in any alienation of lands the alienee should hold them of the same lord of the fee as the alienor.4 Since 1290 it has been impossible to create an estate in fee-simple to be held of a mesne lord, or to reserve a rent upon a grant of an estate in fee (unless in the form of a rent-charge), or to create a new manor. The statute, however, does not bind the c-rown. The practical effect of the statute was to make the transfer of land thenceforward more of a commercial and less of a feudal transaction. The writ of elegit was introduced by the Statute of Westminster II. in 1285 as a creditor’s remedy over real estate. It has, however, been considerably modified by subsequent legislation. From 1290 to the reign of Henry VIII., there is no statute of the first importance dealing with real estate. The reign of Henry VIII., like the reign of Edward I., is signalized by three acts, the effects of which continue to this day. The one which has had the most lasting influence in law is the Statute of Uses, 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (see C0NvEYANcINO; TRUST). The Statute of Uses was intended to provide against secrecy of sales of land, and as a necessary sequel to it an act of the same Tenants in chief of the crown were liable to a fine on alienation until 12 Car. II~ c year (27 Hen. VIII. c. 16) enacted that all bargains and sales of land should be duly enrolled. Bargain and sale was a form of equitable transfer which had for some purposes superseded the common law feoffment. It applied only to estates of inheritance and not to terms of years. The unforeseen effect of 27 Hen. VIII. c. 16 was to establish as the ordinary form of conveyance until 1841 the conveyance by lease and release.’ Uses having become legal estate by the Statute of Uses, and therefore no longer devisable, 32 Hen. VIII c. I (explained by 34 & 35 Hen. VIII.

 * c. 5) was passed to remedy this inconvenience. It is still law as to wills made before 1838 (see WILL). In the reign of Elizabeth the acts of 13 Eliz. c. 5 and 27 Eliz. c. 4 avoided fraudulent conveyances as against all parties and voluntary conveyances as against subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration. Early in the reign of Charles II. the act of 1661 (12 Car. II. c. 24) turned all the feudal tenures (with the exception of frankalmoign and grand serjeanty) into tenure by free and common socage and abolished the feudal incidents. The Statute of Frauds (29 Car. II. c. 3) contained provisions that certain leases and assignments, and that all agreements and trusts relating to land, should be in writing (see FRAUD). The land registries of Middlesex and Yorkshire date from the reign of Anne (see LAND REGISTRATION). Devises of land for charitable purposes were forbidden by the Mortmain Act (9 Geo. II. c. 36). In the next reign the first general Inclosure Act was passed, 41 Geo. III. c. 109 (see COMMoNs). In the reign of William IV. were passed the Prescription, Limitation and Tithe Commutation Acts; fines and recoveries were abolished and simpler modes of conveyance substituted by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74; and the laws of inheritance and dower were amended by 3 & 4 Will. IV. cc. 105, 106. In the reign of Victoria there was a vast mass of legislation dealing with real estate in almost every conceivable aspect. At the immediate beginning of the reign stands the W’ills Act. The transfer of real estate was simplified by 8 & 9 Vict. C. 106 and by the Conveyancing Acts of 1881 and 1882. Additional powers of dealing with settled estates were given by the Settled Estates Act 1856, later by the Settled Estates Act I877, and the Settled Land Act 1882. Succession duty was levied for the first time on freeholds in 1853. The strictness of the Mortmain Act has been relaxed in favour of gifts and sales to public institutions of various kinds, such as schools, parks and museums. The period of limitation was shortened for most purposes from twenty to twelve years by the Real Property Limitation Act 1874. Several acts were passed dealing with the enfranchisement and commutation of copyholds and the preservation of commons and open spaces. The Naturalization Act 28-70 enabled aliens to hold and transfer land in England. The Felony Act 1870, abolished forfeiture of real estate on conviction for felony. The Agricultural Holdings Acts 1883 and 1900, and other acts, gave the tenant of a tenancy within. the acts a general right to compensation for improvements, substituted a year’s notice to quit for the six months’ notice previously necessary, enlarged the tenant’s right to fixtures, and limited the amount of distress. By the Intestate Estates Act 1884 the law of escheat was extended to incorporeal hereditaments and equitable estates. Among other subjects which have been dealt with by legislation in the I9th century may be mentioned land transfer, registration, mortgage, partition, excambion, fixtures, taking of land in execution, declaration of title and apportionment. Hardly a year passes in which the land law is not altered to a greater or less degree.

 * Real estate - at the present day is either legal or equitable, a difference resting mainly upon historical grounds. The following observations apply in general to both kinds of estate. The usua classification of interests in real estate regards either the extent the time or the mode of enjoyment. The division accordinl to the extent is in the first instance into corporeal and incorporea hereditaments, a division based upon the Roman law division o res into corporales and incorporates, and open to the same objection From the reign of Edward IV. at latest up to the Fines am

 * Recoveries Act of 1833 fines and recoveries were also recognized a a means of conveyance. They are so regarded in ‘the Statute of Uses. that it is unscientific as co-ordinating subjects of rights with the rights themselves.2 Corporeal hereditaments, says Blackstone, “consist of such as affect the senses, such as may be seen and’ handled by the body; incorporeal are not the objects of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation.” Corporeal hereditaments are all necessarily freehold;i an interest in land less than freehold, such as a term of years, is personalty only. There was no room for such an interest in the feudal gradation of tenure; it was regarded as a mere personal contract and was incapable of the incidents of tenure. By the Conveyancing Act 1881 the residue of a long term of years could in certain cases be enlarged into the fee-simple. A copyhold is in strict law only a tenancy at the will of the lord. Estates of freehold are either estates for life or in fee (called also estates of inheritance), the latter being in fee-tail or in fee-simple. An estate for life may be, either for the life of the tenant or for the life of another person, the latter called an estate pur autre vie. The former kind of estate includes estates of dower and curtesy. An estate in fee is called a fee simply, an obvious sign of its feudal origin. Estates tail are either general or special, the latter being in tail male or (rarely) in tail female. There may also be a quasientail of an estate pur autre vie. An estate in fee-simple is the largest estate known to English law. Its ordinary incidents are an oath of fealty (never exacted), escheat, and (in a manor) suit of the court baron, and occasionally a small quit-rent and relief. All these are obviously relics of the once important feudal incidents. Incorporeal hereditaments consist chiefly, if not wholly, of rights in alieno solo. They are divided by Joshua Williams (Real Property, pt. ii.) into (I) reversions, remainders and executory interests, (2) hereditaments purely incorporeal, the last being either appendant, appurtenant or in gross. Examples are profits a prendre (such as rights of common), easements (such as rights of way),4 seigniories, advowsons, rents, tithes, titles of honour, offices, franchises. Before 1845 corporeal hereditaments were said to lie in livery, incorporeal in grant. But by the Real Property Act 1845 all corporeal hereditaments are, as regards the conveyance of the immediate freehold thereof, to be deemed to lie in grant as well as in livery. With regard to the time of enjoyment, estates are either in possession or in expectancy—that is, in reversion or remainder or executory interests (see REMAINDER). With regard to the mode of enjoyment, estates are either joint, in common, in coparcenary or in severalty.

 * Exceptional - Tenures.—It has been already stated that there are still to be found survivals of the old pre-Conquest customary law. They are found both in the tenure and in the conveyance of land. The only customs of which judicial notice is taken are gavelkind (q.v.) and borough-English (q.v.). Any other local customs, as in manors, must be proved ‘by evidence. The tenures of frankalmoign and grand serjeanty were specially preserved by 12 Car. II. c. 24.

 * Title.—This is the name given to the mode of acquisition of rights over real estate. Title may arise either by alienation, voluntary or involuntary, or by succession. Voluntary alienation is either inter vivos or by will. The former branch is practically synonymous with conveyance, whether by way of sale, settlement, mortgage or otherwise. As a general rule alienation of real estate inter vivos must be by deed since 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106. Since that act a deed of grant has superseded the old forms of feoffment and lease and release. Considerable alterations in the direction of shortness and simplicity have been made in the law of transfer of real estate by the Conveyancing Acts 1881, 1882 and tie Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897. The word “grant” is no lon~er necessary for a conveyance, nor are the old words of limitation heirs” and “heirs of the body.” It is sufficient to use the words “in fee-simple,” “ in tail,’’ ‘‘in tail male,” “in tail female.” Many provisions usually inserted in deeds, such as covenants for title by a beneficial owner and powers of appointment of new trustees, obtain statutory sanction. Forms of mortgage, conveyance’ and settlement are appended to the act. The Solicitors’ Remuneration Act 1881 was passed as a necessary sequel to the Conveyancing Act, and the remuneration of solicitors now stands upon a different and more satisfactory basis. For acquisition by will and succession, see WILL; INHERITANCE. Involuntary alienation is by bankruptcy (q.v.) and by other means of enforcing the rights of creditors over land, such as distress or execution. It may also arise by the exercise by the state of its right of eminent domain for public purposes, as under the Lands Clauses and other acts.i

 * 2 In spite of this objection the division is adopted by the legisla ture; see, for instance, the Intestate Estates Act 1884. In the category of corporeal hereditaments are also incluciec certain accessories to corporeal hereditaments proper, such a~ growing crops, fixtures, title-deeds, &c. It should be noticed that an easement in gross cannot exist. The right of the state to contribution from land for revenui purposes and to stamp duties on deeds perhaps falls under tht head. These imposts are really involuntary alienations of par of the profit of the land.

You will also notice that real estate is just a part of Real property the more major category bein real property, not real estate according to the 1911 encycl,[sic] they are not the same thing as well. We must fix this problem. Alex756 01:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Source requested
"The term personal property is also used with meanings that have no connection to the above. Specifically, Marxism and Anarchism draw a distinction between personal property and private property." ..and the rest of the section that is based on that. Source? RJII 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on a source for this. I'm not sure, but it looks like someone made it up off the top of their head. RJII 01:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it is perfectly consistent with the views of anarchists (of the libertarian socialist variety, at least), and the views of communists regarding the form of the communist society they ultimately wish to create. I will look for definite sources, however. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I found this: http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Property.html and modified the section accordingly. I don't know who wrote it or if it counts for anything. It looks like the writer is defining "personal property" the way Proudhon defined "possession" when it came to natural resources. I don't know if it's just one guy with this definition or whether there are any authoritative sources on this. It's not standard among anarcho-communists. For example, this CNT-FIA pamphlet urging anarchist revolution: "To the people. The CNT and FAI call everybody to armed revolt. The hour of revolution has struck and the moment is here. We stand ready to make anarcho-communism a reality. Personal property is abolished, and all wealth will be collectivized..." RJII 16:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not acceptable to just source it to somebody's website. If you can pull that definition directly from the sources quoted by that website, then we'll have something verifiable; until then, I've deleted the section. -- nae'blis 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal estate
I created a redirect from the above to this article. If anyone feels this is incorrect feel free to expand the above link into an article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Requested
Can someone clarify this more? ''Accountants also distinguish personal property from real property because personal property can be depreciated faster than improvements (while land is not depreciable at all). It is an owner's right to get tax benefits for chattel, and there are businesses that specialize in appraising personal property, or chattel.'' I find this part confusing; surely both in economic terms and in real-life, real property also often depreciates. I don't understand this part, can someone clarify what they mean by depreciate here, because they don't mean the economic definition that is linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.12 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chattel
As chattel redirects here there are probably extra areas that need to be covered - for example the use of the term chattel to refer to slaves, which I think traces back to Abolitionism. --86.179.186.239 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From Online Etymology, "chattel (n.) early 13c., chatel "property, goods," from Old French chatel "chattels, goods, wealth, possessions, property; profit; cattle," from Late Latin capitale "property" (see cattle, which is the Old North French form of the same word). Application to slaves (1640s) is a rhetorical figure of abolitionists, etc.". See also Wikipedia page on Chattel marriage.Ermadog (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Maryland claim wrong?
I think the claim about Maryland is nonsense. As seen here: "There’s no such thing as a “Common Law” marriage in Maryland. It simply isn’t recognized.

That means by “Common Law” marriage laws, no such marriage requires any legal procedure to end, because the state of Maryland doesn’t recognize it in the first place. There are no marriage requirements for it. Nothing.

However….

Maryland does recognize a “Common Law” marriage in Maryland if it was established in another state that recognizes those types of marriages." http://marriage.laws.com/common-law-marriage-maryland Maryland does not establish or recognize Common Law marriage, it only recognizes this when done out of the state in a state that does recognize it. Thus a women does not become personal property of a men when married or engaged under Maryland law.

Person vs. thing
See the second bullet point in the section "Personal versus private property". This: "Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g., artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts, seas, etc." puzzles me: artifacts, factories, etc, are things not persons. 31.52.252.177 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume it is referring to the person who is denied access or use of the property, but I agree it is not well explained. Iapetus (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived
Makes it sound like other kinds of property are not social relationships between the owners and the persons deprived. Exclusion is always a reality. Some users and uses will be excluded, no matter what arrangement we choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.208 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Life_%28album%29?wprov=sfla1q
@ 103.111.225.183 (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Personal property


text:
Measures of national income and output

A variety of measures of national income and output are used in economics to estimate total economic activity in a country or region, including gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product (GNP), net national income (NNI), and adjusted national income (NNI adjusted for natural resource depletion – also called as NNI at factor cost). All are specially concerned with counting the total amount of goods and services produced within the economy and by various sectors. The boundary is usually defined by geography or citizenship, and it is also defined as the total income of the nation and also restrict the goods and services that are counted. For instance, some measures count only goods & services that are exchanged for money, excluding bartered goods, while other measures may attempt to include bartered goods by imputing monetary values to them.

National accounts
Arriving at a figure for the total production of goods and services in a large region like a country entails a large amount of data-collection and calculation. Although some attempts were made to estimate national incomes as long ago as the 17th century, the systematic keeping of national accounts, of which these figures are a part, only began in the 1930s, in the United States and some European countries. The impetus for that major statistical effort was the Great Depression and the rise of Keynesian economics, which prescribed a greater role for the government in managing an economy, and made it necessary for governments to obtain accurate information so that their interventions into the economy could proceed as well-informed as possible.

Market value
In order to count a good or service, it is necessary to assign value to it. The value that the measures of national income and output assign to a good or service is its market value – the price it fetches when bought or sold. The actual usefulness of a product (its use-value) is not measured – assuming the use-value to be any different from its market value.

Three strategies have been used to obtain the market values of all the goods and services produced: the product (or output) method, the expenditure method, and the income method. The product method looks at the economy on an industry-by-industry basis. The total output of the economy is the sum of the outputs of every industry. However, since an output of one industry may be used by another industry and become part of the output of that second industry, to avoid counting the item twice we use not the value output by each industry, but the value-added; that is, the difference between the value of what it puts out and what it takes in. The total value produced by the economy is the sum of the values-added by every industry.

The expenditure method is based on the idea that all products are bought by somebody or some organisation. Therefore, we sum up the total amount of money people and organisations spend in buying things. This amount must equal the value of everything produced. Usually, expenditures by private individuals, expenditures by businesses, and expenditures by government are calculated separately and then summed to give the total expenditure. Also, a correction term must be introduced to account for imports and exports outside the boundary.

The income method works by summing the incomes of all producers within the boundary. Since what they are paid is just the market value of their product, their total income must be the total value of the product. Wages, proprietor's incomes, and corporate profits are the major subdivisions of income.

Output
The output approach focuses on finding the total output of a nation by directly finding the total value of all goods and services a nation produces.

Because of the complication of the multiple stages in the production of a good or service, only the final value of a good or service is included in the total output. This avoids an issue often called 'double counting', wherein the total value of a good is included several times in national output, by counting it repeatedly in several stages of production. In the example of meat production, the value of the good from the farm may be $10, then $30 from the butchers, and then $60 from the supermarket. The value that should be included in final national output should be $60, not the sum of all those numbers, $100. The values added at each stage of production over the previous stage are respectively $10, $20, and $30. Their sum gives an alternative way of calculating the value of final output.

Key formulae are:

GDP at market price = value of output in the economy - intermediate consumption NNP at factor cost = GDP at market price - net indirect taxes - depreciation + net factor income from abroad

 NDP at factor cost = compensation of employees + net interest + rental & royalty income + profit of incorporated and unincorporated NDP at factor cost

Expenditure
The expenditure approach is basically an output accounting method. It focuses on finding the total output of a nation by finding the total amount of money spent. This is acceptable to economists, because, like income, the total value of all goods is equal to the total amount of money spent on goods. The basic formula for domestic output takes all the different areas in which money is spent within the region, and then combines them to find the total output.

$$\mathrm{GDP} = C + G + I + \left ( \mathrm{X} - M \right )$$

where:

C = Consumption (economics) (Household consumption expenditures / Personal consumption expenditures)

I = Investment (macroeconomics) / Gross private domestic investment

G = Government spending (Government consumption / Gross investment expenditures)

X = Exports (Gross exports of goods and services)

M = Imports (Gross imports of goods and services)

Note: (X - M) is often written as XN or less commonly as NX, both stand for "net exports"

The names of the measures consist of one of the words "Gross" or "Net", followed by one of the words "National" or "Domestic", followed by one of the words "Product", "Income", or "Expenditure". All of these terms can be explained separately.

 * "Gross" means total product, regardless of the use to which it is subsequently put.
 * "Net" means "Gross" minus the amount that must be used to offset depreciation – ie., wear-and-tear or obsolescence of the nation's fixed capital assets. "Net" gives an indication of how much product is actually available for consumption or new investment.

 * "Domestic" means the boundary is geographical: we are counting all goods and services produced within the country's borders, regardless of by whom.
 * "National" means the boundary is defined by citizenship (nationality). We count all goods and services produced by the nationals of the country (or businesses owned by them) regardless of where that production physically takes place.
 * The output of a French-owned cotton factory in Senegal counts as part of the Domestic figures for Senegal, but the National figures of France.

 * "Product", "Income", and "Expenditure" refer to the three counting methodologies explained earlier: the product, income, and expenditure approaches. However, the terms are used loosely.
 * "Product" is the general term, often used when any of the three approaches was actually used. Sometimes the word "Product" is used and then some additional symbol or phrase to indicate the methodology; so, for instance, we get "Gross Domestic Product by income", "GDP (income)", "GDP(I)", and similar constructions.
 * "Income" specifically means that the income approach was used.
 * "Expenditure" specifically means that the expenditure approach was used.

All three counting methods should in theory give the same final figure. However, in practice, minor differences are obtained from the three methods for several reasons, including changes in inventory levels and errors in the statistics. One problem for instance is that goods in inventory have been produced (therefore included in Product), but not yet sold (therefore not yet included in Expenditure). Similar timing issues can also cause a slight discrepancy between the value of goods produced (Product) and the payments to the factors that produced the goods (Income), particularly if inputs are purchased on credit, and also because wages are collected often after a period of production.

Gross domestic product and gross national product
Gross domestic product (GDP) is defined as "the value of all final goods and services produced in a country in 1 year".

Gross national product (GNP) is defined as "the market value of all goods and services produced in one year by labour and property supplied by the residents of a country."

As an example, the table below shows some GDP and GNP, and NNI data for the United States:

 * NDP: Net domestic product is defined as "gross domestic product (GDP) minus depreciation of capital", similar to NNP.
 * GDP per capita: Gross domestic product per capita is the mean value of the output produced per person, which is also the mean income.

National income and welfare
GDP per capita (per person) is often used as a measure of a person's welfare. Countries with higher GDP may be more likely to also score high on other measures of welfare, such as life expectancy. However, there are serious limitations to the usefulness of GDP as a measure of welfare:
 * Measures of GDP typically exclude unpaid economic activity, most importantly domestic work such as childcare. This leads to distortions; for example, a paid nanny's income contributes to GDP, but an unpaid parent's time spent caring for children will not, even though they are both carrying out the same economic activity.
 * GDP takes no account of the inputs used to produce the output. For example, if everyone worked for twice the number of hours, then GDP might roughly double, but this does not necessarily mean that workers are better off as they would have less leisure time. Similarly, the impact of economic activity on the environment is not measured in calculating GDP.
 * Comparison of GDP from one country to another may be distorted by movements in exchange rates. Measuring national income at purchasing power parity may overcome this problem at the risk of overvaluing basic goods and services, for example subsistence farming.
 * GDP does not measure factors that affect quality of life, such as the quality of the environment (as distinct from the input value) and security from crime. This leads to distortions - for example, spending on cleaning up an oil spill is included in GDP, but the negative impact of the spill on well-being (e.g. loss of clean beaches) is not measured.
 * GDP is the mean (average) wealth rather than median (middle-point) wealth. Countries with a skewed income distribution may have a relatively high per-capita GDP while the majority of its citizens have a relatively low level of income, due to concentration of wealth in the hands of a small fraction of the population. See Gini coefficient.

Because of this, other measures of welfare such as the Human Development Index (HDI), Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), gross national happiness (GNH), and sustainable national income (SNI) are used.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Measures of national income and output


text:
USS Oregon (BB-3)

USS Oregon (BB-3) was the third and final member of the Indiana-class battleship of pre-dreadnought battleships built for the United States Navy in the 1890s. The three ships were built as part of a modernization program aimed at strengthening the American fleet to prepare for a possible conflict with a European navy. Designed for short-range operations in defense of the United States, the three Indiana-class ships had a low freeboard and carried a main battery of four 13 in guns in a pair of gun turrets. Oregon and her sister ships were the first modern battleships built for the United States, though they suffered from significant stability and seakeeping problems owing to their small size and insufficient freeboard.

After entering service in 1896, Oregon briefly served with the Pacific Squadron before being transferred to the East Coast of the United States as tensions with Spain over Cuba grew in early 1898. She completed a 14000 nmi journey around South America in the span of 66 days, arriving shortly after the start of the Spanish–American War. She thereafter took part in the blockade of Santiago de Cuba, which culminated in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba on 3 July, where Oregon contributed to the destruction of the Spanish squadron in Cuba. After the war, Oregon was deployed to the Asiatic Squadron, serving during the Philippine–American War and the Boxer Rebellion in Qing China. The ship returned to the United States in 1906, when she was decommissioned and placed in reserve for the next five years, during which she was modernized.

Reactivated in 1911, Oregon spent the next several years cruising off the West Coast of the United States, frequently going in and out of service. During the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918, she escorted a convoy for the Siberian expedition. The ship was decommissioned in 1919 and efforts by naval enthusiasts in the early 1920s led the Navy to loan Oregon to her namesake state for use as a museum ship. After the start of World War II, the Navy decided in late 1942 to scrap the ship for the war effort, but after work began the Navy requested the ship's return for use as an ammunition hulk for the upcoming invasion of Guam in 1944. She remained off the island through the mid-1950s before being sold for scrap in 1956 and broken up in Japan.

Design
In the late 1880s, the United States Navy's senior commanders began to plan for the possibility of a conflict with a European naval power, eventually coming to the conclusion that a force of both short- and long-range battleships would be necessary to defend the country. Congress agreed to begin modernizing the Navy and authorized three small vessels—the ironclad battleship USS Texas (1892) and the armored cruisers USS Maine (ACR-1) and USS New York (ACR-2). Three further ships, the Indiana-class battleship, were authorized in 1890; these were to be the first installment of short-range battleships to meet the Navy's plans. The ships proved to be disappointments in service, as they were badly overweight upon completion, their low freeboard hampered operations at sea, and they handled poorly. They were nevertheless the first modern battleships for the American fleet.

Oregon was 351 ft long overall and had a beam of 69 ft and a draft of 24 ft. She displaced 10288 LT as designed and up to 11688 LT at full load. The ship was powered by two-shaft triple-expansion steam engines rated at 9000 ihp and four coal-fired fire-tube boilers, generating a top speed of 15 kn. She had a cruising radius of 5640 nmi at a speed of 10 kn. As built, she was fitted with a heavy military mast, this was later supplemented by a stern cage mast in 1910–1911. She had a crew of 32 officers and 441 enlisted men, which increased to a total of 586–636 officers and enlisted.

The ship was armed with a main battery of four 13 in /35 caliber guns in two twin gun turrets on the centerline, one forward and aft. The secondary battery consisted of eight 8 in /35 cal. guns, which were placed in four twin wing turrets. These were supported by a battery of six 6 in /40 cal. guns in a casemate battery amidships. For close-range defense against torpedo boats, she carried twenty 6-pounder guns and six 1-pounder guns in individual mounts. As was standard for capital ships of the period, Oregon carried 18 in torpedo tubes in above-water mounts, though the number is unclear. According to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships and the US Navy's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, she was fitted with six tubes, though the naval historian Norman Friedman states she was ordered with seven but completed with five.

Oregon's main armored belt was 18 in thick over the magazines and the machinery spaces and was reduced to 4 in at the bow and stern. The main battery gun turrets had 17 in thick sides, and the supporting barbettes had the same thickness of armor plate on their exposed sides. The 8 in turrets had 6 in of armor plating and the casemate battery had 5 in. The conning tower had 10 in thick sides.

Service history

Congress authorized three Indiana-class battleships on 30 June 1890, and in the authorization, specified that one of the ships was to be built on the West Coast of the United States. Therefore, after the first two vessels—USS Indiana (BB-1) and USS Massachusetts (BB-2)—were awarded to William Cramp & Sons of Philadelphia, the contract for the third was given to Union Iron Works in San Francisco. Her keel was laid down on 19 November 1891 and her completed hull was launched on 26 October 1893. After completing fitting-out, she was commissioned into the fleet on 15 July 1896. She then completed sea trials as part of the Pacific Squadron, where she served for the next year.

On 15 February 1898, the armored cruiser Maine exploded in Havana, Cuba during a period of rising tensions between the United States and Spain, which possessed Cuba as part of its colonial empire. Oregon, which was in dry dock at the time, was refloated the next day and placed under the command of Captain Charles Edgar Clark. Initial reports blamed a Spanish naval mine, and as the threat of war between the two countries grew, Oregon was ordered to steam to the East Coast of the United States to strengthen the North Atlantic Squadron. She steamed south to San Francisco, California to load ammunition on 9 March, departing ten days later for the long voyage around South America, a distance of some 14000 nmi. Oregon reached Callao, Peru on 4 April, where she took on a fresh load of coal before continuing on the journey.

Clark decided to skip the scheduled coaling stop in Valparaíso, Chile, electing to proceed to the Strait of Magellan directly, which the ship reached on 16 April. A severe storm complicated her passage through the hazardous waters and she was forced to drop anchor overnight to avoid running aground, but she reached Punta Arenas, Chile, the next morning. There, she joined the gunboat USS Marietta (PG-15), which was also en route to join the North Atlantic Squadron. After both ships replenished their coal stocks there, they got underway for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 21 April; false rumors of a Spanish torpedo boat in the area kept the ships' gun crews at their stations. The ships reached Rio de Janeiro on 30 April, where they learned of the state of war between the United States and Spain. They departed on 4 May, stopped briefly in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, and then coaled in Barbados on 18 May. Oregon arrived in Jupiter, Florida on 24 May, where she met other elements of the North Atlantic Squadron. In the course of the voyage, which lasted sixty-six days, Oregon had traveled some 14000 nmi. One long term result of this trip, which had received extensive press coverage, was public pressure for the construction of a Panama Canal to shorten future trans-oceanic repositionings.

Spanish–American War

Oregon sailed to Key West on 26 May, where she joined the rest of the North Atlantic Squadron, under the command of Rear Admiral William T. Sampson. By that time, the Flying Squadron, under Commodore Winfield Scott Schley's command, had located the Spanish squadron that had sailed to Cuba at the start of the war and had blockaded it in Santiago de Cuba. The Spanish squadron was commanded by Rear Admiral Pascual Cervera y Topete and consisted of the armored cruisers SPANISH CRUISER Infanta Maria Teresa, SPANISH CRUISER Cristóbal Colón, SPANISH CRUISER Vizcaya and SPANISH CRUISER Almirante Oquendo and the destroyers SPANISH DESTROYER Plutón and SPANISH DESTROYER Furor. Oregon arrived off that port on 1 June, and over the course of the month, took part in bombardments of Spanish positions around the city and helped to maintain the blockade.

At 08:45 on 3 July, Cervera sortied with his flag aboard Infanta Maria Teresa, followed by Cristóbal Colón, Vizcaya and Almirante Oquendo, with the two destroyers bringing up the rear. The Spaniards cleared the roadstead at 09:35; luckily for the Spanish, New York—Sampson's flagship—was out of position at the time and Massachusetts was replenishing her coal at Guantánamo Bay. Lookouts aboard the armored cruiser USS Brooklyn (CA-3) spotted Cervera approaching and fired one of her guns to warn the other American ships, which quickly ordered their crews to general quarters and initiated the Battle of Santiago de Cuba. As the Spanish ships attempted to break out to the west, Cervera charged at Brooklyn with Infanta Maria Teresa to delay the American pursuit and give his other ships time to escape. The Spanish coastal batteries also contributed their fire in the first stage of the battle but had little effect.

Oregon took the lead in the ensuing chase as she was the only large American ship which had good steam pressure when the battle began. The cruiser Brooklyn had uncoupled two of her four engines, but could still achieve 17 kn and was right behind her. Heavy American gunfire had set Infanta Maria Theresa on fire, and, fearing a magazine explosion, Cervara ordered her run aground at 10:25. Almirante Oquendo's captain issued similar instructions five minutes later, as his ship, too, was burning badly. Vizcaya was also forced ashore shortly thereafter, striking her colors to surrender at 10:36. Meanwhile, the two Spanish destroyers had also been badly damaged by the American battleships; Indiana had nearly cut Plutón in half with a 13-inch shell, forcing her to run aground, where she exploded. And Furor had been savaged by Oregons, USS Iowa (BB-4)'s, and Indianas secondary batteries, leading her crew to surrender to the gunboat USS Gloucester (1891).

Only Cristóbal Colón, which had a 6 nmi lead at that point, was still running westward. Oregon and Texas followed Brooklyn as they chased Cristóbal Colón; the Americans slowly caught up to the fleeing Spanish cruiser and engaged her at long range. Cristóbal Colón, which had not been fitted with her main armament before being sent to Cuba, could not return fire, and her commander realized his hopeless position. At 13:20, he turned to shore and struck his flag, indicating his surrender, and the crew scuttled the ship. Oregon was not hit in the action, owing in large part to the poor quality of Spanish shooting. With the destruction of Cervera's squadron and American successes in Cuba and the Philippines, Spain sued for peace on 17 July, and the war ended on 12 August with the Treaty of Paris.

Asiatic Station
After the war, Oregon steamed to New York for an overhaul, after which she was assigned to the Asiatic Squadron in October. She reached Manila in the Philippines on 18 March 1899 and operated there for the next year during the Philippine–American War. During this period, she assisted with the blockade of Manila and Lingayen Gulf and supported the capture of the city of Vigan. On 13 February 1900, Oregon departed for a visit to Japan that lasted into May, when she steamed to Hong Kong. By that time, the Boxer Rebellion had broken out in Qing China, and the ship was ordered to steam to Taku, China, on 23 June to reinforce the Eight-Nation Alliance forces that were gathering there. While passing through the Bohai Strait on 28 June, she struck an uncharted rock, running hard aground. She remained on the rock for a week before being re-floated on 5 July. After completing temporary repairs, she steamed to Kure, Japan to be dry-docked for permanent repairs on 17 July.

Oregon got underway again on 29 August for operations along the coast of China. She patrolled off the mouth of the Yangtze River and was then stationed at Wusong in Shanghai, China until 5 May 1901. That day, she departed to return to the United States for a refit, sailing first to Yokohama, Japan, and then to Honolulu, Hawaii. From there, she steamed to San Francisco, arriving there on 12 June. She then steamed north to the Puget Sound Navy Yard, which she reached on 6 July. She remained there for a year and a half before departing in early 1903 for China. She arrived in Hong Kong on 18 March, and over the course of the next three years, she served on the Asiatic Station, visiting ports in China, Japan, and the Philippines. The period passed uneventfully for Oregon, and she returned to the United States in February 1906. She was decommissioned in Puget Sound on 27 April.

Later career

The ship remained out of service for the next five years. She received a fairly minimal modernization during her period in reserve, which included the installation of a cage main mast. She also had her slow-firing 6-inch guns removed and a battery of twelve 3 in quick-firing guns was installed to improve her defenses against torpedo-boats, which had grown in size and power since Oregon's construction. These were placed in single mounts, with four in an open battery atop the deckhouse amidships, one on each 8-inch turret and two on the 13-inch turrets apiece. Her small size and cramped decks prevented the more thorough modernization of her superstructure that the later American pre-dreadnought battleships received at this time.

On 29 August 1911, Oregon was recommissioned, but she remained assigned to the reserve fleet until October, when she got underway for San Diego, California. Over the next two years, she cruised off the West Coast but saw no events of note. She was placed "in ordinary" on 9 April 1913 in Bremerton, Washington before being formally returned to the reserve fleet on 16 September 1914, though she remained in partial commission. She was fully commissioned again on 2 January 1915 to participate in the Panama–Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco. She was again reduced to the reserve fleet on 11 February 1916, remaining there until 7 April 1917, though she was still in partial commission. This period was spent in San Francisco, and 7 April she was once again returned to full commission, the United States having entered World War I the day before. She saw no activity during the war, but she was used to escort the troop ships carrying the force for the Siberian expedition that intervened in the Russian Civil War in 1918.

After returning from Russia, Oregon was decommissioned again on 12 June 1919 before being recommissioned briefly from 21 August to 4 October. During this period, she hosted President Woodrow Wilson during a review of the Pacific Fleet when it arrived in Seattle, Washington. She was assigned the hull number of "BB-3" on 17 July 1920 when the Navy adopted the system. Beginning in 1921, a group of naval enthusiasts embarked on a campaign to have Oregon preserved as a museum ship, to be based somewhere in her namesake state. The Washington Naval Treaty, signed in 1922, required Oregon to be demilitarized, and she was accordingly disarmed in 1923, being pronounced compliant with the terms of the treaty on 4 January 1924. She was listed on the Naval Vessel Register as an "unclassified" relic. The Navy loaned the ship to Oregon in June 1925, and she was moored in Portland and restored as a museum vessel.

Fate

Oregon was redesignated with the hull number IX-22 on 17 February 1941. After the United States entered World War II with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the Navy determined that Oregon ought to be sold for scrap to free resources for the war effort. She was accordingly struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 2 November 1942 and was sold to ship breakers on 7 December. In March 1943, she was towed to Kalama, Washington to be broken up, but after the work began the Navy decided that Oregon would be of use during the planned reconquest of Guam scheduled for mid-1944, either as a storage hulk or as a breakwater. The Navy requested that the breakers stop after the superstructure had been cleared and her internal fittings and equipment had been removed and to return her. She was then loaded with ammunition to support the forces that would invade Guam and towed there as part of the invasion fleet.

The vessel remained moored in Guam through the end of the war in 1945 and for several years thereafter. During this period, on the night of 14–15 November 1948, Oregon broke free from her moorings during Typhoon Agnes and drifted away. After an extensive search, aircraft located the vessel adrift some 500 nmi southeast of Guam. The ship was towed back to Guam, and she remained there until 1956, when on 15 March she was sold to Massey Supply Corporation, which in turn resold her to Iwai Sanggo Company of Kawasaki, Japan. She was then towed there and broken up.

Several parts of the ship remain in Portland; her military foremast was erected in 1956 at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park and her wheel is held in the collection of the Oregon Historical Society. Both of her funnels also survive, but are not on public display.

title: USS Oregon (BB-3)


text:
Avro

Avro (an initialism of the founder's name) was a British aircraft manufacturer. Its designs include the Avro 504, used as a trainer in the First World War, the Avro Lancaster, one of the pre-eminent bombers of the Second World War, and the delta wing Avro Vulcan, a stalwart of the Cold War.

Avro was founded in 1910 by Alliott Verdon Roe at the Brownsfield Mill on Great Ancoats Street in Manchester. The company remained based primarily in Lancashire throughout its 53 years of existence, with key development and manufacturing sites in Alexandra Park, Chadderton, Trafford Park, and Woodford, Greater Manchester. The company was merged into Hawker Siddeley Aviation in 1963, although the Avro name has been used for some aircraft since then.

Early history
One of the world's first aircraft builders, A.V. Roe and Company was established on 1 January 1910 at Brownsfield Mill, Great Ancoats Street, Manchester, by Alliott Verdon Roe and his brother Humphrey Verdon Roe. Humphrey's contribution was chiefly financial and organizational; funding it from the earnings of the family webbing business and acting as managing director until he joined the RFC in 1917. Alliot had already constructed a successful aircraft, the Roe I Triplane, named The Bullseye after a brand of braces manufactured by Humphrey. The railway arch where A.V. Roe in 1909 built and achieved the first all-British powered flight still stands in the Lee Valley Park on the Walthamstow Marshes. In 1911, Roy Chadwick began work as Alliott's personal assistant and the firm's draughtsman and, in 1918, he was appointed Chief Designer.

The first Avro aircraft to be produced in any quantity was the Avro E or Avro 500, first flown in March 1912, of which 18 were manufactured, most for the newly formed Royal Flying Corps. The company also built the world's first aircraft with enclosed crew accommodation in 1912, the monoplane Type F and the biplane Avro Type G in 1912, neither progressing beyond the prototype stage. The Type 500 was developed into the Avro 504, first flown in September 1913. A small number were bought by the War Office before the outbreak of World War I, and the type saw some front-line service in the early months of the war, but it is best known as a training aircraft, serving in that role until 1933. Production lasted 20 years and totalled 8,340 aircraft from several factories: Hamble, Failsworth, Miles Platting and Newton Heath.

Interwar years
After the boom in orders during the First World War, the lack of new work in peacetime caused severe financial problems and in August 1920, 68.5% of the company's shares were acquired by nearby Crossley Motors which had an urgent need for more factory space for automotive vehicle body building.

In 1924, the company left Alexandra Park Aerodrome in south Manchester where test flying had taken place since 1918; the site was used for a mixture of recreation and housing development. A rural site to the south of the city was found at New Hall Farm, Woodford in Cheshire, which continued to be used by aviation company BAE Systems until March 2011; the site has now been earmarked for a mixed use development.

In 1928 Crossley Motors sold AVRO to Armstrong Siddeley Holdings Ltd. In 1928 A.V. Roe resigned from the company he had founded and formed the Saunders-Roe company, which after World War II developed several radical designs for combat jets, and, eventually, a range of powerful hovercraft.

In 1935 Avro became a subsidiary of Hawker Siddeley.

Second World War
Maintaining their skills in designing trainer aircraft, the company built a more robust biplane called the Avro Tutor in the 1930s which the Royal Air Force (RAF) also bought in quantity. A twin piston-engined airliner called the Anson followed but as tensions rose again in Europe the firm's emphasis returned to combat aircraft. The Avro Manchester, Lancaster, and Lincoln were particularly famous Avro designs. Over 7,000 Lancasters were built and their bombing capabilities led to their use in the famous Dam Busters raid. Of the total, nearly half were built at Avro's Woodford (Stockport) and Chadderton (Oldham) sites, with some 700 Lancasters built at the Avro "shadow" factory next to Leeds Bradford Airport (formerly Yeadon Aerodrome), northwest Leeds. This factory employed 17,500 workers at a time when the population of Yeadon was just 10,000. It was the largest building in Europe at the time, at 1.5 e6sqft, and its roof was disguised by the addition of fields and hedges to hide it from enemy planes. The old taxiway from the factory to the runway is still evident.

The Avro Lancaster carried the heaviest bomb loads of the war, including the Grand Slam bomb.

Postwar developments
The civilian Lancastrian and maritime reconnaissance Shackleton were derived from the successful Lancaster design. The Tudor was a pressurised but problematic post-war Avro airliner which faced strong competition from designs by Bristol, Canadair, Douglas, Handley Page, and Lockheed. With the same wings and engines as the Lincoln, it achieved only a short (34 completed) production run following a first flight in June 1945 and the cancellation of an order from BOAC. The older Avro York was somewhat more successful in both the RAF and in commercial service, being distinguished by a fuselage square in cross-section. Both Tudors and Yorks played an important humanitarian part in the Berlin Airlift.

The postwar Vulcan bomber, originally designed as a nuclear-strike aircraft, was used to maintain the British nuclear deterrent, armed with the Avro Blue Steel stand-off nuclear bomb. The Vulcan saw service as a conventional bomber during the British campaign to recapture the Falkland Islands in 1982. Several Vulcans are prized as museum exhibits.

A twin turboprop airliner, the Avro 748, was developed during the 1950s and sold widely to airlines and governments across the globe, powered by two Rolls-Royce Dart engines. The RAF bought 6 for use by the Queen's Flight and a variant with a rear-loading ramp and a "kneeling" main undercarriage was sold to the RAF (31 aircraft) as the Andover.

Avro regional jets
The Avro name would subsequently be resurrected by British Aerospace when this aircraft manufacturer renamed its BAe 146 family of regional jetliners as Avro regional jets (Avro RJ). Three differently sized versions of the four engine jetliner were produced: the Avro RJ70, the Avro RJ85 and the largest example, the Avro RJ100.

Avro Canada
In 1945, Hawker Siddeley Group purchased the former Victory Aircraft firm in Malton, Ontario, and renamed the operation A.V. Roe Canada Limited. Commonly known as Avro Canada, it was actually a subsidiary of the Hawker Siddeley Group and used the Avro name for trading purposes.

Amalgamation
When the company was absorbed into Hawker Siddeley Aviation in July 1963 following the 1957 Defence White Paper, the Avro name ceased to be used. The brand still had a strong heritage appeal, and as mentioned above the marketing name "Avro RJ" (regional jet) was used by British Aerospace from 1994 to 2001 for production of the RJ70, RJ85 and RJ100 models which were respectively based on the BAe 146-100, BAe 146-200 and BAe 146-300. This four engine jet aircraft type is sometimes also loosely called the "Avro 146".

The BAe ATP (Advanced Turbo Prop) design evolved from the Avro 748 and examples continue in use on shorter, mainly domestic, scheduled air services. A few Avro 504s, Tutors, Ansons and Lancasters are maintained in flying condition. At 39 years, the Shackleton held the distinction of being the aircraft with the longest period of active RAF service, until overtaken by the English Electric Canberra in 1998.

Avro aeroplanes

 * Roe I Biplane
 * Roe I Triplane
 * Roe II Triplane (Also known as the Mercury)
 * Roe III Triplane
 * Roe IV Triplane
 * Avro Type D
 * Avro Curtiss type (Also known as the Lakes Water Bird)
 * Avro Duigan
 * Avro 500 (Type E)
 * Roe-Burga monoplane
 * Avro Type F
 * Avro Type G
 * Avro 501 (Type H)
 * Avro 502
 * Avro 503 (Type H)
 * Avro 504
 * Avro 508
 * Avro 510
 * Avro 511
 * Avro 514
 * Avro 519
 * Avro 521
 * Avro 523 Pike
 * Avro 527
 * Avro 528
 * Avro 529
 * Avro 530
 * Avro 531 Spider
 * Avro 533 Manchester
 * Avro 534 Baby
 * Avro 536
 * Avro 538
 * Avro 539
 * Avro 540
 * Avro 543 Baby
 * Avro 545
 * Avro 546
 * Avro 547
 * Avro 548 Tourist
 * Avro 549 Aldershot
 * Avro 551
 * Avro 552
 * Avro 554
 * Avro 555 Bison
 * Avro 557 Ava
 * Avro 558
 * Avro 560
 * Avro 561 Andover
 * Avro 562 Avis
 * Avro 563
 * Avro 566 Avenger
 * Avro 567 Avenger II
 * Avro 571 Buffalo
 * Avro 572 Buffalo II
 * Avro 581 Avian
 * Avro 582
 * Avro 584 Avocet
 * Avro 585
 * Avro 594 Avian
 * Avro 604 Antelope
 * Avro 616 Sports Avian
 * Avro 618 Ten
 * Avro 619 Five
 * Avro 621 Tutor
 * Avro 623
 * Avro 624 Six
 * Avro 625 Avian Monoplane
 * Avro 626
 * Avro 627 Mailplane
 * Avro 631 Cadet
 * Avro 637
 * Avro 638 Club Cadet (1933)
 * Avro 641 Commodore (1935)
 * Avro 642 Eighteen
 * Avro 643 Cadet
 * Avro 646 Sea Tutor
 * Avro 652
 * Avro 652A Anson (1935)
 * Avro 654
 * Avro 661
 * Avro 667
 * Avro 674 – 24 modernised Hawker Audaxes built for the Egyptian government.
 * Avro 679 Manchester (1939)
 * Avro 683 Lancaster (1941)
 * Avro Lancaster PA474
 * List of Avro Lancaster operators
 * List of surviving Avro Lancasters
 * Avro 685 York (1942)
 * Avro 688 Tudor (1945)
 * Avro 689 Tudor
 * Avro 691 Lancastrian (1943)
 * Avro 694 Lincoln (1944)
 * Avro 695 Lincolnian (1949)
 * Avro 696 Shackleton (1949)
 * Avro 698 Vulcan (1952)
 * Avro Vulcan XH558
 * Avro Vulcan XM655
 * Avro 701 Athena (1948)
 * Avro 707 (1949)
 * Avro 706 Ashton (1950)
 * Avro 748 (1960) – became the HS 748 and BAe 748, developed as the Hawker Siddeley Andover (HS.780), and later as the BAe ATP

Unbuilt projects

 * Avro 505 – skipped
 * Avro 506/Type J – twin-float pusher seaplane gun carrier
 * Avro 507 – reserved for a set of mailplanes
 * Avro 509 – originally for a set of tanks and struts for the Walsh flying boat; re-used for unbuilt proposed twin-engine tractor biplane seaplane
 * Avro 512 – land-based single-engine biplane
 * Avro 513 – proposed twin-engine tractor biplane seaplane
 * Avro 515 – biplane
 * Avro 516 – tractor monoplane
 * Avro 517 – biplane version of Type 516
 * Avro 518 – single-seat tractor aircraft
 * Avro 520 – single-seat landplane for RNAS
 * Avro 522 – modified Type 519 with larger but equal-span wings
 * Avro 524 – scout aircraft
 * Avro 525 – single-seat ground attack aircraft for spec. AM Class II
 * Avro 526 – Type 525 with monoplane tail
 * Avro 535 – long-range biplane to compete for the "Daily Mail" transatlantic prize
 * Avro 537 – 10-passenger biplane airliner
 * Avro 541 – twin-float reconnaissance seaplane for RAF spec. XXI
 * Avro 542 – projected 6-seat airliner
 * Avro 544 – two-seat version of Type 534
 * Avro 550 – proposed reconnaissance triplane for spec. 37/22
 * Avro 550 – projected three-engine 15-passenger European transport for spec. 40/22
 * Avro 553 – proposed version of Type 548 with enclosed cabin
 * Avro 556 – single-engine torpedo bomber design for spec. 16/22; developed into Type 557
 * Avro 557 – single-seat, single-engine monoplane
 * Avro 559 – single-seat light monoplane for the Lympne Trials, not built; replaced by Type 560
 * Avro 564 – two-seat monoplane fighter with thick section elliptical wing
 * Avro 565 – Type 564 with Napier Lion engine
 * Avro 568 – all-metal single-seat fighter
 * Avro 569 – Avenger with RAF.30 section wings, not built
 * Avro 573 – commercial trimotor biplane to spec. 26/24 for Imperial Airways
 * Avro 577 – general purpose land-based biplane
 * Avro 578 – seaplane version of Type 577
 * Avro 579 – Avis with RAF.15 section wings
 * Avro 580 – private venture trimotor biplane heavy bomber
 * Avro 583 – Avenger II with Napier Lion IX engine
 * Avro 588 – Avian modified as monoplane racer
 * Avro 589 – floatplane version of Avian
 * Avro 590 – two-seat Army co-operation biplane to Australian spec
 * Avro 591 – two-seat fighter version of Type 590
 * Avro 592 – seaplane version of Type 590
 * Avro 593 – two-seat seaplane fighter version of Type 592
 * Avro 595 – "CN.2"; two-seat land/seaplane for spec. O.22/26
 * Avro 596 – "CN.1"; three-seat bomber version of Type 595
 * Avro 597 – two-seat land-based bomber of Buffalo I
 * Avro 598 Warregull I – two-seat trainer for Australia
 * Avro 599 Warregull II – redesigned Type 598
 * Avro 600 – Avian III with RAF.15 section wings
 * Avro 601 – two-seat reconnaissance biplane
 * Avro 602 – modified version of Avenger
 * Avro 603 – 8-passenger monoplane airliner to Australian spec.
 * Avro 606 – three-engine monoplane maritime patrol flying boat for spec. 4/27
 * Avro 607 – Type 606 with round-section hull
 * Avro 608 Hawk – two-seat biplane fighter based on the Antelope; re-worked into Type 622 during construction
 * Avro 610 Saloon – five-seat high-wing cabin monoplane
 * Avro 613 – twin-engine monoplane night bomber for spec. B.19/27
 * Avro 614 – three-engine high-wing airliner
 * Avro 615 – Type 614 with two Jaguar IV engines
 * Avro 622 Hawk – Type 608 with Panther II engine; converted to Type 627 during construction
 * Avro 626 – low-wing sports monoplane
 * Avro 628 Five Mk. III – Mail plane version of Type 619
 * Avro 629 – Mail plane version of Type 618 for spec. 21/28
 * Avro 630 – day bomber version of Type 627
 * Avro 632 – fleet torpedo bomber/reconnaissance biplane for spec. S.9/30
 * Avro 633 Cadet Fighter – projected version of Type 631
 * Avro 634 – two-seat low-wing sports monoplane
 * Avro 635 – three-seat low-wing cabin monoplane
 * Avro 636 – two-seat biplane fighter; closely resembled the Armstrong-Whitworth Scimitar
 * Avro 644 – 2-seat reconnaissance/bomber developed from the Type 637
 * Avro 645 – six-seat, twin-engine, low-wing airliner
 * Avro 647 – six-seat, twin-engine, low-wing airliner
 * Avro 648 – six-seat, twin-engine, low-wing airliner
 * Avro 649 – 17-seat, four-engine airliner
 * Avro 650 Eight – eight-seat version of Type 642
 * Avro 651 – trimotor monoplane
 * Avro 653 – long-range shipborne biplane seaplane
 * Avro 655 – twin-engine bomber
 * Avro 656 – low-wing version of Type 655
 * Avro 657 Tiger Fighter – military variant of Type 654
 * Avro 658 – three-seat low-wing monoplane
 * Avro 659 – scaled down high-wing version of Type 652
 * Avro 660 – low-wing version of Type 659, only a mockup built
 * Avro 662 – improved version of Type 621, redesignated to Type 669
 * Avro 663 Cadet Trainer – Type 643 with Genet Major engine
 * Avro 664 – alternative design to Type 652A
 * Avro 666 – single-engine biplane bomber for spec. O.27/34; prototype ordered but cancelled
 * Avro 668 – twin-engine cabin autogiro
 * Avro 669 – improved version of Type 621
 * Avro 670 – proposed army co-operation sesquiplane for spec. A.39/34
 * Avro 672 – twin-engine reconnaissance monoplane for spec. G.24/35
 * Avro 673 – twin-engine advanced gunnery trainer
 * Avro 675 – reconnaissance monoplane for specs. G.24/35 and M.15/35
 * Avro 676 – advanced trainer for spec. T.6/36
 * Avro 677 – alternate version of Type 676 with rear gun turret
 * Avro 678 – a curious fighter project that saw a R-R Merlin mounted in the fuselage driving wing-mounted airscrew propellers
 * Avro 680 – four-engine heavy bomber for spec. B.1/39
 * Avro 681 – heavy bomber project
 * Avro 682 – heavy bomber project
 * Avro 684 – proposed high-altitude pressurized bomber based on the Lancaster
 * Avro 685B – long-range flying boat transport
 * Avro 695 Lincolnian – transport conversion of Lincoln
 * Avro 686 – proposed high-altitude Lancaster replacement
 * Avro 687 – Avro XX; projected Empire route airliner based on the Lincoln for spec. 29/43
 * Avro 690 – Avro XXII; transatlantic six-engine airliner for spec. Brabazon Type 3A
 * Avro 692 – Avro XXIII; projected six-engine transatlantic airliner for spec. Brabazon Type 3
 * Avro 693 – projected Empire route turbojet airliner for spec. Brabazon Type 3A
 * Avro 697 – medium-range 48 passenger airliner for Empire route to spec. 2/47
 * Avro 699 – version of Type 689 with tricycle landing gear and broad chord fin for BEA to carry 60 passengers
 * Avro 700 – 12 passenger transport to replace Anson
 * Avro 702 – aircrew trainer for Canada
 * Avro 703 – proposed 36 passenger turbojet airliner for Trans-Canada Airlines
 * Avro 704 – two-seat advanced aircrew trainer
 * Avro 704B – version of Type 704 based on Athena
 * Avro 705 – 36 passenger turbojet airliner based on Type 688 with tricycle landing gear
 * Avro 706 – lengthened version of Type 705
 * Avro 708 – 60 passenger long-range airliner
 * Avro 709 – long-range transport based on Tudor II
 * Avro 710 – delta-wing research aircraft for Type 698 development, 1/10 scale model of Type 698
 * Avro 711 – version of Tudor 4 as a 36 passenger airliner/freighter
 * Avro 711A Trader – freighter version of Tudor 4 for spec. 23/48
 * Avro 712 – meteorological aircraft based on Lincoln II to OR.259
 * Avro 713 – version of Type 712 based on Shackleton
 * Avro 714 – single-engine basic trainer to spec. T.16/48, based on Athena
 * Avro 715 – 8-10 passenger, four-engine airliner to replace Rapide
 * Avro 716 Shackleton Mk.3 – projected development of Type 696, redesigned as Type 719
 * Avro 717 – Lincolnian flying test bed
 * Avro 718 – delta-wing military transport based on Type 698
 * Avro 719 – re-engined Type 716; redesignated Shackleton Mk.4 in 1953
 * Avro 720 – planned rocket interceptor, to OR.301 as for the SR.53. Cancelled before flight.
 * Avro 721 – proposed low-level bomber for spec. B.126T
 * Avro 722 Atlantic –proposed airliner version of the Vulcan
 * Avro 723 – DC-3 replacement
 * Avro 724 – Project Y; alternative for Avrocar, tail-sitting VTOL
 * Avro 725 – advanced trainer version of Type 720 to OR.318
 * Avro 726 – single-engine lightweight fighter version of Type 720
 * Avro 727 – NATO ground attack aircraft based on Type 720
 * Avro 728 – naval version of Type 720
 * Avro 729 – single-seat fighter to OR.329
 * Avro 730 – supersonic stainless steel canard bomber for spec. B.156T (later R.156T), never completed
 * Avro 731 – planned 3/8 scale model of Avro 730
 * Avro 732 – planned supersonic version of Avro Vulcan
 * Avro 734 – planned long-range decoy air-launched by Vulcans
 * Avro 735 – proposed 100 passenger supersonic airliner based on Type 730
 * Avro 736 – 30-54 seat transport
 * Avro 737 – STOL transport version of Type 736
 * Avro 738 – staged weapon system
 * Avro 739 – low-level supersonic strike aircraft to OR.339
 * Avro 740 – proposed 70-seat trijet airliner with a V-tail; became the Trident
 * Avro 741 – executive/feederliner with a butterfly tail
 * Avro 742 – jet-engined military transport
 * Avro 743 – long-range turboprop military transport
 * Avro 744 – nuclear powered aircraft study
 * Avro 745 – maritime patrol aircraft to NATO requirements
 * Avro 746 – jet flap research aircraft
 * Avro 747 – turboprop transport based on Type 737
 * Avro 749 – VTOL 40 passenger transport for BEA
 * Avro 750 – short-range 80 passenger transport
 * Avro 751 – three-engine airliner
 * Avro 752 – VTOL assault aircraft
 * Avro 753 – freighter with Type 745 wing
 * Avro 754 – low-wing 65-80 passenger airliner version of Type 753
 * Avro 755 – 40 passenger STOL transport with deflected slipstream system
 * Avro 756 – long-range military transport as Type 743 replacement to same spec. as Short Belfast
 * Avro 757 – version of 748 Srs. I with strengthened floor and revised avionics for Indian Air Force, also known as Type 748M
 * Avro 758 – high-wing version of Type 748; also known as Type 748R
 * Avro 759 – slender delta research aircraft
 * Avro 760 – supersonic airliner (Concorde spec.)
 * Avro 761 – 77 passenger airliner to replace Viscount
 * Avro 762 – advanced weapon system
 * Avro 763 – VTOL fan-lift "Jeep"
 * Avro 764 – VTOL version of AW.650
 * Avro 765 – VTOL fan-lift fighter
 * Avro 766 – four-engine turbojet long-range military transport
 * Avro 767 – joint airliner project with Bristol to Trident spec.
 * Avro 768 – carrier-borne early warning aircraft based on Type 748 to Naval spec. NA.107T
 * Avro 769 – VTOL weapons system based on the Vulcan
 * Avro 770 – STOL assault transport based on Type 758 using the deflected slipstream technique
 * Avro 771 – proposed 60-seat airliner of Type 761 powered by two Bristol Siddeley BS.75 turbofans
 * Avro 772 – car ferry/90 passenger transport with tail and outer wing sections from Type 748
 * Avro 773 – STOL military freighter
 * Avro 774 – long endurance weapons system
 * Avro 775 – maritime reconnaissance aircraft to OR.350
 * Avro 776 – Type 775 to spec. AST.357
 * Avro 777 – reserved for appropriate special project, but not used
 * Avro 778 – jet engine, 50 passenger version of Type 748; also known as Type 748J
 * Avro 779 – high-wing STOL transport using Type 748 components
 * Avro 781 – shortened version of Type 778 for 24-32 passengers
 * Avro 782 – shortened version of Type 780; originally designated as Type 748S
 * Avro 783 – STOL version of Type 780 to NATO requirements
 * Avro 784 – four-engine maritime reconnaissance aircraft to AST.357
 * Avro 785-799 – not used

Rotorcraft

 * Avro 574/575 – Cierva C.6
 * Avro 586/587/611 – Cierva C.8
 * Avro 576/581 – Cierva C.9
 * Avro 612 – Cierva C.17
 * Avro 620 – Cierva C.19
 * Avro 671 Rota – Cierva C.30
 * Avro 665 – Cierva C.33
 * Avro 668 – Cierva C.38
 * Cierva C.12 – fitted with floats to become the 'Hydrogiro'

Avro Canada

 * Avro Canada C102 Jetliner
 * Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck
 * Avro Canada CF-103
 * Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
 * Avro Canada TS-140
 * Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar

Unbuilt projects

 * Avro Canada CF-103 (mock-up only)
 * Avro Canada Project Y-1 (mock-up only)
 * Avro Canada Project Y-2 (scale test models only)
 * Avro Canada PV-704 (built as engine test model only)
 * Avro Canada TS-140

Missiles

 * Blue Steel missile

Car production
Avro also built motor vehicles in the immediate post-World War 1 era, including the three-wheeler Harper Runabout, as well as their own light car. Powered by a 1,330 cc 4-cylinder engine, wood and aluminium were used in an integral construction similar to an aircraft. Approximately 100 were built.

In 1927 Alliott Verdon-Roe designed a two-wheeler car powered by a 350 cc Villiers air-cooled engine. An outrigger wheel kept the car upright when stationary. The Mobile did not go into production.

Football
Avro F.C. was founded at the Chadderton factory and still exists today.

title: Avro