![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi, I've noticed that in the Aero Spacelines/Guppys section, all instances of the word "Guppys" have been changed to "Guppies". It is, however, uncertain what the plural is. Many people use "Guppies", however many experts seem to use "Guppys". For example: - www.allaboutguppys.com -- GW_Simulations 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural seems to point towards Guppies. Chris.Bristol ( talk) 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC) See below as well Chris.Bristol ( talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It is stated on Double-decker#Airplane that some seaplanes were double deck, long (in aviation terms) before the 377. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.175 ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 13 May 2006
Why would changing "airplanes" to "aircraft" fix anything? A flying boat is still an airplane as well as an aircraft. 173.62.11.254 ( talk) 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
...when the B50 and the C97 were successes? 66.28.178.68 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the few a/c that had to land on the nose wheel first, including the Guppy version. Landing on the mains required a slower and unsafe airspeed. Wing angle must have been excessive, and was never corrected in the production a/c. Nose-first landings can cause ballooning, which is dangerous for heavies; much more so than for lights. 203.213.60.7 ( talk) 12:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Besides the Saunders-Roe SR-45, and Dornier-Do-x, what other pre-747 double-deck airplanes were there? We should creation a collection article for them. -- Ragemanchoo ( talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence says the aircraft had a marginal service record. I don't see any later discussion in the article to substantiate this. Is the meaning that it was hard to change the oil or that it had a high number of fatalities? If the latter, 141 seems low for the years flown. However, if fatalities are meant, perhaps the phrase "marginal service record" could be elucidated.
Cornelius Ryan's book, One Minute to Ditch!, is about a Pan American Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, Sovereign of the Skies, (N1032V) that successfully ditched in the Pacific Ocean, March 26, 1955, off the Oregon coast. He had written an article about the ditching for Collier's in their December 21, 1956, issue and then expanded it into the book.
Might want to fit it in? ~ WikiDon ( talk) 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is meant by "6600 cubic feet of interior space was provided by the “inverted-figure-8” doubledeck fuselage design"? 8 is symmetric in both axes as drawn onscreen in the font used by Wikipedia, so 'inverting' it doesn't really make sense. A better explanation -- a diagram, perhaps? -- might help. -- 99.236.241.209 ( talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"propeller planes such as the Stratocruiser became obsolete" Actually, they became uncompetitive for major airlines, & many would've been sold off to feeder lines. Except I can't source it... Can somebody? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
"The Boeing 377, also called the Stratocruiser...was developed from the C-97 Stratofreighter, a military derivative of the Stratocruiser used for troop transport."
65.210.59.2 ( talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)LaurencKlein@gmail.com
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:PanAm377.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
I am a newbie to editing Wikipedia articles so please forgive any gaffes! May I suggest that this article needs a bit of help by an expert? There are a few inaccuracies and it is a little clumsily written in comparison with Wikipedia's normal standard, for example:
"These planes were mega transports that could hold either a massive amount of cargo, or several decks of passengers. The main thing that was done to these aircraft to modify them was adding a huge dome like addition to the top." (Referring to the Guppy not the 377.)
Paragraph 2 "The aircraft had surprisingly low fuel consumption for the era" Design and development Para 1 "but the P&W R-4360 Wasp Major engines proved uneconomical"
Para 5 "Guppys, which were versions of the Stratocruiser with an enlarged fuselage and turboprops."
Repetition
References
I'll make some basic corrections and try to find some references. Chris.Bristol ( talk) 16:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
and "Guppy" a capitalised common noun, so I think it should be "Guppies". Chris.Bristol 13:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to various changes there are now only two plurals - one of each! I'll follow Wikipedia's advice on plurals and change the one occurrence of Guppys to Guppies. Chris.Bristol ( talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Chris.Bristol ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I am beginning to think that everything needs thorough checking! Chris.Bristol ( talk) 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted some edits by Truthanado ( talk · contribs) that changed the date style for writing dates in this article from the American-style (month-day-year) to the European style (day-month-year). I did not agree with this change; since this is an American-built aircraft, it ought to have American-style dates. Having the European style date format in an article about an American aircraft makes absolutely no sense at all, so please do not change it. Thanks, Comp dude 123 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus; no move. The fact that "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" is not commonly used in reliable sources is problematic to gaining consensus support for this title. As Bobrayner suggests, if the most common name is "Stratocruiser", then that should be the proposed title. ( non-admin closure) B2 C 15:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Boeing 377 →
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser – Since the last time this page was moved to the proposed title, then moved back, the general consensus for aircraft article titling has changed from "manufacturer and model" to "manufacturer, model and name". Therefore I believe it would be appropriate per both
WP:AIR naming standards and
WP:COMMONNAME for the full name of the aircraft to be used.
The Bushranger
One ping only
13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Boeing 377 → Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (or Boeing Stratocruiser). I've done further research in the ~nine months since the previous discussion (which NAC'd with a result not seeming in line with the discussion, but c'est la vie). To wit, looking at both gHits (problematic but a baseline barometer of sorts) and gBooks hits, we have:
Therefore (given the convention to drop "Model" from aircraft page titles in most cases) it seems that either "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" - which would fit the naming convention for aircraft page titles - or "Boeing Stratocruiser" is the WP:COMMONNAME in sources, the former collecting more than twice as many gHits as the current name, and the latter almost twice as many gBooks hits as the current name. It should be noted, however, that the 'official name used by Boeing is " Model 377 Stratocruiser". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I remember in the 70s or 80s, a Boeing 377 from a Mexican(?) airline crashed shortly after takeoff. It could not get any altitude and crashed. Supposedly, a block of wood was jamming a control. It was supposedly surprising that it was still flying. Does anybody but me remember this?Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
References
the paragraph on the November 8, 1957 Pan Am Flight 7 crash offers an uncited account of sabotage that is not mentioned at all in the Wiki article on that flight.
Is it factual?
Does it belong in both? Or Neither?
There's a cool YouTube video about the 377. At phttps://youtu.be/xDgWUf36Buw?t=297}4:57], it shows the navigator using some large electronic instrument. In the front it looks like a viewing hood for a CRT. Anybody have any idea what it might be? Loran-A, maybe? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi, I've noticed that in the Aero Spacelines/Guppys section, all instances of the word "Guppys" have been changed to "Guppies". It is, however, uncertain what the plural is. Many people use "Guppies", however many experts seem to use "Guppys". For example: - www.allaboutguppys.com -- GW_Simulations 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural seems to point towards Guppies. Chris.Bristol ( talk) 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC) See below as well Chris.Bristol ( talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It is stated on Double-decker#Airplane that some seaplanes were double deck, long (in aviation terms) before the 377. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.175 ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 13 May 2006
Why would changing "airplanes" to "aircraft" fix anything? A flying boat is still an airplane as well as an aircraft. 173.62.11.254 ( talk) 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
...when the B50 and the C97 were successes? 66.28.178.68 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the few a/c that had to land on the nose wheel first, including the Guppy version. Landing on the mains required a slower and unsafe airspeed. Wing angle must have been excessive, and was never corrected in the production a/c. Nose-first landings can cause ballooning, which is dangerous for heavies; much more so than for lights. 203.213.60.7 ( talk) 12:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Besides the Saunders-Roe SR-45, and Dornier-Do-x, what other pre-747 double-deck airplanes were there? We should creation a collection article for them. -- Ragemanchoo ( talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence says the aircraft had a marginal service record. I don't see any later discussion in the article to substantiate this. Is the meaning that it was hard to change the oil or that it had a high number of fatalities? If the latter, 141 seems low for the years flown. However, if fatalities are meant, perhaps the phrase "marginal service record" could be elucidated.
Cornelius Ryan's book, One Minute to Ditch!, is about a Pan American Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, Sovereign of the Skies, (N1032V) that successfully ditched in the Pacific Ocean, March 26, 1955, off the Oregon coast. He had written an article about the ditching for Collier's in their December 21, 1956, issue and then expanded it into the book.
Might want to fit it in? ~ WikiDon ( talk) 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is meant by "6600 cubic feet of interior space was provided by the “inverted-figure-8” doubledeck fuselage design"? 8 is symmetric in both axes as drawn onscreen in the font used by Wikipedia, so 'inverting' it doesn't really make sense. A better explanation -- a diagram, perhaps? -- might help. -- 99.236.241.209 ( talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"propeller planes such as the Stratocruiser became obsolete" Actually, they became uncompetitive for major airlines, & many would've been sold off to feeder lines. Except I can't source it... Can somebody? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
"The Boeing 377, also called the Stratocruiser...was developed from the C-97 Stratofreighter, a military derivative of the Stratocruiser used for troop transport."
65.210.59.2 ( talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)LaurencKlein@gmail.com
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:PanAm377.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
I am a newbie to editing Wikipedia articles so please forgive any gaffes! May I suggest that this article needs a bit of help by an expert? There are a few inaccuracies and it is a little clumsily written in comparison with Wikipedia's normal standard, for example:
"These planes were mega transports that could hold either a massive amount of cargo, or several decks of passengers. The main thing that was done to these aircraft to modify them was adding a huge dome like addition to the top." (Referring to the Guppy not the 377.)
Paragraph 2 "The aircraft had surprisingly low fuel consumption for the era" Design and development Para 1 "but the P&W R-4360 Wasp Major engines proved uneconomical"
Para 5 "Guppys, which were versions of the Stratocruiser with an enlarged fuselage and turboprops."
Repetition
References
I'll make some basic corrections and try to find some references. Chris.Bristol ( talk) 16:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
and "Guppy" a capitalised common noun, so I think it should be "Guppies". Chris.Bristol 13:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to various changes there are now only two plurals - one of each! I'll follow Wikipedia's advice on plurals and change the one occurrence of Guppys to Guppies. Chris.Bristol ( talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Chris.Bristol ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I am beginning to think that everything needs thorough checking! Chris.Bristol ( talk) 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted some edits by Truthanado ( talk · contribs) that changed the date style for writing dates in this article from the American-style (month-day-year) to the European style (day-month-year). I did not agree with this change; since this is an American-built aircraft, it ought to have American-style dates. Having the European style date format in an article about an American aircraft makes absolutely no sense at all, so please do not change it. Thanks, Comp dude 123 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus; no move. The fact that "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" is not commonly used in reliable sources is problematic to gaining consensus support for this title. As Bobrayner suggests, if the most common name is "Stratocruiser", then that should be the proposed title. ( non-admin closure) B2 C 15:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Boeing 377 →
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser – Since the last time this page was moved to the proposed title, then moved back, the general consensus for aircraft article titling has changed from "manufacturer and model" to "manufacturer, model and name". Therefore I believe it would be appropriate per both
WP:AIR naming standards and
WP:COMMONNAME for the full name of the aircraft to be used.
The Bushranger
One ping only
13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Boeing 377 → Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (or Boeing Stratocruiser). I've done further research in the ~nine months since the previous discussion (which NAC'd with a result not seeming in line with the discussion, but c'est la vie). To wit, looking at both gHits (problematic but a baseline barometer of sorts) and gBooks hits, we have:
Therefore (given the convention to drop "Model" from aircraft page titles in most cases) it seems that either "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" - which would fit the naming convention for aircraft page titles - or "Boeing Stratocruiser" is the WP:COMMONNAME in sources, the former collecting more than twice as many gHits as the current name, and the latter almost twice as many gBooks hits as the current name. It should be noted, however, that the 'official name used by Boeing is " Model 377 Stratocruiser". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I remember in the 70s or 80s, a Boeing 377 from a Mexican(?) airline crashed shortly after takeoff. It could not get any altitude and crashed. Supposedly, a block of wood was jamming a control. It was supposedly surprising that it was still flying. Does anybody but me remember this?Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
References
the paragraph on the November 8, 1957 Pan Am Flight 7 crash offers an uncited account of sabotage that is not mentioned at all in the Wiki article on that flight.
Is it factual?
Does it belong in both? Or Neither?
There's a cool YouTube video about the 377. At phttps://youtu.be/xDgWUf36Buw?t=297}4:57], it shows the navigator using some large electronic instrument. In the front it looks like a viewing hood for a CRT. Anybody have any idea what it might be? Loran-A, maybe? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)