Talk:Boeing 314 Clipper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Merging[edit]

Merging the Pacific Clipper article into a sub-section of this article seems fair. Reverendlinux 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French recovery team[edit]

This team of french bussinesmen are attempting to recover the Honolulu Clipper, search for the aircraft started feb. 15 2011. Some Russian equipment is used. Further details will be provided before the actual recovery takes place.

automobile-grade gasoline[edit]

"At Surabaya, Captain Ford had to refuel with automobile-grade gasoline"

What's the problem with this? What's the difference to airplane fuel?

The octane level of AVgas is considerably different than straight automotive fuel. You get a lot of pinging and overheating to begin with; rough running engines do not go over that well with passengers. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

More to the point, there is an urgent need to limit detonation in aviation engines. Uncontrolled detonation can blow a jug right off an engine. In the air, it can easily be fatal, and will definitely take the engine out of the power band. Even today, AvGas is 100LL- 100 octane low lead. It's still leaded to keep down ping and detonation. It's not quite as volatile as automobile grade fuel, which is why the 314's engines near leapt off their mounts when the automotive fuel got into the engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Gerardi (talk • contribs) 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't afford it[edit]

I deleted

"Ford and most of his crew spent the war flying contract missions for the US Armed Forces. After the war Ford continued flying for Pan American, which was actively expanding its routes across the Pacific and around the world. He left the airline in 1952 to pursue other aviation interests."

as irrelevant to the 314. If anybody wants to put it on Ford's bio page when it's created, here it is. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 11:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain[edit]

The similarites of the short empire and the B-314? It is a an aircraft performance and size that make it similar. The short Empire was not in the same class as the B-314. Please reference the two aircrafts size and performance, point in fact, the range alone buts the B-314 in its own classJacob805 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're both flying boats? Read this page, & this page, & compare. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your funny, but the point is you don't mention any other flying boats including those that were at least similar in size. please tell me if the short empire enjoyed the same status given the B314 then and nowJacob805 (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM. I confess, I don't see what you mean. "same status"? And "mention"? If you mean comparable types, how about this? Personally, I think the nearest equal was the Sunderland (civil Sandringham); the Empire is pretty small by comparison. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sunderland is closre in proformance and size of the B-314 . I suggest using the sunderland instead of the short.Jacob805 (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Empire in the lead to the Short S.26 which was a lot nearer to the size of the 314. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture[edit]

From memory, I think this aircraft may have appeared in the US films Desperate Cargo and With A Song In My Heart. The Lawless One (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life magazine 8 Nov 1937[edit]

The magazine p.38 mentions that it was going to have:

  • weight of 86,000 lbs
  • cost of $1,000,000
  • engines rated at 1,500 hp
  • A man stationed in the wing near the engine (see pic on p.39-40)
  • Catwalk in the wing

Any one got time or the inclination to investigate these? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flightglobal.com is your friend.
GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I had to take a break as my electricity meter was singing and about to turn me off, so needed to get key filled. Unfortunately I was making a list of pre-1960-aircraft articles that needed pictures and tried to save it when I got turned off (lost all my work!), this and the Short series seem to have been fairly well covered though. Any idea on where I can go to check the copyright on those Life magazines? If the pics are not in copyright they would indeed make a good addition, though the artist's dod would probably need researching. OOO! That pic shows it without the sponsons! Chaosdruid (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a catwalk inside the wings so mechanics could access and perform minor repairs on the engines in-flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.48.219 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I've locked the article for a period of three days so that instead of a series of reversions with increasingly heated edit summaries, a discussion can be held on whether or not the proposed changes are productive. I will note that the 'current version' does appear to have a number of WP:PEACOCKs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the language could be toned down in places, but that's not just what the IP is doing here. I'll try do a copy edit this week to see if I can address the blatant peacocks without watering down or changing the intended meaning. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again restored extensive material deleted without explanation by a single anon IP user who has employed four different IPs to do so over the past week that resolve to the Berkeley (CA) Public Library (2 IPs), and ISPs in Oakland and Walnut Creek, CA. Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Centpacrr, I have protected the article again to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slim hope of any discussion-- suspect at some level the guys know they can't support their version of the facts, and of course no one can justify their pompous writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.163.138 (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Units[edit]

In the "design and development" section, how about including inflation-adjusted numbers for those ticket prices. www dot usinflationcalculator dot com says $675 in 1940 US dollars would be $11,505.76 in 2015. $760 in 1940 would be $12,954.63 in 2015. $1,368 would be $23,318.34. Inflation rate is 1604.6% http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.48.219 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing 314 Clipper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture[edit]

Shouldn't there be a mention that the 314's appearance in Raiders of the Lost Ark was in error? The story was set in 1936, but the 314 didn't enter service until 1939. - Entrybreak (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fictional story. In that story, 314s existed in 1936. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing 314 Clipper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Citation format[edit]

Why the change in citation format? The old format was perfectly acceptable under wp:citevar, so should there be some sort of consensus to change?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nigel Ish I don't personally like either one. I prefer the citation format here: Help:References and page numbers#Inline page numbers under "List-defined references." Instead of repeating Klaás 1989, pp. 17, 20; Klaás 1989, p. 20.; Klaás 1989, p. 64; all of those would be assigned to the one Klaás source and the pg numbers are next to the facts themselves. It is less distracting than a bunch of repeated sources. As far as Bibliographies go, it's been my experience that many articles include Bibliographies about the subject, but are used for either an author's list of publications or 'for further reading' rather than for citations. If no one objects, I may be able to do this and sort it all out. Does anyone object? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are replying to a 2 and a half year comment. But List defined references are evil - they make it much harder for anyone else to edit, and produce error messages whenever anyone changes references.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_314_Clipper&oldid=1200226472"