Talk:Beechcraft Musketeer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beechcraft Musketeer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Proposed split

Due to the length of the CF section, which somewhat overwelms other parts of the article, I'm recommending that we split off the the section and the related specs to the CT-134 Musketeer page (currently a redirect here). This would also give more coverage to the aircraft of the CAF/CF, which are usually tagged onto articles about civil (like this one) or US militry aircraft. The split would be fairly straight forward at this point, and I could probably do it in less thn 10 minutes when given the go-ahead. Honestly, I would usually just go ahead and do this type of split without discussion for such a relatively minor type. However, given the regular editing of the page by regular editors, asking first is appropriate. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill: I am not sure that splitting off the CT-134 is really justified. It probably isn't going to grow beyond what is there, given the mostly non-notable history it had in CF service and the dearth of references. - Ahunt (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill: I have been through every reference book that covers the CT-134 in CF service (I have quite a bunch of them) and this article has just about everything of note in it, except accidents. I am not sure that there is much more that can be said about it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. One other thing to consider: Can the civilan sections be expanded much more? Just asking. - BillCJ (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good consideration. I don't think I really have much more that can be added to those parts, but let me go over my references and fill in whatever I can find. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through all my books and can't find a whole lot more of value to add. While Wikipedia articles are never "finished" I can't see that this one will get a lot longer than it is today. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys; I should have read this discussion page prior to making an edit adding the Canadian CT-134s to the list of military operators. In retrospect, I think you've done a good job with the separate CT-134 page. Nevertheless, given that the CT-134 is virtually identical to the stock BE23 series, I think listing it in the Musketeer military operators section is appropriate. So thinks yours truly, a former Beech Musketeer salesman and demo pilot. LarryB55 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also share a funny anecdote: I recall being at the Beech factory in Liberal, Kansas, at the time the Canadians were accepting delivery on their initial batch of airplanes. The local Holiday Inn was where they stayed in Liberal, along with a visiting dignitary from Beech's Wichita headquarters who was there to host the visit. The Holiday Inn had a practice of placing messages on the large sign in their front lawn, to welcome customers...for example, "Happy Birthday, ---" if they were hosting a birthday party. When the Canadians and the one Beech Wichita VIP were staying there, the HI put up a message saying, "Welcome Canadian Air Force and 'You-All'". The joke is that Canadians use "You-all" as a slang term for an American; as we sometimes call a Canadian a "Canuck", they sometimes call a Yank a "You-all". (Now I am embarassed...is it acceptable to use the discussion page to share a joke?) LarryB55 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise speed

"Most Musketeers are now privately owned and are prized for their large, roomy cabins, airframe strength and stability, if not their high cruise speeds." This sentence is valid except for the "if not" clause. I have flown all models of the Musketeer/Sundowner/Sierra side-by-side with their Cessna and Piper competitors, at full throttle, and the max speeds of all equivalent moidels (exception: the 150 hp Sport, which I seldom flew, and never flew against a competitor) - Beech, Cessna, or Piper - were identical. It was like a formation flight...perhaps a half knot either way. What was definitely different was the accuracy of the Beech's pitot/airspeed scaling. Beechcraft's airspeed indicators of any model were very accurate across the normal range. I didn't make any changes in the page on this, but I suggest that the comment about speed be deleted, as it is not supportable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryB55 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Claims like that need to cite refs as per WP:V. I have removed them. - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many CT-134s?

Somehow we picked up an extra two dozen Canadian airplanes. I think you're correct that they were C23s, but there were only 24 in total. LarryB55 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beechcraft CT-134 Musketeer article and this one are both right, the first batch were 24 B23s and then the second batch were 24 C23s for a total of 48. - Ahunt (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landing gear

The unusual landing gear is not described in sufficient detail for someone not already familiar with it to understand how it works. It seems like the the trailing idler link gear might be worth its own article.Bill (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It probably could be described in landing gear, but isn't yet. - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beechcraft Musketeer. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205231944/http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/musketeer-eng.asp to http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/musketeer-eng.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]