Talk:Convair 990 Coronado

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.

Smoke trail

It would be pretty nice to have a picture in the article of the plane in flight, to illustrate the smoke trails referred to, if anyone has or finds one that can be used. Muad 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my recollection of early jet photos, takeoff (full throttle) was smokiest.

"Astrojet"

I saw an American Airlines guide call the 990 the "Astrojet". Was this an American Airlines name or did Convair name it that? JoeD80 (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looks like it was an American Airlines thing because they called 707 and 727 "Astrojet" also JoeD80 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger capacity

The specifications section states capacity as "96-121 passengers", yet the summary of the 1972 accident states "all 148 passengers" were killed. They can't both be right 82.1.57.194 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Operational History" needs some help

Specifically, this pair of sentences:

"In 1963 the 990A was reported to burn 13,750 lb/hour at Mach 0.84 (483 knots) at 35,000 ft at a weight of 200,000 lb.[5] That compares to a modern 757, which carries up to 220 passengers and burns around 7000 pounds per hour."

I wouldn't say that "compares" by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps the original author meant "By comparison, a more modern Boeing 757 can carry (more than) twice as many passengers at the same speed while burning (approximately) half the fuel", which is how I read it, but the sentence is sort of ambiguous. I also don't think the leading "In 1963" is necessary as presumably fuel efficiency for a given type, absent major modifications like powerplant replacements or aerodynamic improvements, did not change through time, but that's somewhat less critical than fixing the ambiguity that follows.64.134.161.195 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference for operators

I found this reference: at page 123 for Galaxy Airlines and Paradise 1000 Travel Club. Can this be a valid source to use? If yes then please add the source in. Username006 (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a reference it's fine - but what isn't OK is uploading copyvios to commons or linking to them here - please don't do that again.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought the licensing i used was okay. Nevermind. Username006 (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Only Swissair called their 990 aircraft, 'Coronado'"

Note removed with revision 1066518124. What other airlines had used this "Coronado" name? Curious to know. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 00:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what you are asking is 'what other airlines displayed the Coronado name visibly on their aircraft?'

Would Balair or Spantax count? Or are they disqualified because they used former Swissair machines, and simply didn't bother painting out the name?WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]