Talk:Fairchild C-82 Packet

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Problem sentence

Taking off was considered too dangerous, so legendary stunt pilot Paul Mantz was asked to merely come in low, run his landing gear along the ground, then take off again, simulating a take-off.

How could the pilot "come in low" if he had not already taken off, which the author maintains was "too dangerous"? Perhaps it should be rephrased to indicate takeoffs were considered dangerous, and therefore minimized if that is what the author meant, rather than the implied contradiction in the current sentence. --Blainster 16:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Flight of the Phoenix" was a Skytruck, not a C-82

I read the novel "Flight of the Phoenix" last year (highly recommended!). The airplane in the novel was a Skytruck, not a C-82. I'll try to find an exact quote.--67.176.41.167 04:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. All references to the C-82 relating to "Flight of the Phoenix" relate only to the original film version. -- Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date problems

"the aircraft was first flown in 1944" followed later by "in service from 1936 through 1947"

Flight of the Phoenix Aircraft

Please do not delete the details of the four "Flight of the Phoenix" aircraft. Two individuals spent a considerable amount of time researching the original aircraft used in the film, and it would be a pity to carelessly discard this information when it may be of use to someone in the future. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I deleted it before I saw the above message. It may be of use to someone in the future is not a measure of notability. This is an encyclopedia and the actual aircraft used or the operator are not really notable or the fact that a different type of aircraft was also used. Some of the information might be notable in the film article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of the info is already in the film article, as has been mentioned before in the edit summaries. - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as the sources I can find state, the R4Q-1 is the Navy version of the C-119 Flying Boxcar, not the C-82 Packet. If someone has reliable sources to the contrary, please provide them. - BillCJ (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The R4Q-1 was the Navy version of the C-82 Packet. The R4Q-2 was the Navy version of the C-119 Flying Boxcar. The information about the aircraft used in the filming of "Flight of the Phoenix" should be including in both the C-82 and the film's articles as it's relevant to both. No where on Wikipedia is it encouraged that a piece of information be limited to just one article. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source, please? Other than OR, of course. And actually, WP has a lot to say about relevancy. And edit warring. - BillCJ (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairchild C-82 Packet/C-119 Flying Boxcar" by Alwyn T Lloyd (Aerofax Publications) ISBN 1857802012. Mr. Lloyd's production #'s for the various models are wildly inaccurate, but apart from that it's still the definitive reference book on the C-82 and C-119 (as well as the R4Q-1 and R4Q-2). - Ken keisel (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermisillo aircraft has been removed

The aircraft located in Parque Popular Infantil in Hermisillo Mexico is no longer there.

[1] has an entry for it as follows:

Aad van der Voet wrote (Nov.2007): Sadly, after having been in the Parque Popular Infantil for 23 or so years, the C-82 was very corroded and bits were falling off and endangered the children playing in the park. It was beyond hope or restoration, so the management decided to have it broken up and trucked out for scrap. This already happened late 2005, but until recently Google Earth still showed it in the playing park at coordinates 29.0788N 110.9446W. Apparently they very recently updated their imagery, and it no longer shows it now. Unfortunately the dark twin boom you see at the airport is an IAI Arava. Much too small to be a C-82.

Pointing Google Earth at 29.0788N 110.9446W and enabling the historical imagery slider the plane disappears between the 2005 image and more recent images.

Porkchop2009 (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]