Talk:Hurricane hunters

Jets?

Out of curiosity, are all hurricane hunter aircraft propeller type planes, or are there hurricane hunter planes that use jet engines? TomStar81 08:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The Gulfstream IV is a jet aircraft. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Deaths?

Have any hurricane hunters ever crashed and died? Yes, When the original Navy Hurricane Hunters were assigned the weather reconnaisance mission, they lost a P2V7 Neptune aircraft in 1955 while penetrating hurricane Janet. Last report from the aircraft indicated they were beginning penetration. No further reports were received.

There is in fact no mention of Navy Hurricane Hunters (VW-4 and predecessors), and scant mention of Typhoon Trackers (VW-1), both of which played major roles in hurricane hunting for many years. (And this is coming from an Air Force guy.)--Buckboard 11:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"One U.S. aircrew has been lost in duty since such missions began in 1943" is incorrect, as it doesn't include Swan_38. Or does this article only cover the two current Hurricane Hunter units? If so, that's rather confusing since the Swan 38 article includes a link to this one. 8.19.241.10 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft Names

The two P-3 NOAA aircraft are named Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy the Gulfstream IV is named Gonzo after the Muppet's by Jim Henson. You can see the article and images[1]-Wxweenie91 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Manned?

No mention is made in the article of whether these flights are manned or unmanned. I'd suspect they're manned. Misterdoe (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Split

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus - five months since proposal, and no new discussion since then - BillCJ (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This article covers two things at present:

1. Aerial reconnaissance of tropical cyclones
2. The aircraft of certain USAF squadrons and NOAA that fly into hurricanes and are known as the hurricane hunters.

Two separate concepts here so two separate articles. The one on the concept can go into the whole concept of aerial recon and its history. The one on the planes can give the details of the squadrons and their histories.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But they are both two aspects of the same subject, so they should stay within the same article. You are suggesting two incomplete articles on this subject. Better stay with the status quo. The currect article answers two questions about the Hurricane Hunters.

1. Who they are;
2. What they do.

--Blanchardb (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Two incomplete articles, which can be improved, are superior to one which cannot. I think there is actually significant benefit to an article on aerial recon disassociated from the actual aircraft in use. Basically I'm saying this article would be retained as one about the planes - and would answer your two questions; but we would have a different article to discuss the concept.--Nilfanion (talk)

Except that here, the situation is not, as you say, two incomplete articles, which can be improved vs one which cannot. The article can be improved.

Remember: one article, which states:

1. the problem; and
2. how it is dealt with.

I already see one possible improvement to what you intend to do once you're done. That would be to merge both articles into a single one. To me, the split is a non-starter, plain and simple. --Blanchardb (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name?

Should the article be singular or plural? Someone just moved it to the singular title, but I think this is a rare exception where it should be plural. It refers to the group of people on the flight, so it can't ever be just "Hurricane Hunter". And, am I the only one thinking that could get confused as a storm name? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence says that the topic of the article is the aircraft and not the group. I would be okay with changing that if the content specific to the type of aircraft could be split to Hurricane Hunter (or cyclone hunter?). Marcus Qwertyus 19:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But their website is http://www.hurricanehunters.com/, they refer to themselves as the "Hurricane Hunters". Even the lead image in the article says "Hurricane Hunters". I see no reason for a change in name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But this article is not about the 53d Weather Reconnaissance Squadron. It is about the aircraft. Marcus Qwertyus 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SINGULAR gives the following advice on when to use the plural form of the noun:

“ Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). ”

Arguably, the Hurricane Hunters are a class of aircraft. Additionally, the aircraft are never referred in mass media as "Hurricane Hunter"; they are mostly called "Hurricane Hunters". As such, consideration of WP:COMMONNAME also applies. I believe the article should be located in the plural. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any reason not to move it, only time they're referred to in the singular form is when it's possessive, "Hurricane Hunter aircraft." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New Page for Swan 38

I have copied the content of this section into a new page Swan 38 so as to enable the use of an Aircraft accident Infobox and categorisation of the page. There is a Copied attribution on the talk page for Swan 38. Todowd (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you plan to expand it, because with the amount of content it has right now, anyone can sweep in and delete it. Normally, you need a much larger chunk of content to split off a new article, which then allows you to summarize what was in the former parent article. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Hunters. 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/20080509222018/http://vw1assoc.tripod.com/ to http://vw1assoc.tripod.com/

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) 23:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Usefulness of the data

Can someone show exactly what data comes out of those missions and confirm that those are actually useful (cannot be obtained by satellites)? Or these flights are just performed for "fun"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.103.102 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Satellites and surface equipment can't get even a small fraction of the data obtained by the USAF and NOAA hurricane hunter aircraft. Their flights have resulted in huge improvements in modeling and forecasting tropical storms and have been credited for saving lives in storm paths. A brief description is here:

https://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/aircraft-operations/about/hurricane-hunters165.225.38.125 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Hurricane hunters → Aerial weather reconnaissance – To circumvent the plural. This page was formerly named "Hurricane Hunters" after the namesake 53rd WRS and NOAA Hurricane Hunters. In 2017 an editor correctly noted that the term is not a proper noun in the general sense and had it moved accordingly.

Hurricane hunters is ambiguous (misdirecting readers seeking the 53rd WRS page). I'm open to alternatives. "Aerial" is inclusive of weather balloons, which might make this a bit of a frankenstein article. Is "hurricane hunting" as recognizable "storm chasing?" Schierbecker (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Simplexity22 (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, seems the most recognizable name for the activity, and there are many aerial weather events besides hurricanes/cyclones. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.