Talk:Ryan Navion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Assessment

If the sources were converted to inline citations this would be a B class, easy. --Colputt 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Specs

I would love to see the Specifications section expanded into a table covering all models from A to G.

I have deliberately been vague about the early history of the Navion, particularly North American's motivation for building it, because I seem to get a different story from each source. If you have bona fide details to add, please do so, but I think it would be best to leave those details out unless you have a verifiable source that you're confident is right.

Alternatively, perhaps someone could add a section explaining the various different theories about the Navion's origin. Here are some I have heard.

• North American thought there would be a booming civilian market after the war
• North American wanted to cash in on the fame and reputation of the P-51
• North American intended the Navion to be primarily a military aircraft, with a potential civilian market
• North American simply wanted to give the P-51 design team something to do while they waited for the Sabre project to be approved

--Tedd 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Booming

I see that someone has jumped in with the "booming civilian market" explanation for the Navion. Could that person provide a reference? I have certainly heard that opinion expressed, but have never known it to be documented.

--Tedd 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

I propose this text:

A Navion is a main character in the 1972 made-for-television film "Family Flight", starring Rod Taylor and Dina Merrill.

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

A family flying a Navion is forced down in the desert. After a tough time there, they manage to fly back toward civilization, but now they find themselves low in fuel over the sea. The Navy comes to the rescue, but the only runway near is an aircraft carrier.

Aldo L 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is much more than is needed. A simple line of text saying that "The Navion played a key roll in the 1972 made-for-television film Family Flight" would suffice... --KPWM_Spotter 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean "key role"? —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ryan Navion" Versus "Navion"

It seems to me that the article should be about the design -- i.e., "Navion" -- not any particular implementation of the design (such as "Ryan Navion"). I propose several changes. First, reverse the redirection: "Ryan Navion" should redirect to "Navion," not the other way around (as it currently is). Second, revise all information to reflect the design, not just Ryan's implementation of it (e.g., change the introduction date from 1948 to 1946). Any details pertinent to a particular variant could go in the Variant section. --Tedd (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Including the complete production history would be fine as long as refs are cited.

As far as the article naming goes, this is discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming where it says: "US civil aircraft: Manufacturer and name or number as appropriate according to common usage: Boeing 707, Cessna Citation, Cessna 172, Convair 880 (not "Convair Skylark" or "Convair Golden Arrow")." Just naming the article "Navion" would not be appropriete. The manufacturer most associated with the design should be the one named. That is why, for instance, the American Aviation AA-5 Traveler, the Grumman American AA-5 Traveler, AA-5A Cheetah, and AA-5B Tiger, the Gulfstream American AA-5A Cheetah, and AA-5B Tiger, the American General AG-5B Tiger, and the Tiger Aircraft AG-5B Tiger are all under Grumman American AA-5 and not just AA-5. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to see you suggest Ryan as the manufacturer name associated with the Navion in common usage. (As I was to see it in the title of the article. It wasn't when I wrote the first version.) As a former Navion owner, I would have instantly named North American, not Ryan. The legend and mystique of the Navion comes almost exclusively from having been built by the same people who built the Mustang. In my experience, it's rare for the Navion to be referred to by any manufacturer's name, except when distinguishing one variant from another. It's simply the Navion. But if Wikipedia convention says we should have a manufacturer's name in the title of the article, then it should be NA, not Ryan. --Tedd (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can you provide the dates and production numbers on the different manufacturers? Most aircraft articles in Wikipedia are named for the company that produced the greater number of the type, rather than the first manufacturer, which is why the Grumman American AA-5 has that title instead of being named for the original manufacturer, American, who didn't make nearly as many. If you can make a good case for moving it to North American Navion then we can get consensus to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What's missing here is an understanding of some of the tortured history of this aircraft. It was designed and built initially by North American, but in July 1947 they sold the tooling, drawings and 60 uncompleted aircraft to Ryan. It was very much a "good riddance to bad rubbish" transition for North American, and per people that were there, they essentially put anything that didn't go to Ryan to the torch to limit liability. Ryan was already in financial trouble, so they spent little on it and it died fairly quickly for them as well. The type cert then went through a dozen or so companies and individuals. So there are no academic sources on the type. The references are primarily documents here and there, and an unpublished book by Chandler King, one of the engineers on the aircraft. I would offer that you're attempting to hold this article to an unrealistic, unattainable level of academic integrity - which is why it sucks and why everyone I've talked to has simply given up trying to correct it using information that has been validated many times over...but is not going to meet the standards that are being applied. In the end, what's the goal? A good article with reasonably accurate information - or the garbage that it is now?

Lead image

The lead image appears to be a later Continental O-520 powered Rangemaster (doesnt appear to be the real 48-1046 as marked) , perhaps it may be better to shuffle a proper L-17 into place as the lead image. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll handle it. American474 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

L-17 Corrections

As my L-17 corrections were removed today for lack of references - even though the prior information also had no references - I'm adding information here to start working through these edits, or trying to. The standards seem unreasonably high.

• Bulleted list item
• Per the Key West Agreement all fixed-wing aircraft had to be acquired by the USAF, so ALL L-17s were procured by the USAF and transferred as needed. The reference is research via Individual Aircraft Record cards of all L-17 aircraft.
• The Model 72 was built for the U.S. Navy competition, not the USAF competition. Reference: Tom Roqufort, Navy pilot in the program.
• There are 3, not 6 QL-17s as referenced by Joe Baugher's site as well as the IARCs for the 3 aircraft. You also changed "radio-controlled" back to "remote controlled and eliminated the word "television"; the aircraft were radio controlled, and were used as television platforms. Photos show interior details and the control equipment.
• There are 33, not 35 L-17C aircraft as identified in the POH and via IARCs.

This is just a few items, but frankly I'm looking to determine if this is worth the effort given the standard that is being applied - that doesn't even exist in the article today.

Comments: "The reference is research via Individual Aircraft Record cards of all L-17 aircraft." - not a valid reference according to Wikipedia rules. "Reference: Tom Roqufort, Navy pilot in the program." - not a valid reference. Joe Baugher's website isn't a reliable source. You need to find proper reliable sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I would ask: what is the current source for information already there? If the information is demonstrably incorrect, then what's the rationale for leaving it incorrect? If there's no means to cite interviews and U.S.A.F records - what else is left in these cases to act as a reference? Leaving up demonstrably incorrect information, also without a source, seems counter to the mission of what the site is for?

Quite right, much of the information there has been unsourced and tagged for a long time and, as you noted, at least some is probably incorrect. I have cleaned it all up now, so please go ahead and make your changes, citing reliable sources, too please! - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Therein is the challenge; as I noted on a section above the references that are available are unlikely to meet the standards requested; there's just very little or no academic reference information out there. For example, the XL-22/L-17D - other than the IARCs and photo evidence...they don't exist. There's no order, there's no contract and no reference. So...do we not refer to them, even though we have a photo covering at least two of them and official Air Force records showing they exist? Maybe I'm just making this too hard - but in asking around this is why the article stinks; it's virtually impossible to meet the reference standard. I appreciate the ear; it may be that for the purposes I had - which was to correct the record - I just do it on my own website instead of here, where I can apply a practical standard and post source documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blattimer (talk • contribs)

There is a lot which can be improved and sourced however - the article does not really describe the aircraft. It should be possible to provide a decent description without searching too hard for references.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree the design deserves a better article that we have had, including a good description of the aircraft structure and its history, the thing is that it has to be based upon WP:RS. There are lots of good refs out there, like Jane's and such, so the job is not impossible. As far as the fan sites and self-published sites go, please have a look at WP:SPS for why we can't use these. I did also want to thank User:Nigel Ish for jumping in and improving the article, long with some good sources. When you are done I'll have a look at my paper refs here and see if any can help fill in the gaps. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There aren't "lots of good refs out there"; I've been researching the aircraft, specifically the L-17, for over 20 years - as long as I've owned my L-17B. Given the standard, it's impossible to update, so I'll simply take the information to a website where I can provide the right documents - like actual USAF references. Good luck, folks - it looks like the article will continue to be poor. Many of the "improvements" are similarly poor, like referencing the National Guard as an order destination for L-17As, and suggesting that Ryan did the L-17C updates...which they did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blattimer (talk • contribs)

Refs like USAF publications are perfectly acceptable reliable sources if you have any to use or share. What we can't use is self-published information like blogs, reminiscences, personal emails and conversations. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Variable-Response Research Aircraft" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Variable-Response Research Aircraft. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 20#Variable-Response Research Aircraft until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)