Talk:Propliner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

To do[edit]

  • at least one photo (such as a DC-3 or Constellation)
  • information about non-U.S.-built propliners
  • more external links

-- David 15:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Should there be an article (or redirect) called multiengine propliners?[edit]

This clause appeared in Manuel J. "Pete" Fernandez:

There is no article called multiengine propliners and I don't know if there should be one.
The phrase seems redundant, although helpful in the context.
I re-wikified this way. --Jtir 16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Would the first sentence still be true if multiengined were inserted in this way:
  • "A propliner is a large, multiengined, propeller-driven airliner."
Has there ever been a single-engined propliner? --Jtir 20:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a number come to mind both in recent use such as the Pilatus PC12 and from the 1930s, the Spartan was also a single-engined airliner. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for the tips. The Pilatus PC-12 is a turboprop.
Not sure which Spartan you mean. There are lots of links from Spartan Aircraft Ltd and Spartan Aircraft Company. --Jtir (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The DC-1 article lists requirements specified by the Civil Aeronautics Board that include:
  • All metal wings and structural members
  • Retractable landing gear
  • Capable of remaining in flight, even if one engine failed.
Unfortunately, it is unsourced.
--Jtir (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the reference to the Boeing 207 be changed to 247?[edit]

I have never heard of the Boeing 207, but I know the Boeing 247 is considered by many to be the first modern airliner (all-metal construction, retractable landing gear, and variable pitch propelers). If anyone else agrees, please confirm this by changing updating the article itself (which I have not changed). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkWales (talkcontribs) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I don't really know, although Boeing 247 supports you. I tagged it with {{fact}}. --Jtir (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Although other contemporary airliners such as the Curtiss Condor and a Martin derivative of their bomber series came out about the same time as the Boeing 247, it could be considered one of the first modern monoplane airliners that embodied metal construction throughout, retractable landing gear and other modern accoutrements. FWIW, the Douglas DC-1/-2 also can lay claim to the honour as well as other claimants from the UK and Europe. Bzuk (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
Thanks. I included some of this. --Jtir (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My definition for "Propliner"[edit]

I hope my definition could work to help this article some. I believe a propliner is any propellor driven aircraft used for carrying civllians and cargo by civillian companies built between 1932 and the mid to late sixties. Unfortunately, this is probably still original research. 707 (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)