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 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 is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The wingspan seems remarkable, considering this was both a glider and a powered aircraft. Or was the wing geometry changed with the addition of engines?
--Piledhigheranddeeper—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.70.82 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
To the best of my knowledge, the only change to the XCG-20 to turn it into the XC-123 was the addition of engines - the C-123's fuel tanks were even mounted inside the nacelles (and were jettisonable in case of fire -!). I assume the XC-123A with its jets had internal fuel tanks (in the cargo hold?), but the airframe itself was unchanged in any significant fashion. (To the point where one source claims "every C-123 built had provision for a tow hook mounted in the nose"!). - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The cargo hold was 30 feet (9.1 m) long and 12 feet (3.7 m) wide,[3] and featured an innovative configuration, the rear fuselage being upswept with a integrated loading ramp, allowing vehicles to be driven directly on and off of the aircraft.[4] This is a run-on or something, it really doesn't read well. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Done
Data from Adcock - This should be changed to a complete sentence, perhaps The following data can be verified by Adcock.CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
That's actually standard format for {{Aircraft specs}}. I've changed it to list the title of the book instead though.
{The largest glider ever built in the United States, it did not see… Insert "Being" at the beginning of the sentence. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've reshuffled that sentence in an alternative matter, hope it reads better now.
You need to refer to the Air Force as USAAF throughout the article instead of USAF, as it was still the army air forces. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the XG-20 didn't fly until 1950, two years after the USAF was established as an independent service from the former USAAF. I have clarified the wording in several places though
hydraulic power to the landing gear and flaps,[3] The nose The comma should be a period. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Done
The Primary user should be the United States Army Air Forces, not United States Air Force. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
As noted above, the USAAF never used the type at all - it was the USAF that conducted all the flight testing.
However Chase had designed the aircraft to allow for the easy… Insert comma after However. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Done
In the references, occasionally you refer to the page number as stuff like page 1, when it should be p. 1
Done
That's all I see, I'll put the article on hold for a while. If the issues are addressed, I will pass the article. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review! :) I've worked on everything (except the USAAF/USAF thing, as explained), hope it's improved. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply