Talk:Boeing 247

removed reference

I removed the reference to P-26_Peashooter page under "Related Content, Designation Sequence, 248 and 266". The referenced page "P-26_Peashooter" is a binary file. Never saw this before in wp. This binary file also comes up if searching for "P-26_Peashooter". I downloaded the file and scanned for viruses and it came up clean. NatureBoy 20:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably a temporary problem. Seems to be working fine now. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

angle of climb in Boeing ad

I'm not a pilot, but the angle of climb in Image:Boeing 247 ad.jpg looks rather extreme. If it is, maybe the caption could say something about it. (artist's rendition?) --Jtir (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am, and the aircraft would be in a complete stall at this point. Remember that this was a "cigarette" or "bubble-gum" card format so that the artist used the typical "artists' licence" in creating a dramatic pose and incidentally using the entire space of the card format. FWIW I think readers can see that this is a piece of art not intended to be strictly accurate but rather a stylistic interpretation. BTW, it also illustrates the other side of the NASM example which is another reason I added the artwork. Bzuk (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the additional background. I agree that it is a dramatic illustration. Contemporary art gives character to an article. However, I have copyedited the caption to state the obvious. --Jtir (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I have tweaked the tenor a bit to allow the reader to discover the inaccuracies. Again, I am not "wedded" to the wording – mainly wordsmithing involved here. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

A sentence beginning "Note ..." tells the reader what to do. I removed cigarette card because the source says nothing about the illustration, and the article on cigarette cards doesn't help identify it. Cigarette card will need to be linked if it is used in the caption. Dramatic and fanciful are interpretations of the image. --Jtir (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, there was a series of "collector cards" issued by publishers and companies right up to modern times that depicted aviation types. The use of the term "cigarette card" was to alert the reader that this was one of those examples although not specifically packed with a cigarette or cigar purchase. Since this is a peripheral issue, I made some adjustment to the wording. Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

copyright status of Image:Boeing247U.PNG

I cannot verify the copyright status of Image:Boeing247U.PNG from the given sources, and have tagged it for deletion at Commons.

Discussion is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Boeing247U.PNG.

I have found a similar image, but in a different file format, here:

• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/p92a.jpg
• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch4-4.htm (it's about half-way down)

The caption reads:

[92] Figure 4.10 - Early version of Boeing 247 10-passenger twin-engine transport; 1933. [Peter C. Boisseau]

--Jtir (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply replace one image for another, as the NASA photograph will not have a copyright problem. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

For future reference, the image in question does appear to be a product of NACA (the predecessor to NASA), and thus public domain. The proof of this is not its appearance in a NASA publication (which after all could include images from non-NASA sources), but the fact that it was apparently produced for NACA by one of their engineers (Peter C. Boisseau), as mentioned in the deletion request listed above. I'm noting this because I was under the opposite impression before I checked that deletion request. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Number built

The infobox says only 70 247s were ever built, but the Operators section shows that there were at least 100 aircraft used. Any clarification? ataricom (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the numbers may need checking, but the basic reason for the discrepancy is that the 247s went through multiple operators during their lives. United Air Lines eventually leased or sold their 247s to other airlines, and some were requisitioned by the U.S. military during World War II. After the war, the planes continued to change hands, often many times. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, the 247s had a comparatively long lifespan and served in many capacities, thereby, the numbers in service representing a number of "change of hands." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

File:Boeing247lamp.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Boeing247lamp.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reflections?

The "forward" raked windscreen is not raked that far, so it looks to me to be impossible for ground lighting to be reflected off it, unless another reflective surface is involved. 121.217.97.126 (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It reduces dazzle (aka reflections) from when the aircraft is being flown into the sun so the pilot can still see - there are other solutions and the drag penalty was high so it stopped being used. The Vultee V-1 and early examples of the Stinson U and Lockheed 10 also had raked windscreens, as well as others. Most dispensed with them fairly quickly.NiD.29 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited maximum weight was a few thousand pounds too high; fixed.

The maximum takeoff weight for the 247-D was given here as 16,805 lb (7,623 kg), with a "loaded weight" of 16,770 lb (7,610 kg). These figures were apparently cited from page 34 of the book:

• Mondey, David, The Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War II. London: Chancellor, 1996. ISBN 1-85152-706-0.

If the figures did come from this book, then it did some very sloppy fact checking, because these weights are far too high. The actual maximum takeoff weight for the 247-D is listed by most sources I've found as 13,650 lb (6,190 kg). The FAA's Type Certificate Data Sheet for the 247-D's type certificate (ATC 558) gives a "standard weight" (their term for the maximum takeoff weight) of 14,000 lb (6,350 kg), with an added note that an increased maximum speed in glide or dive is allowed if a standard weight of 13,650 lb is used. I've corrected the maximum takeoff weight to the 13,650 lb figure (using Boeing's web page as a preliminary cite, though I'm sure someone can find a better one) and removed the "loaded weight" figure. Not sure where the previous figure of 16,805 lb might have come from; it may have been specific to Roscoe Turner's specially modified 247-D which he flew in the MacRobertson Air Race, or perhaps it comes from military C-73 transports overloaded as a wartime necessity. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

• When I conducted a thorough pictographical update of this page, I replaced the infobox picture with the below. It is of better resolution, dimension, and shows the aircraft in flight. The current picture, which had been replaced, yet subsequently undone without discussion, is of smaller dimension, is grainy, and does not show the aircraft in flight, which is preferable for the infobox. I will change back to the below in three days if there is no discussion opposing this move. Spartan7W § 16:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is a much better picture; it also happens to show the 247 in the modified 247D form in which it flew for most of its career. It's not perfect—the photo shows some obvious signs of crude touching up—but it's a big improvement over the previous prototype-on-ground picture and will certainly do for the purpose, or until something better can be found. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Cockpit photograph incorrect

The image on this page actually shows the cockpit of a Douglas DC-2, not that of a Boeing 247. I don't yet know how to change images but would suggest that this one be relocated, along with a corrected caption, to the Douglas DC-2 page.

For an actual Boeing 247 cockpit image dating from the 1930s, I volunteer to contact Michael Lombardi, who heads up the Boeing Historical Archives here in Seattle. I'd be happy to approach Mike for a proper 247 cockpit image and official Boeing copyright permission for its inclusion in place of the current incorrect photo. I feel such a substitution is indeed warranted because the Boeing 247 is of enormous historical importance as history's first modern airliner, and the first ever to employ semi-monocoque construction, a transformative design paradigm that's still how airliners are built today. The DC-2, which flew and entered service the same year, actually eclipsed the 247, but the 247 came first.

Please let me know if the consensus is I should pursue this. Many thanks.

Textpilot22 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. Whatever you're able to do would be great. If the photos are under copyright, Wikipedia has some process for licensing photos where permission to use them is kept on file. The details are discoverable at places like WP:OTRS and Commons:OTRS. Or if they are released with public domain or creative commons licenses then OTRS is not needed. The existing photo can be deleted right away if you are confident it is wrong. Just delete the line that says "[[File:Boeing 247 Cockpit.jpg|thumb|The cockpit of a Boeing 247]]". — ¾-10 20:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing 247. 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/20080118012758/http://www.boeing.com:80/history/boeing/m247.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/m247.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124055522/http://www.nasm.si.edu:80/research/aero/aircraft/boeing_247.htm to http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/boeing_247.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 247. 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/20110823113556/http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=%2AS%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C121536.pdf to http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=%2AS%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C121536.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)