Talk:Flying boat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 post[edit]

Wow! Who wrote this? The Spruce Goose fanclub? It's terrible! How is is possible to write an entry of this length and spend a good half of it waffling on and on about a single prototype that barely even flew, and yet practically ignore the Sunderland, the Catalina, the Empire Boat, the Boeing Clippers, the ....... Gahh. Tannin 13:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please don't forget Kawanishi H8K "Emily" too! --Kadzuwo 20:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic Flying Boat[edit]

Don´t forget the only one: [[1]] Dagoflores --189.166.14.226 (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Twice[edit]

To the user who was complaining about the Spruce Goose. It is only featured in the article twice. Once about the shape and once about the boat it self. There are plenty of other flying boats mentioned here. The article also has paragraphes deticated on other flying boats. Why did you focus on this one?

Mrld 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it was written two years ago. [2] --IntrigueBlue 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page on flying boats says it has been suggested to merge that article with the article on seaplanes. I would not to. For reasons, see Jeremy Clarkson's chapter on flying boats in his book "I know you've got soul". Why not just add a link between the two pages instead. JohnStais2000 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Flying boats and seaplanes are two entirely different types of aircraft. I think the merge tag should be removed. Herostratus 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all are wrong. I think this article should be merged because a flying boat and seaplanes both take off on water. Some seaplanes take off on land. It makes sense to merge them. Mrld 17:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You imply flyings boats cannot be amphibious aircraft. Several flying boats (i.e. aircraft which have a fuselage which is also a hull) are amphibious. Examples: Czech Aircraft Works Mermaid and the PBY Catalina. Paul Beardsell 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first two posters. The flying boat is different enough from the seaplane that separate articles are warranted. The fact that both take off from water is only one commonality, and only slightly in any event: the flying boat is a boat with wings, whereas the seaplane is a plane with fins. Arguing that the two articles should be merged into one is like saying the articles for Battleships and Cruise Ships should be merged "because they're both boats." --Todeswalzer 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well you say a flying boat is actually a boat!! Where's the ruddar or other things a boat needs? This is why these articles need to be merged. Mrld 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many flying boats have rudders. They also have mooring ropes and anchors. As do floatplanes. Paul Beardsell 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was fairly well understood that floatplanes and flying boats are quite different types of aircraft. To design, build, maintain and fly. That they are both seaplanes is also indisputable! And the rules and regs make support my view: Go look. There should be three articles. Seaplanes should mention there are two main categories and link to them and not say much more. And the other two articles should remain separate. Paul Beardsell 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who dares argue with three dictionaries? Paul Beardsell 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You all are right. I took the merge down. We shouldn't bash each other and turn this into an editing war. Mrld 19:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A flying boat is an aeroplane with a boat-shaped fuselage/hull for taking-off and landing on the water. A seaplane or floatplane is a land aeroplane fitted with floats to allow it to take-off and land on water. One is a purpose-built water-based aircraft, the other is a converted landplane. The exceptions would be aircraft such as the Heinkel He 115 and Arado Ar 196 which although seaplanes, were not produced in land-based version, i.e., with a normal wheeled undercarriage. What one would categorise aircraft such as the Grumman Duck as though I wouldn't like to say, technically they were probably flying boats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.50.65 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:KawanishiH8K.jpg[edit]

Image:KawanishiH8K.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish between Flying boat/Seaplane/Floatplane?[edit]

The recently-added paragraphs have left the summary rather unbalanced. There is now less about flying boats than the types they are not. Isn't it the purpose of wikilinks to point to the other articles in such cases? At present it reads more like a disambiguation page than an intro to flying boats. --TraceyR (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it needs a re-write it is factually wrong as well as flying boats are seaplanes which is not what the intro says! MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a little tweak of the intro to remove the floatplane details. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Boeing314.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Boeing314.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philately?[edit]

Am I alone in wondering how and/or why the Philately project assesses an article about flying boats? I could understand that the Aircraft project might be concerned about the ways in which flying boats are portrayed on stamps, but vice versa? --TraceyR (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about that too... since several flying boats were rated on displacement, I would have expected WP:SHIPS rather than stamps... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

extra plane[edit]

Also include the Kenmore Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.163.207 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images in LOC Collection[edit]

This image in the LOC collection states it is a Curtiss Flying Boat sent to england and could be included in the article... it is in the Commons (no known restrictions on usage) [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.108.134 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class reassessment?[edit]

This article looks like it's been improved considerably since it was assessed as C-class. Would someone in the aviation project please take another look at it? Wi2g 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?[edit]

WTF does this mean: "the rear section of the lower hull sharply recessed above the forward lower hull section" ?? Yes I know what a flying boat looks like (Short's, Consolidated's), but the semantics of this phrase are beyond me: rear of lower ABOVE the (forward) LOWER ? If you didn't know the context, could you sketch a diagram from this phrase? L0ngpar1sh (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bavar 2[edit]

I really don't know much about this topic, but when I was reading this article, I clicked on the Bavar 2 link, and the page for it says that the Bavar 2 is a ground vehicle, not a plane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.137.195 (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground effect vehicle, not ground vehicle. It's not really a flying boat either, so it probably shouldn't be here. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landing Gear[edit]

This article and the article on Float Planes contradict each other. This article states that a flying boat "has no type of landing gear to allow operation on land". The article on float planes states "Either type of seaplane may also have landing gear suitable for land". I don't know anything about either, but the two statements can't both be true. I have included this comment here, as opposed to the float plane talk board as even in this article, there is a photograph featured of a flying boat with landing gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.140.48 (talk)

I'm confused as to why didn't you read the whole sentence at Floatplane. It says, "Either type of seaplane may also have landing gear suitable for land, making the vehicle an amphibious aircraft." The second paragraph of Flying boat says something similar: "Many modern seaplane variants, whether float or flying boat types, are convertible amphibian aircraft where either landing gear or flotation modes may be used to land and take off." - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flying boat. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

page needs serious help[edit]

in reading this page i cant believe the level of false and inaccurate content... quote In September 1919 British company Supermarine started operating the first flying boat service in the world, from Woolston to Le Havre in France, but it was short-lived. Everyone knows or should know!!! the first scheduled air service in the world was also the first scheduled flying boatservice in the worldd... Jan 1st 1914 to April 1914 St.Petersburg to Tampa, USA Jacob805 18:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

Given that neither the claim in the article nor your claim cite reliable sources, we should just remove the claim and not add anything in its place. Is that your only issue with the page? - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ya bilcat... here is my source,(http://www.space.com/16657-worlds-first-commercial-airline-the-greatest-moments-in-flight.html) I can provide others if needed. I was an airline manager for 25 years, 7 of those in Tampa. There is a huge mural about the first air service and a historical display photos models ect... Sorry but I just assumed you knew this fact. Jacob805 19:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I will draft an additional section on the first scheduled air service using a flying boat this weekJacob805 19:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

here is another good one with photos that I will use (http://www.historynet.com/st-petersburgtampa-airboat-line-worlds-first-scheduled-airline-using-winged-aircraft.htm) BilCat (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)jacb805[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flying boat. 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:

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.BilCat (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a few details here, to make things clear: The changes mentioned were done by a bot, at the timestamp "01:34, 3 October 2017‎", but because of a bug, the message was hidden on this page. Now that it has been brought out in connection with the bugfix, the signature with the original timestamp was lost; hence this pedantic comment.
Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon-America Clipper service during WWII - why no mention ?[edit]

I know from books that mention it in passing, that there was a Clipper service (flying boat) between Lisbon, Portugal and the East coast of North America (USA or Canada), and that this service ran from sometime before the war and all through it. (The service also had a refueling arrangement at Shannon, Ireland.)

So my very simple question/request is: Could somebody with access to more direct sources please write something about this service ?

Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Error in adding new section, description gets posted here[edit]

I used the "add new section" command situated at the top of the page, added the section about the Lisbo-America Clipper, saved - and found that nothing had changed visibly on the page!

After some searching I found my addition at the end of the "page needs serious help" section, and I also found that inside that section there is also a message from a bot. Could somebody please look at this, as it is glaringly evident that something is buggy ?

Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for spotting the problem - BilCat (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Seaplane?[edit]

A large portion of this article is essentially identical to a large portion of Seaplane. It has been this way for over a year based on comments on Talk:Seaplane. Should these articles be merged or made more distinctive? 107.5.24.101 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment last time they are not the same thing, as a subset of seaplane then perhaps we need to trim the history here as just a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flying boat. 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:

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) 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Low wing monoplane flying-boat[edit]

Are there any flying-boats with the wings mounted low on the fuselage? (and biplane-flying-boats don't count). 184.186.4.209 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low- mounted wings would be partially or totally in the water, which isn't a good idea. Most flying boats have mid-, shoulder-, or parasol-mounted wings. - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be-103 is a low wing flying boat. The wing roots act as sponsons while in the water to add stability. But overall, they are rare. Sario528 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the large flying boats (and the speculative designs produced in the 1950s as maritime patrol aircraft) had low-set sponsons, primarily for stability on the water without needing an enormously wide hull. They were often shaped to have some aerodynamic lift, i.e. they were a rather minor effort as a sesquiplane. However these had huge water loads on landing, so had to be built very strong and thus heavy, which limited their size and thus effectiveness as wings. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude record[edit]

The Italian, Vittorio Centurione Scotto ( Genoa , 7 May 1900 - Lake Varese , 21 September 1926) was an aviator who was chosen to participate in the Schneider Cup for seaplane speed which was to be held in Norfolk in 1926. However, he died when his seaplane crashed during practice. At the time he was said to broken the world altitude record for seaplanes. Does anyone have further information? Shipsview (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Flying boat[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Flying boat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "norris 13":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended edit to intro paragraph[edit]

Hi all. The intro paragraph is a bit confusing and I wanted to suggest some edits to improve clarity. The intro's to seaplane and floatplane generally explain the classification structure of "seaplane (either floatplane or flying boat)" better and I wanted to reproduce that in this article.

What do y'all think of this?

A flying boat is a type of fixed-winged seaplane with a hull, allowing it to land on water.[1] It differs from a floatplane in that a flying boat's fuselage is purpose-designed for floatation and contains a hull, while floatplanes rely on fuselage-mounted floats for buoyancy. Though the fuselage provides buoyancy, flying boats may also utilize under-wing floats or wing-like projections (called sponsons) extending from the fuselage for additional stability. Flying boats often lack landing gear which would allow them to land on the ground, though many modern designs are convertible amphibious aircraft which may switch between landing gear and flotation mode for water or ground takeoff and landing.

Oh, and also remove the bit I copy pasted from the end of the intro about convertible aircraft and switching ("Many modern seaplane variants, whether float or flying boat....")Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ E. R. Johnson, American Flying Boats and Amphibious Aircraft: An Illustrated History, McFarland and Company, Inc., ISBN 978-0-7864-3974-4

No reference to M-130[edit]

I was quite surprised to see no reference to the Martin M-130 which constituted the first regular commercial trans-pacific airline flights as the China Clipper, about the most famous flying boats of the interwar period. My reference for this is Wikipedia’s own entry under “Trans-pacific Flight”. In addition, there is a reference to the use of sponsons in the Dornier flying bout that seem to suggest that these were unique to their Do X model while they were also notable on the M-130. 2601:989:4200:B0D0:3DC3:3F16:C2B5:2328 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to expand the inter-war section to cover the Pacific operations.
BTW, COMMONS:Category:Photographs of aircraft by Tudor Washington Collins has some 1939 photos of Boeing 314s in New Zealand, some Short Empires and some post-war Short Sandringhams. (I've just been sorting that photographer's work) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_boat&oldid=1207254550"