Talk:Flying boat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Flying boat is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
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)
[edit] Only Twice
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)
- Possibly because it was written two years ago. [1] --IntrigueBlue 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Many flying boats have rudders. They also have mooring ropes and anchors. As do floatplanes. Paul Beardsell 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Who dares argue with three dictionaries? Paul Beardsell 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
