Talk:Beechcraft Model 18/Archive 1

Archive 1

Survivors

The Beech 18/C-45 were made in large numbers. I would say there are hundreds, if not thousands of survivors. I am not sure it would be encyclopedic to have a list of survivors. --rogerd 01:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wing Spar Problem

Anyone have more information on the wing spar problem the Twin Beeches ran into some decades ago? From what I'm told that was significant in that it grounded thousands of BE-18s, with hundreds being scrapped altogether.--Dali-Llama 16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead picture

I believe a photo of a Beech 18 should be the lead photo for this article, not an AT-11. I am well familair that an AT-11 is basically a Beech 18, but they are not common planes and are rarely seen today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwesq@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 August 2008

You are welcome to suggest an image of a Beech 18 that could be used, provide a link to an image on this page and other editors can then comment. Please note that if available an image of an aircraft flying is preferable in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

AT-10

The AT-10 is listed in the USAAF airplane production during WWII, along with the AT-7 and AT-11. How does the AT-10 fit into this history?

Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.33.150 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AT-10 Wichita was based on the AT-7 but it is different enough (single fin and rudder and built of wood) to be dealt with in its own article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AT-7 AT-10 article/stub/Rdr -existence indcators.
--Jerzy•t 03:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Famous hull losses?

Didn't Jim Croce die in an 18? 219.78.50.246 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Jim_Croce#Death yes. Telecine Guy (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Also Otis_Redding#Death. If anyone could write a section on their safety record, that would be interesting. 148.87.23.10 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Premature Editing

On 11:30, 17 December 2014‎, I made some edits, then saved them, then continued editing, saving again at 11:57, 17 December 2014‎, and continuing further editing. Within 10 minutes, while I continued editing, another Wiki contributor jumped in and began editing my edits. Consequently, when I attempted a save a few minutes later, I got one of those ghastly "Edit Conflict" messages, and found it next to impossible to sort out the differences.

While I do NOT like to scrap others' edits without careful review, I simply could not do this again (this "trigger-happy," near-realtime editing has been a continuing problem with edits at Wikipedia, particularly in the aviation field, causing me and other contributors much lost time and effort). I scrapped all the editor's changes, and re-instated my version, with my current edits. That editor, of course, can re-edit my work, and no doubt will.

In the future, it would be considerate and respectful for editors to wait a day before jumping into someone else's edit, and revising it. That might prevent the current deterrence of substantial repeat contributors, over relatively negligible edit issues. And it might keep the editor from wasting his/her time, as well.

Zxtxtxz (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Zxtxtxz

Edit conflicts can and will happen, and it's unreasonable to expect others to know how long you intend to edit, or to wait 24 hours to edit after your edits. If you want to make a series of edits undisturbed for a short time, usually about 30 minutes to a few hours, you can add the {{in use}} header to the top of the article first. But please remove it afterwards. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

See revisions, especially considering the above comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Variants

Could the author (0r someone familiar with Wikipedia's editor) please edit the variant lists. At the moment it is not one list under each heading, but each variant is its own list. Unfortunately this seems to be common across all aircraft entries. 101.98.22.129 (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. But if what's there now is common across aircraft articles, then it probably doesn't need to be changed here either. BilCat (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden

Does anyone have additional published information about the 1967 bin Laden crash? Aviation-safety.net says 3 Sep 1967, registration HZ-IBN, msn BA-493, but ASN is not generally viewed as satisfying WP:RS, and the source for the entry is apparently a Canadian web forum, definitely dicey and WP:USERGENERATED. I've tried checking the Saudi General Authority of Civil Aviation website but I can't read Arabic. Carguychris (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I subsequently discovered that HZ-IBN was the registration code of the aircraft involved in the 2015 Blackbushe Phenom 300 crash which killed three other members of the bin Laden family; this seems like a dubious coincidence to me, like someone was indiscriminately combing Google and scrambled the information. I think the info on ASN is very questionable. Carguychris (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

STC define

STC is used in the article, especially in the Beechcraft_Model_18#Spar_problems section, but is not defined.

Not having a background in aircraft, briefly searching the web STC may stand for "Supplemental Type Certificates" defined by FAA ( https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc ). Donfede~enwiki (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It is linked to Supplemental Type Certificate the first time the term STC is used in the article, but just for clarity, I have also linked it further down, where it recurs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Curious as to the total number of aircraft manufactured. One part of the article mentions 9 thousand units while later 8 thousand is described as the production number. 173.66.155.52 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)