Talk:Douglas DC-8 (piston airliner)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Douglas DC-8 (piston airliner) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | It is requested that a vehicle diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
In the tail?
editIt states that the propellors were in the tail. Should it state on the tail as I am not aware if any planes have ever tried in the tail propellors like a couple of helis have. Thanks Calmer Waters 17:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The usual description of rear-mounted props is "in the tail". If it was a fenestron, it could be described as such. It's a valid point, tho. Thx for raising it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was a further development of the designs that Douglas had worked on for the Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster. The position of the propellers were intended to be exactly where they were in the Mixmaster. -- 174.17.170.227 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, we have a whole category of these kinds of aircraft: Category:Pusher aircraft. -- 174.17.170.227 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Feel the power
editThere's a clear contradiction in hp figs. Francillon expressly says they were 1375hp, while Morgan says 1600. Given Francillon is the later-published, as well as in a specialist source on Douglas a/c, & so more likely to be correct, I'd say change to 1375. No? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the 1600 hp quoted in the specs is TAKE-OFF power. Morgan also quotes a normal rating in low blower of 1410 bhp @ 5200 ft and in high blower of 1225 bhp @ 17000 ft, so the two figures may be less inconsistent than they at first appear. I would also suspect (although I don't have Francillon in front of me) that the coverage in the Air Pictorial article may be of greater depth than in Fancillon.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Illustration
editThe only illustrations I've ever seen for this all come from the same color painting, and I don't know it's original source or provenance. I assume it was created by Douglas Aircraft, but can't confirm. An example of the illustration is found at the bottom of this article, although at that source it's B&W, -- 174.17.170.227 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- So after doing a little digging around, it looks like the illustration was likely from Robert Grant (R.G.) Smith, who is the aeronautical engineer and artist that the R.G. Smith Award is named after. He died in 2001 so seems unlikely that his illustrations would be available to use on this article, unless it would be considered work-for-hire, since he did actually work for Douglas Aircraft. -- 174.17.170.227 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)