Talk:Fokker F-10

Date of first flight? What was the C-7A? Drutt (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"C-7A was designation given to six production planes which had a slightly larger wing, new vertical fins, and fuselages patterned after the commercial F-10A", per the reference. FiggyBee (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Boston-Maine Airways

The Boston-Maine Airways listed as a Fokker F-10A operator is NOT the same as the Boston-Maine Airways described on the Boston-Maine Airways Wikipedia page. The original Boston-Maine Airways operated two F-10As assigned to it by Pan Am in 1931, NC 147H and NC 812H. Boston-Maine Airways also operated two Pan Am assigned Sikorsky S-41s, NC 41V and NC 784Y. (See: http://www.logbookmag.com/databases/articles.asp?ID=91&CatID=47) Boston-Maine stopped being a Pan Am subsidiary in 1933. It later became Northeast Airlines. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Airlines. Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fokker F.10. 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/20150729002331/http://www.logbookmag.com/databases/articles.asp?ID=91&CatID=47 to http://www.logbookmag.com/databases/articles.asp?ID=91&CatID=47

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Confused Fokkers: the F-10, "F.10", and F.X

I've just corrected most of the designations in this article (excluding the title and links to other pages) from "F.10" to F-10. The designation and sometimes even the origins of U.S.-built Fokker aircraft have become confused over time. I've even seen some sources claim erroneously that U.S.-built Fokker models were simply license-built Dutch models. This is not true; although I'm sure there was some interaction between the Dutch parent and the U.S. subsidiary, they produced independent designs with distinct designations.

Unfortunately, the designation schemes were made distinct by using hyphens and Arabic numerals for U.S. models instead of the periods and Roman numerals used for Dutch models. Since there was no effort to keep the number values distinct, this only invited confusion. Thus, although the Dutch parent company never had an "F.10" (with Arabic numeral), it did develop an F.X (with Roman numeral). This was also a trimotor design, but a somewhat earlier one that differed in detail from the U.S. F-10, and unlike the F-10, the F.X never went into production. That actually makes the situation worse, since if someone calls an F-10 an "F.10" or even an "F.X", there's no concrete plane you can point to and say, "No, that's not an F.X, this is an F.X." All you have is an obscure drawing and reference. So I'm not surprised that some sources, not realizing that the two designation sequences were distinct, mistakenly conflate them.

The only source I've been able to find on Fokker's stillborn F.X design is this web page, which I doubt meets our reliable source standards. But I suspect it will be hard to find something better, short of consulting a detailed, technically accurate history of the Fokker company's aircraft. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)