Talk:Northrop N-3PB Nomad/Archive 1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Manxruler in topic GA Review
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Northrop N-3PB Nomad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Checking some sources
You've obviously noticed my edits, I've made some additions to the references and operational history, and rewritten the intro. In my opinion, it is good enough to GAN right now. I'd never heard of this plane until you mentioned it to me, do you have any special connection to such an obscure critter? Kyteto (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi B. Why should we trust Ragnarsson's word in an aviation magazine over a book written by some of the foremost Norwegian aviation historians? After all, Norway produced a licenced version of the M1917 Browning machine gun, called the Colt M29, before the war. This production included an aircraft machine gun version. The Norwegian authors have access to Norwegian archive sources, did Ragnarsson in 1981? Manxruler (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- In 1981, Ragnarsson was the vice president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society. Ragnar J. Ragnarsson was born 1945 in the USA, but has lived most his life in Iceland. He began flight training at the age of 17 and two years later earned his Commercial Pilot's Licence. Following a brief period of 'free-lance' flying DC-3s on domestic routes in Iceland, he entered a business carrier in foreign trade in which he is still actively engaged. Despite leaving a career in aviation, Ragnar has pursued a life-long love for aviation alongside his professional business career, and is still an active private pilot and aircraft owner. He was co-founder and past vice president of IPMS Iceland, co-founder and past president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society and past president of the Icelandic Aero Club. He has been involved in the recovery of two historical World War 2 aircraft, both of which have since been restored - a Fairey Battle bomber, on display at the RAF Museum at Hendon and a Northrop N3PB floatplane on display with the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum. For his participation in the latter as recovery team leader, and his research of the type's World War 2 operational history with the RAF's No 330 "Norwegian" Sqn, he was awarded the Order of St Olav, Knight 1st Class, by the King of Norway in 1981. Ragnar has spent many years researching wartime maritime aviation in the Atlantic and has written articles for both the Icelandic and foreign specialist aviation press, as well as contributing to a number of books on the subject. He has an exhaustive account of the building of the N-3PB and was involved with the Northrop company in rediscovery and the restoration of the recovered c/n 320. His involvement gave him access to the Northrop archives and his detailed article corrects many of the previous errors rampant in the N-3PB saga. The article is nearly book-length and is exhaustively researched. I would give him a pass here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly Ragnarsson is an authority on the subject. I'd give him a pass without questioning it in most cases. However, this instance is different.
- The armament part of the N-3PB originally had little or nothing to do with Northrop, as it would have been carried out in Norway by the Norwegians, thus making the Northrop archives less relevant. If the original reports in the Norwegian military archives, used by Hafsten and Arheim, say that the Royal Norwegian Air Service planned to install said machine guns in the aircraft, in Norway, then I'd sooner trust that. How could Northrop know better than the Royal Norwegian Air Service what kind of armament the Royal Norwegian Air Service planned on installing in the aircraft, in Norway? Manxruler (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Both the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon and 7.9 mm Fabrique Nationale armament was included in the original specifications made by Cmdr. Østby at his specific request at the factory, and included in the contract signed on 12 March 1940. When Norwegian armament was to be substituted, it was due to the lack of availability of these original specified weapons at the source? go figure, was there a war going on? How about we include both of these variances from Ragnarsson and Bjørn Hafsten and Tom Arheim in the form of a note. I see these differences as most likely arising from the tumultuous period from March–April 1940. The original specifications of 7 March 1940 did not even have a third crew member, that was added later and Østby expanded his requirements to include not only a gunner's station but also the provision of a camera mounted in the rear cockpit, all changes that were not in the original contract. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC). Where should we continue this dialogue, your place or mine? Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Talk:Northrop N-3PB, maybe? Paaln (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Anyhow, even Cato Guhnfeldt mentions the Oerlikon dealio in his book, so it is somewhat plausible Paaln (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. Would clear up the source conflict issue nicely. I'm also fine with using your place. Paaln might be right, though, that we should talk this over at Talk:Northrop N-3PB. Wanna copy the conversation and paste it there, perhaps? Manxruler (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ragnarsson states that the entire production run of the Northrop N-3PB was well underway in 9 April 1940, and with the fall of Norway, the contract was under review with a Norwegian acceptance team of 12 military officials including Østby, already at the Hawthorne factory, directly involved with company design and production staff. The acceptance team included administrative, technical (mechanics), flight crews and liasion staff. Østby was closely involved with the final fitting out of the N-3PB models and participated in flight testing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC).
- Yes, Østby was closely involved. He was evidently at the factory for an extended period of time, before being appointed as air attaché to the Norwegian embassy in Washington D.C. He also accepted the aircraft on behalf of Norway when they were completed. I suppose I'm fine with the FN info it if it originally came from Østby. Manxruler (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ragnarsson states that the entire production run of the Northrop N-3PB was well underway in 9 April 1940, and with the fall of Norway, the contract was under review with a Norwegian acceptance team of 12 military officials including Østby, already at the Hawthorne factory, directly involved with company design and production staff. The acceptance team included administrative, technical (mechanics), flight crews and liasion staff. Østby was closely involved with the final fitting out of the N-3PB models and participated in flight testing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC).
- Sounds like a plan. Would clear up the source conflict issue nicely. I'm also fine with using your place. Paaln might be right, though, that we should talk this over at Talk:Northrop N-3PB. Wanna copy the conversation and paste it there, perhaps? Manxruler (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Both the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon and 7.9 mm Fabrique Nationale armament was included in the original specifications made by Cmdr. Østby at his specific request at the factory, and included in the contract signed on 12 March 1940. When Norwegian armament was to be substituted, it was due to the lack of availability of these original specified weapons at the source? go figure, was there a war going on? How about we include both of these variances from Ragnarsson and Bjørn Hafsten and Tom Arheim in the form of a note. I see these differences as most likely arising from the tumultuous period from March–April 1940. The original specifications of 7 March 1940 did not even have a third crew member, that was added later and Østby expanded his requirements to include not only a gunner's station but also the provision of a camera mounted in the rear cockpit, all changes that were not in the original contract. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC). Where should we continue this dialogue, your place or mine? Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- In 1981, Ragnarsson was the vice president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society. Ragnar J. Ragnarsson was born 1945 in the USA, but has lived most his life in Iceland. He began flight training at the age of 17 and two years later earned his Commercial Pilot's Licence. Following a brief period of 'free-lance' flying DC-3s on domestic routes in Iceland, he entered a business carrier in foreign trade in which he is still actively engaged. Despite leaving a career in aviation, Ragnar has pursued a life-long love for aviation alongside his professional business career, and is still an active private pilot and aircraft owner. He was co-founder and past vice president of IPMS Iceland, co-founder and past president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society and past president of the Icelandic Aero Club. He has been involved in the recovery of two historical World War 2 aircraft, both of which have since been restored - a Fairey Battle bomber, on display at the RAF Museum at Hendon and a Northrop N3PB floatplane on display with the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum. For his participation in the latter as recovery team leader, and his research of the type's World War 2 operational history with the RAF's No 330 "Norwegian" Sqn, he was awarded the Order of St Olav, Knight 1st Class, by the King of Norway in 1981. Ragnar has spent many years researching wartime maritime aviation in the Atlantic and has written articles for both the Icelandic and foreign specialist aviation press, as well as contributing to a number of books on the subject. He has an exhaustive account of the building of the N-3PB and was involved with the Northrop company in rediscovery and the restoration of the recovered c/n 320. His involvement gave him access to the Northrop archives and his detailed article corrects many of the previous errors rampant in the N-3PB saga. The article is nearly book-length and is exhaustively researched. I would give him a pass here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are we ready to GAN now? The article appears to have settled down now, and the quality to my eye appears to be there. Any last minute changes can be made while we wait for a reviewer to turn up, but I am unable to find anything of substancial worth to change now. Kyteto (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Let's go. Manxruler (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. FWiW, how about you, Paaln? Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Let's go. Manxruler (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Patricia Bay
This is not complicated at all. The first 4 planes were flown to Jericho Beach in February; two on the 12. and two more the 19. Here the first accident occured 21 February. 17 March they flew to Patricia Bay for shooting practice, which they couldn't do at Jericho. Here (at Patricia, that is), the second crash occured 18. March. (ref:Henriksen: 5 år i utlegd, pp 89-90). Please stop the revertings. (And both were not take-off accidents. The first, in Jericho, dived from 1000 ft. into the water, never to be recovered. The second in Patricia Bay spun in from 300 ft., not long after take off. (ref:Haganæs: På vingene for friheten, pp 25-26) Paaln (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, the information I had was from a different source (Ragnarsson 1981, p. 50) and listed both as takeoff accidents, and both from
Jericho BeachVancouver; the first, c/n 303 (GS-5) occurring on February 21, 1941, with two dead and the second, c/n 305 on March 18, 1941, with one survivor and two dead. I will defer to your information and perhaps check Jericho Beach and the West Coast Flying Boat Stations to see if there is any corroborating information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC).- Hafsten and Arheim (pp. 166-167) agrees with Haganæs. Manxruler (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Now, I am confused because I have two other sources which list both accidents as taking place on takeoff or shortly after, but I do think I have the reason behind the confusion over the location. Vancouver and Vancouver Island are two very different places, separated by quite a distance. While the first six N-3PBs (including c/n 303, 305, 307) were flown from Lake Elsinore, California to RCAF Patricia Bay Air Station (commonly known as Pat Bay Station) in February 1941, Ragnarsson says it is near Vancouver. Well, it is, but 69 Km (43 miles) away. Many people unfamiliar with the region, make the same mistake, Vancouver Island is the largest of the coastal islands and has the seat of government in Victoria located there. Pat Bay is at Sydney, Vancouver Island, a suburb of Victoria, and the remnants of the third largest air base in wartime are still there although the base has long since disappeared. Ragnarsson has details of both accidents and accurately lists the dates but continues the error of considering them near Vancouver, the largest city in the province, about four million or more but on the "mainland", where Jericho Beach Flying Boat Station was located in West Vancouver (the city is divided into two by a large natural harbour). The N-3PBs were transferred to Jericho Beach which was actually a converted yacht club and was nestled right in the "heart" of the city, necessitating a further transfer back to Pat Bay in March 1941. After the accidents on February 21, 1941 (c/n 303 taking off from Jericho Beach) near Point Atkinson, West Vancouver and March 18 (c/n 305) at Pat Bay, the four remaining N-3PBs were
flownRagnarsson actually says "sent" to Toronto in the late spring of 1941, where they remained until the spring of 1942. One other accident occurred at Toronto Island Harbour on June 20, 1941 (c/n 307). The three surviving N-3PBs were declared surplus to training needs at the end of 1941, and eventually shipped to Iceland in March 1942 to join the other N-3PBs still in combat service with No. 330(N) Squadron. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC).- The transfer back and forth is still a bit confusing as both Jericho Beach and Pat Bay were used as flying boat stations. Did the N-3PBs fly out of both? Jericho Beach, the location of the RCAF Centre for Seaplane and Flying Boat Training was an extremely difficult environment and led the RCAF No. 3 Operational Training Unit established at Jericho Beach, to post a detachment at Patricia Bay in 1942 where RCAF Station Comox. No. 6 Operational Training Unit was established. Pat Bay also had a Seaplane base. Were the Norwegians "attached" to No. 3? No. 6? or were they operating on their own? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
- Now, I am confused because I have two other sources which list both accidents as taking place on takeoff or shortly after, but I do think I have the reason behind the confusion over the location. Vancouver and Vancouver Island are two very different places, separated by quite a distance. While the first six N-3PBs (including c/n 303, 305, 307) were flown from Lake Elsinore, California to RCAF Patricia Bay Air Station (commonly known as Pat Bay Station) in February 1941, Ragnarsson says it is near Vancouver. Well, it is, but 69 Km (43 miles) away. Many people unfamiliar with the region, make the same mistake, Vancouver Island is the largest of the coastal islands and has the seat of government in Victoria located there. Pat Bay is at Sydney, Vancouver Island, a suburb of Victoria, and the remnants of the third largest air base in wartime are still there although the base has long since disappeared. Ragnarsson has details of both accidents and accurately lists the dates but continues the error of considering them near Vancouver, the largest city in the province, about four million or more but on the "mainland", where Jericho Beach Flying Boat Station was located in West Vancouver (the city is divided into two by a large natural harbour). The N-3PBs were transferred to Jericho Beach which was actually a converted yacht club and was nestled right in the "heart" of the city, necessitating a further transfer back to Pat Bay in March 1941. After the accidents on February 21, 1941 (c/n 303 taking off from Jericho Beach) near Point Atkinson, West Vancouver and March 18 (c/n 305) at Pat Bay, the four remaining N-3PBs were
- Hafsten and Arheim (pp. 166-167) agrees with Haganæs. Manxruler (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'm confused. They were delivered to Jericho Beach in 3 "batches", 12./19. Feb. and 5. March. On 17 March they moved to Patricia. 29. March training ended, and on 31 March they began moving back to Toronto with two planes, while two had to go back to Northrop. Paaln (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- There appears to be a "hop" involved as the aircraft were flown first to Pat Bay and then to Jericho Beach in Spring 1941, and then back to Pat. You only note four aircraft in the first statement but then you have delivery on three dates. Do your "batches" refer to flights of two aircraft each? Didn't all four survivors go to Toronto in the end; I have a photo of a lineup of three N-3PBs at Island Harbour in 1942. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
ed conf ed conf ed conf ed conf :::They were delivered to Jericho Beach in 3 "batches", 12.(302, 303)/19. (304, 305) Feb. and 5. March (306, 307). On 17 March they moved to Patricia. The two sent for overhaul returned to Toronto Paaln (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Survivors: 318 and 319 were scrapped in reykjavik. the ones returning to Norway were 306, scrapped feb 49 and 322, scrapped may 56 Hafsten/Arheim pp 240-241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paaln (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Now that all makes sense, but the overland haul to Toronto must have been a pain, unless they did a "straight line" route instead of going from the west coast. Even then, there would have to be other arrangements although I have seen photos of the trial aircraft and the aircraft at Little Norway with beaching gear so they could have flown off grass or hard surface runways. FWiW, I will correct,
but again we have conflicting sources, so give your ref as well.Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)- My fault on misreading Ragnarsson's list of aircraft dispositions; you are right and so was Ragnarsson. I need to go slower and do a double-check before changing things, `a la the date of the first flight. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
- Now that all makes sense, but the overland haul to Toronto must have been a pain, unless they did a "straight line" route instead of going from the west coast. Even then, there would have to be other arrangements although I have seen photos of the trial aircraft and the aircraft at Little Norway with beaching gear so they could have flown off grass or hard surface runways. FWiW, I will correct,
- Two poor seamen put on that gear before beaching, it was uncapable of landing on land. Paaln (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- That would make the flight to Toronto excrutiating, going from one body of water to another as the aircraft didn't have the range to make it in one hop. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Guhnfeldt says all 4 were crated and railed to Toronto, Hafsten/Arheim just says that training took its toll and only 306 and 307 "could be sent" to Toronto while the others had to make a trip to Los Angeles. Not a word about them flying, so the ferrying could well have been by train. But again, how detailed do we have to be... Paaln (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think what we have is fine, although Ragnarsson does indicate the first groups were "flown" to Pat Bay and "sent" to Toronto. Regardless, take a look at the differences in the article, say a week ago and today, this is now very close to being a GAN. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
- Guhnfeldt says all 4 were crated and railed to Toronto, Hafsten/Arheim just says that training took its toll and only 306 and 307 "could be sent" to Toronto while the others had to make a trip to Los Angeles. Not a word about them flying, so the ferrying could well have been by train. But again, how detailed do we have to be... Paaln (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- That would make the flight to Toronto excrutiating, going from one body of water to another as the aircraft didn't have the range to make it in one hop. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Two poor seamen put on that gear before beaching, it was uncapable of landing on land. Paaln (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest pic
That is Lake Elsinore down in the left corner, so probably not BC. (source, caption in Guhnfeldts book) Paaln (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Northrop N-3PB/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I will get to this tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- I've marked a sentence that needs some editing. Classics is misspelled in your cites.
- A. Prose quality:
Fixed spelling of classics. Manxruler (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Magazines need publisher and place of publication.
- A. References to sources:
- Periodicals are never listed with publication locations; no style guides ever list this information, but for the sake of this review, the information has been added.
- Quite right, that's my mistake. Feel free to revert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- So who gets GA credit for this? I feel I'm among those who should be given credit. Manxruler (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Infobox image
Although the picture is low res at 350px, it would look sharper cropped to 300px since that is the res used in the infobox and the plane would be bigger. --MarsRover (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)