Talk:Grumman AF Guardian

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Aviation: Aircraft This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

I dropped the external link to the FAQS.org site -- it was actually just an earlier version of the document on the Air Vectors site reposted. MrG 4.227.252.181 14:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the aircraft's specifications be changed from those taken from Swanborough's book to the specs stated in Wagner's book; "American Combat Aircraft". The reason is that Wagner's book remains the only source that has standardized its measurements and performance specs. When Wagner began work on the book in 1957 he realized right away that there was often a significant difference between the manufacturer's performance figures, the military's flight test evaluation results, and the final figures issued to aircrews on their performance and capabilities charts. Because Wagner had unlimited access to all the figures from Wright Field and the Navy test facility he decided to standardize the contents of his book, listing only the measurements and performance figures finally issued to flight crews. He eliminated the manufacturer's specs altogether (which are often optimistic, or tailored to satisfy a contract specification), and the testing results (which often exceeded the plane's practical breaking point). With regard to the aircraft's size and weight figures, again he listed only those actually issued to flight crews, eliminating weights and dimensions from the manufacturer, or the flight test evaluations, which are often not actual production examples. While I own, and frequently reference Swanborough's text, I discard it for measurements and performance figures because he draws his information from both manufacturer's and military test results, and often lists them indiscriminately without referencing the actual source. I would encourage anyone interested in Writing for Wikipedia to purchase a copy of Wagner, as the book is often cited in articles for "Smithsonian Air & Space", "AAHS Journal", "Flight", "Air Classics", and "Aviation History". - Ken keisel (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to imagine that any published testing results would "[exceed] the plane's practical breaking point," since that would be 150 percent of max allowable load. Not to comment on Wagner's book, but as a writer who has been writing for Air & Space Smithsonian since my cover story in the very first issue, and who is currently a frequent and major contributor to Aviation History Magazine, I honestly would not rely on either of those magazines as Tellers of the Ultimate Truth. I understand that the most important thing that Wikipedia relies upon is "a citation," but there are citations and there are citations....173.62.3.206 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for the citation bombing tags on this article? Was there an issue with unsourced or unreferenced material? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As your own article on the Martin AM Mauler states, the Mauler saw carrier service, though relatively briefly, and its MTOW was 500 pounds heavier than the Guardian's. It also set the unofficial record for heaviest payload ever carried by a piston single.173.62.3.206 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]