Talk:Budd RB Conestoga

Designation

This really should be titled RB-1 Conestoga because the Army bailed out of the contract before Budd delievered any aircraft.Phyllis1753 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ThanksPhyllis1753 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take exception to your "RB-1" designation. I have not been able to find any original USN source material on the RB, but given the standing USN rules of aircraft nomenclature prior to the McNamara Defense Department, the "-1" would not be applied unless there were more developments of the basic design. USN aircraft designators (and, to some extent, 1930s USAAC designators also) confuse the vast majority of people in that way. Grumman's first Navy fighter is another example; the original design was simply the "FF" until a second development was laid down, which would then become the FF-2, but the FF would still just be the "FF" (USAAC designators with this same reasoning were the original P-40 and the original Air Corp P-51...there were actually airplanes produced that were just "P-40" and just "P-51" because no subsequent types existed yet). USN aircraft designators of that period (pre-1960s) are VERY CORRECTLY stated with just the letters with no numbers. There was only ONE model of the original McDonnell Phantom produced, so it would very correctly be referred to as the "FH". The F4U is an example that adds fuel to the confusion fire, because the basic design was altered so many times in development, the "F4U-1" was the first production example to go to the fleet. Adding a "dash" number, especially a "dash 1", to the designator, however, is often an incorrect redundancy. 98.244.146.174 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Budd RB Conestoga. 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/20060902012106/http://www.generalaviationnews.com:80/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=10168&-token.src=column&-nothing to http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=10168&-token.src=column&-nothing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)