This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
The info box references C-2(R) and the Development section references C-2A(R). I don't know which is correct, but they should agree, shouldn't they?
--Amckie (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they have to be the same, since there was not a C-2B version. C-2(R) is probably a shortened form for C-2A(R) or Reprocured C-2A. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're correct. The official name is actually C-2A(R), but no one in the service uses the R
Was there a particular reason why the 2nd batch wasnt called C-2B ( obviously not 100% equals as earlier C-2A ) and the current update nor C-2C ? --Jor70 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The usual explanation is this: The US DOD has always played "games" with the designation system on the assumption that the US Congress is stupid. By not changing a designation number or letter, the DOD hopes to "fool" Congress into thinking the aircraft are basically the same aircraft, and thus making it easier to secure finding. Historical examples include the F-84F (was YF-96A), F-86D (was YF-93A), F9F-6/8 (should have been F11F), and more recently the F/A-18E/F/G. On the other hand, the DOD sometimes assigns a new number to a basic upgrade, such as with the B-50A (was B-29D) to give the impression of an aircraft being a new design.
This may seem silly, but there is an element of truth in it. If there is a better explanation in this case, I don't know of it. - BilCat (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that's as good a explaination as any. Joesolo13 (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Air to air refuelling
Does anyone know if the USN has ever considered this aircraft for an air to air refuelling role ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Why? It wouldn't carry much more fuel than the current carrier based tanker aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It might habe been useful for helicopters, as prop planes can fly slower than jets. But with that capability now being developed for the V-22, it is redundant, and the V-22 can be based on non-CATOBAR ships too. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the C-2 capable of being inflight refueld by another aircraft?--88.152.148.13 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
E2-D is developing the capability, so it could be ported over. Hcobb (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Not written by a pilot
"It also places the outboard rudder surfaces directly in line with the propeller wash, providing effective yaw control even as the plane's airspeed approaches zero, as during takeoff and landing."
If you are flying, airspeed never really approaches zero, unless you are making a trivial calculus point. When you take off, you go from x knots groundspeed to x knots airspeed. There never is a point where your airspeed is zero unless you are falling like a rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricWhale (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
HALO jumps?
In the 2003 film, Tears of the Sun, a C-2 Greyhound is shown being used for inserting SEALs via HALO jump. Are they actually used in this purpose? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the C-2 has been used for HALO jumps. It's obviously not the primary mission, but it's possible. Saw a pretty cool image/article on it several weeks ago, but can't find it now. Will post if I do.
C-2 main picture
Would you be opposed to changing the main C-2 photo? The one up now is pretty old and doesn't reflect the aircraft currently in service. Thanks.
Please sign your posts, thanks. Your are welcome to suggest another image but we would not change it just because it is old, this is an encyclopedia so we are just looking for a good qaulity image that shows the aircraft of best, at any time in his history. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed somebody has already just tried to change the image, if you are suggesting File:C-2 Greyhound aboard Navy carrier.jpg then that would not be suitable, flying shots that show the whole aircraft are prefered like the one already in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That image is fine, but it lacks proper source info and might be deleted soon because of that. There are other images at Commons:Category:C-2 Greyhound also. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Broken Link
NAVAIR (November 1984). "Performance Summary" (PDF). Standard Aircraft Characteristics, Reprocured C-2A. Retrieved 21 April 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C104:E400:487A:B5FC:439F:F1F7 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
YouTube Reference
I know YouTube links in references are frowned upon but it's the only authoritative source for the update on the 22 November 2017 accident. It is also published by the U.S. Government so no copyright worries. I'll keep looking for the written transcript of the hearing and will replace the YouTube link when it's posted or if another site writes an article on new recovery details. User:Delanman 02:45, 06 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure that any of the the text after "Read Admiral .." adds anything to the article, the previous sentence already mentions that the a salvage will be attempted, that is all that is needed. (Still trying to work out why "Eight of the 11 were rescued" needs six references!) MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
