Talk:Boeing 307 Stratoliner

first pressurized aircraft
I have been trying to determine if the Boeing 307 was the first pressurized aircraft ever built. It is obvious from my research that it was the first pressurized production aircraft, but were there any experimental aircraft that featured cabin pressurization?Ratsbew (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I too have been wondering this exact same question. Were there any experimental pressurized aircraft that existed before the Boeing 307?132.10.250.80 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the answer, the Lockheed XC-35 was the first pressurized aircraft. It was a modified L-10 Electra with a circular cross section fuselage to withstand the pressure differential. The L-10 Electra wiki makes a brief mention of the XC-35 but it fails to mention the significance.132.10.250.80 (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

2022

 * The Renard R.35 was an airliner designed from the outset with a pressurized cabin that flew before the 307. Although only one was built, unlike the XC-35, it was built as an airliner, and was not merely an experimental aircraft or converted from an unpressurized design, of which numerous examples existed prior to then. Had it not crashed on its first flight, it was expected to enter production.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The R.35 was intended to be a production airliner but unfortunate events turned it into a failed prototype - ie a one-off. If we are going to allow one-offs then that opens the field for a lot of competitors to the R.35 . Intentions are nice but reality is what counts. Otherwise I could intend to build a rocket to Mars in my backyard but I'm probably not going to be the first man on Mars.  Stepho  talk 23:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More irrelevant arguments - the Renard didn't need to enter service for it to be the first pressurized airliner to fly, and the rest of your argument is nothing but a straw man.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thinking slightly more, the article states that the 307 was the first pressurised airliner to enter service - which nobody is denying. The history of pressurised cabins is at Cabin_pressurization and it includes both the R.35 and the XC-35, which is a far better place for them instead of here.  Stepho  talk 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * But it did crash, and didn't enter production. Even had it not crashed on it's unintentional first flight, we have no idea if would have entered production, as problems often occur during testing. So let's not belabor the points so much. History happened the way it did, whether we think it should have or not. BilCat (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The question isn't about production, which is utterly irrelevant to the Renard R.35 being the first airliner to fly with a pressurized cabin. Nothing in the claim requires that it be put into series production, so not sure why that is even being raised.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * None of which is remotely relevant. The problem is that thanks to the American propensity for unsubstantiated boasting, quite a few publications have repeated the claim that the Boeing was the first airliner with a pressurized cabin - which it clearly was not. Had those claims NOT been made, it would not be an issue, however, they have, and they need to be addressed, especially since some of the publications making the claim appear to be from reliable institutions. That is why it needs to be in there.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree that it is all irrelevant. The R.35 claim is a part of the history of cabin pressurisation and is not directly related to the 307, therefore the R.35 claim belongs in Cabin_pressurization, not here.
 * I saw that you reinstated the controversial claim. This is how edit wars start and editors get booted off WP. Discuss here first. After the discussion has finished, only then do we put the result back into the article. See WP:BRD.  Stepho  talk 09:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Blame someone else for taking it out again. There is ZERO controversy about the Renard's claim. There is however a controversy regarding the Boeing's claim, and that controversy needs to be addressed here, not just over in cabin pressurization because it was made here and the claim has been copied off wikipedia from HERE, and that page isn't going to be seen by even a small fraction of the people reading this page. BTW, what is the obsession about it crashing? The first Boeing ALSO crashed. The crash does not in any way negate or alter its achievement, nor does whether it actually entered service, or not. The claims aren't about those, but about being the first airliner with a pressurized cabin to fly, and that is ALL. Why is it so hard to let anyone other than the US and UK have any claims at all? Do I detect a bit too much nationalism? Otherwise why the barrage of pointless quibbles?&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As for the source, it does indeed discuss the Renard having a pressurized cabin, and indeed goes into some depth, including planned modifications to improve egress. I am guessing no-one bothered to read it.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your last comment seem to be indented wrongly, so I lined it up with your previous comment. Hope I got it right, apologies if I got it wrong.


 * 1) The Boeing claim is that it was the first pressurised airliner in service . I don' know of any counter claims with the 'in servicer' qualifier. To the best of my knowledge, this claim (with qualifier) is rock solid.
 * 2) If you want to remove the 'in service' qualifier then that means we get to count other one-offs such as the Lockheed XC-35 or the Engineering Division USD-9A or a number of others. Of course, you may argue that these were modifications of previously existing aircraft but now we are quibbling over which qualifiers are okay to use. Your argument only holds by disallowing the 'in service' qualifier while also allowing the 'designed and intended as an airliner but not necessarily used in service' qualifier. It seems to me that the 'in service' qualifier is historically important, while the 'design and intent' qualifier is more like a participation trophy.
 * 3) There is no obsession over the R.25 crashing. As you said, the first 307 crashed too. But there is concern over whether the aircraft was a one-off that never saw service vs a production aircraft that was used in service.
 * 4) I'm Australian (with considerable time in many countries around the world, see my homepage). I've bit of a reputation for Yank bashing (ie anti-US)  and Pom bashing (ie anti-UK). We Australians have a reputation for pointing out uncomfortable truths but we're also quick to give credit where it's due. In this discussion, the 307 achieved the distinction of being the first pressurised airliner that was actually used for fare-paying passengers.
 * 5) Since you brought it up, what's your nationality?
 * 6) The R.35 may have had many wonderful points but it was a one-off, a dead end and not directly relevant to the 307 page.  Stepho  talk  11:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it a reading comprehension issue then? Because you have been ignoring my SOLE point from your very first comment, and you keep throwing out the same invalid and irrelevant red herrings and straw men arguments.
 * I ADDED "in service" to reduce the claim, because this page had been claiming for a very long time that it had been the first to fly, which needed to be directly countered, and it still needs to be countered as it is referenced elsewhere frequently because of THIS page. There are mirrors of this page that will have the incorrect information for a long time, and so when they come here, the difference needs to be explained or the issue WILL return. Why is this such a hard concept? It wouldn't matter if the claim had never appeared here, but it did. A claim that is without merit and wasn't adequately referenced, I might add, and which is clearly refuted by the well documented flight of the Renard R.35. Your origins and travel are not relevant either.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, let's engage on your first point "Had it not crashed on its first flight, it was expected to enter production". The crash is irrelevant (since your correctly pointed out that the 307 also crashed). But after the crashes, the R.35 was dropped (remaining a one-off) while the 307 went into production and into service. If we count one-offs then there are other contenders. Either you count one-offs, such as the XC-35, or you don't count them. Either way, the R.35 doesn't get the claim (or at least it has the make the claim very specific with lots of qualifications).
 * I missed that it was you who added "in service" - my apologies and I thank you for correcting the claim. I'm happy with the reduced claim.
 * Nevertheless, this is not the correct article to put in a history of pressurised cabins. We should only put in what the 307 itself can claim, not what other aircraft can claim.  Stepho  talk 04:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're missing the Point: All Americans are POSes and everything from the United States is bad. Therefore, all accomplishments by Americans must be balanced with The Truth that someone else, usually Britain/the British, did it first, no matter how hard we have to strain at gnats to prove it. Otherwise, the World will end, again, like it did the last time an American claim went Unchallenged. BilCat (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to put words in my mouth I would never say? Hardly.
 * The UK wouldn't have anything similar until the disastrous post-war Avro Tudor (not sure if any of the pre-war projects cancelled by the war such as the Fairey FC.1 would have even considered pressurization - some of the later wartime ones certainly did), and most other countries were way behind even the UK, which spent a lot of time playing around with glorified diving bells inside Wellingtons.
 * The issue is that claims outside the US tend to get ignored and/or trampled by American ignorance and when they are false, need to be dealt with. There is more than enough trumpeting for the claims that are justified - and no one disputes that there are a lot of those.
 * Also the XC-35 was never intended as an airliner - it was built solely to test the concept of a pressurized cabin, and so it CAN'T make a claim toward being an airliner, regardless of the fact it was itself developed from one. The R.35 wasn't built to test the concept, but with the intention of it entering service as an airliner. Apples and oranges.
 * No need to read more into it than there is.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep saying the word 'intention' as though it meant something. The R.35's claim to be the first pressurised airliner is not cut and dry - see previous arguments above about one-off's prototypes, etc.
 * What is cut and dry is that any claim by the R.35 (real, perceived or otherwise) does not belong here in an article about the 307. The R.35's claims are simply not relevant to this article.  Stepho  talk 08:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stepho-wrs. NiD.29, nationalism isn't neutral, but neither is anti-nationalism. Please don't assume my edits are nationalism, as that's not good faith. If you're going to put a statement like "but not the first pressurized airliner to fly as is often claimed", then you have to provide a reliable source for that, otherwise it's original research. BilCat (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As for the the OR claim, the reference I provided gives the date of the flight (whose conclusion is irrelevant, as is the post-crash status), and that it had a pressurized cabin, and that date is PRIOR to any date associated with the 307. Meanwhile while you to quibble, I have been trying to actual fix what was an embarrassingly bad page, with grammar problems, referencing problems galore (did you read through the list of references? eBay as a reference? Seriously?) and so many of them lack page numbers, and huge gaps in the narrative, with no technical description at all.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And I thank you for the cleaning that you have been doing. I'll hold off making any major changes myself until this discussion has been resolved, just to avoid potentially raising tempers any further. If you want some proof that I've done something, then look in the article history around mid 2020. Or click on "contributions" on my home page to see my general work on WP. To quote from the preface of the 1611 King James Bible "we never thought from the beginning, that we should ... make of a bad one a good one ... but to make a good one better". Continual improvements are always welcome.  Stepho  talk 04:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As long as you don't add any more OR to the article, I will have nothing to quibble about. At until I've read the final results, then we'll see. BilCat (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There never was any OR. All of the claims I added were in the article I provided as a reference. I would have added a couple more but am having internet connection issues as I am connecting through my cell phone right now, while doing a dozen other things.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will repeat and emphasize: You added the note with "but not the first pressurized airliner to fly as is often claimed". The bolded part is OR. We can't make claims like that without substantiating them with reliable sources that actually say that specifically. That's all I was disagreeing with, and the only thing I ever claimed was OR. BilCat (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How many sources would you like? I suspect Boeing put it in their promotional material as it is in EVERY source that mentions the 307 in any detail. The claim is widespread and pervasive. It is in books on Hughes, in the books on Pan Am, on TWA and even otherwise fairly reliable sources have repeated it. I provided ample evidence to show that it is not true.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Several that I actually look up and read for myself. Preferably in English. BilCat (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We're stalemating, so I've asked for more opinions from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft.  Stepho  talk 08:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

What about writing that the 307 was one of the first aircraft with a pressurised cabin, and the first one that entered commercial service? The R.35 claim doesn't belong into this article though. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It is clear from sources such as these: that the Stratoliner was the first in-service example. It is also clear that, despite the Smithsonian's unfortunate wording (they are such a sloppy outfit), it was not the first to fly. The putative addition by is not OR as some here seem to think, but it is unnecessary irrelevance, especially for the article lead. I do not think it should be reinstated. Hope this helps. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Please note I did not add anything to the article recently. Are you thinking of NiD.29's addition of 'in service' (which I agree with) or NiD.29's addition of 'but not the first pressurized airliner to fly as is often claimed, as it was preceded by the Renard R.35' (which I disagree with) ?  Stepho  talk 21:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You also removed the 'but not the first pressurized airliner to fly as is often claimed' with a footnote, but no mention of the R.35, so it wasn't the mention of the R.35 that was the problem for you.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Partially true, I removed your addition of 'but was beaten into the air as the first pressurized airliner to fly by the short lived Belgian Renard R.35' because of my above mentioned belief that one-offs and prototypes don't count. I later reverted your addition of 'but not the first pressurized airliner to fly as is often claimed' as per WP:BRD to avoid an edit war - thank you for respecting that. My position (problem?) is that neither form of your claim (direct and indirect references to the R.35) should be here but that your insertion of 'in service' to the 307 claim does belong here.  Stepho  talk 04:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I got the blow-by-blow who did what bit wrong, it has been a tangled process. But it doesn't really matter. What matters is that folks look forwards and not back. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries.  Stepho  talk 11:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Between work and connectivity issues, I haven't had time but I found additional (published) TWA/TW&A sources that are much more detailed than any of the books on the airline, as well as a new source from a Dutch museum publication and these point to whole chapters missing, including use as a crop duster, and more significantly, planned KLM orders for the 307 (with a new internal layout, and potentially different engines) but it only being built as a stopgap to a much larger but cancelled development, the model 316, a pressurized XB-15 that falls into the development line that led to the B-29 after it was repurposed as a bomber, hence the lack of a stepped nose on both. The KLM source is lengthy, and in Dutch, with a slew of memos and telegrams from the museum's collection reprinted in their original English. Also, there was much more involvement by Hughes, as his purchase of TW&A gave them the the money to buy 307s - and why he got a 307 that some sources believed was intended for TW&A, but the accounts so far have been sufficiently garbled as to be useless for inclusion. Then there was the use of a 307 to inaugurate the then new La Guardia airport, and related shenanigans. Still sorting through the flood to determine what is going to be notable enough, which will take time.
 * Back to the R.35 - The erroneous claim originates with Boeing's 307 advertising claims - still working on English languages sources for the Renard. A multi-issue article was written in the French magazine La Fanatique years ago but I don't have the relevant issue.
 * Is a mention of it in the technical section on cabin pressurization better - or should it go in the operations section?
 * Coincidentally a post about the crash of the R.35 just showed up on my FB feed, but without sources.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The R.35 should definitely be mentioned in an article about the history of cabin pressurisation. But the 307 article is not an article about that history. That's why we provide links to other articles such as cabin_pressurization, so that we don't have to repeat ourselves in each and every article vaguely related to the subject. Or to look at it from another angle, why does the R.35 article not mention the 307 ?  Stepho  talk 00:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger
Since the Boeing C-75 was the designation for the impressed and modified 307s, shouldn't the two articles be merged in to one? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Since each C-75 was actually a pre-existing 307 that was modified into a C-75 and then later converted back to a 307B, it makes sense to put them in the same article.  Stepho   (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd generally agree, except, the military variants tend to have their own pages. Unless I'm misreading, & those represent very different models from the civil siblings.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The C-75s were intended for TWA, but impressed by the USAAF for service. There were returned to TWA after the war to serve as civil airlinrs. So while there are some differences between the civil and impressed models, the differences aren't great enough for separate articles. As such, all the aircraft, only 10 built, are better covered on the same page. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the idea of a merger, but acknowledge its popular support. I feel that the C-75 series deserves its own article just for proper coverage of its military service, just as the 307 needs proper coverage of its civilian service.  Mergering the two articles sounds to me to be a difficult proposition if the decent coverage of both models is to be maintained post-merger.  There are much more trivial pages on wikipedia that are allowed to exist independently from articles of a similar or identical nature.  I feel that if they may be maintained, the C-75's article is just, if not more, deserving.SAWGunner89 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, because C-75s were just military versions of the Stratoliner. The C-75 was never actually produced; the C-75s were just converted from commercial to military use. Because of this, it doesn't really make sense that there's two separate pages.
 * --Compdude123 (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

one for six
When I read 'shortly followed by one for six' I had to read it a couple of times. At first I thought it meant only one plane from an order of six was delivered. Even though I know what it means now, it is still convoluted. Doubly bad for Australians where 'knocked me for six' means something really surprising. The rewrite 'shortly followed by an order for six' does repeat the word 'order' but is a whole lot easier to read and understand. Or perhaps someone can think of different wording.  Stepho  talk 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How does "another for 6" grab you? (Does suggest the first was 6, too, tho. :  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 'another for six' works for me.  Stepho  talk 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Pleasure doing business with you. ;p  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks.  Stepho  talk 04:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

errors in Operational History
Feb'1st, 2016 -- under  the Wiki-   Operational History: statement includes  errs,  "...  including KLM test pilot Albert von Baumhauer . . ."

No, von Baumhauer was NOT employed by KLM; No von Baumhauer was NO Test Pilot.

See Transcript of ASB's additional  Public Hearing  of 11May'39. Included testimony from  Mr. H J. VanderReaj (sorry sp),  who described the background of the two Dutch engineers  aboard the mishap flight. Van Baumhauer, from the airworthiness authority of Holland,  had presented an RAeS lecture on S&C testing,  that paper printed in RAeS'  _The Aeroplane_,  issue dated  15Mar'39, "Testing the Stability and Control of Aeroplanes,"  [thus Mr VanB may never had seen his paper in print]. Van Baumhauer was an A-Licensed pilot (merely private pilot)  with only 116 hours of flying time. Also, see the final ASB AAR, pg 27, "116 hours" as a private pilot; and again later in the AAR, pg-51, Finding #8, and again at the bottom of pg-55. [The ASB's AAR is a poor copy, here is the PDF  2.3Mb, about 63 sheets copied.] See more: Failure-Interactions     — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGhhGI (talk • IGhhGI (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)contribs) 05:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 307 Stratoliner. 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/20061008071324/http://www.1940airterminal.org/houstonaviationtimeline.htm to http://www.1940airterminal.org/houstonaviationtimeline.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Howard Hughes' plane
It is now at Lakeland Linder Regional Airport, and undergoing restoration. I saw it there, and I have pictures, but since I know that personal research is discouraged, I'm not sure if I should include that information without finding any official source. (Diego bf109 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC))


 * It's best not to add it until you can cite a reliable published source. - BilCat (talk)

Flying status of NC19903
What is the current physical status of NC19903? Noha307 has mentioned that the modern instruments have been removed and fluids have been drained. The modern instruments are a legal issue, rather than a physical status. And fluids can be readily re-filled - assuming their lack hasn't allowed anything to deteriorate. If it can physically be made ready to fly with only minor servicing then it should be listed as in flying condition. If major parts need repair or replacing then of course it should not be listing as in flying condition.  Stepho  talk 09:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No response in 4 days, so I have reverted the changes by Noha307@undefined.  Stepho  talk 02:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Error (?)
I don't think this can be correct:

T&WA flight tested the modified undercarriage, and in hard landings, easily exceeded the contract's minimum required 500 ft/s (150 m/s) descent rate with a successful 800 ft/s (240 m/s) landing descent.

Does that not have to be ft/MINUTE??? 2001:1C08:6:9D00:569:D716:D5D7:BC77 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an error, we use the units that are used by the sources. - ꓛ \ ꓕ ⱯƎꓶZ  17:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled. 240 m/s is 537 mph. Nothing survives a landing that hard. Rairden (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Captain's end of flight message: "Ladies and gentlemen - we hope you survived your flight and will enjoy your destination."
 * I checked the reference (which is the most of the point of having a reference on Wikipedia) and it says "Tommy made the acceptance tests with Eddie Allen. One was to demonstrate a landing with a 500' per minute sink rate. Lloyd Hubbard was along and verified how they hit hard! Tommy added how, over his objections, Allen insisted upon a 800' sink rate. It did prove, however, the landing gear assembly was rugged and could "take it" under unusual circumstances."
 * Which means that 500 feet/second is wrong and should be correct to 500 feet/minute. Likewise for 800 figure.  Stepho  talk 23:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)