Talk:Boeing 377 Stratocruiser/Archive 1

Pluralisation of "Guppy"
Hi, I've noticed that in the Aero Spacelines/Guppys section, all instances of the word "Guppys" have been changed to "Guppies". It is, however, uncertain what the plural is. Many people use "Guppies", however many experts seem to use "Guppys". For example: - www.allaboutguppys.com --GW_Simulations 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural seems to point towards Guppies.Chris.Bristol (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC) See below as wellChris.Bristol (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

'Only double deck aircraft untill the B747'
It is stated on Double-decker that some seaplanes were double deck, long (in aviation terms) before the 377. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.175 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 13 May 2006
 * That is true. Boeing, Short, Saunders-Roe, Blohm+Voss, Leo all made double deck flying boats before this. MoRsE 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Make that Double-deck aircraft. Peter Horn User talk 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would changing "airplanes" to "aircraft" fix anything? A flying boat is still an airplane as well as an aircraft.173.62.11.254 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why serious design flaws and a marginal service record...
...when the B50 and the C97 were successes? 66.28.178.68 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At a guess, probably because the entire airceraft wasn't designed as an airliner, but merely an adaptation of the of the 367/C-97's airframe. In addtition, even tho Boeing had designed a number of airliners to this point, none really enjoyed any kind of success, and most (if not all), never exceeded 50 built. THe 707 was Boeing's first real success in civil aviation, and the fact that its fusalage was redesigned twice (367-80 - 4 abreast, then the C-135 - 5 abrest), shows that Boeing was really trying to get what the customers desired this time, and it really paid off. - BillCJ 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the few a/c that had to land on the nose wheel first, including the Guppy version. Landing on the mains required a slower and unsafe airspeed. Wing angle must have been excessive, and was never corrected in the production a/c. Nose-first landings can cause ballooning, which is dangerous for heavies; much more so than for lights.203.213.60.7 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Other double-deck airplanes?
Besides the Saunders-Roe SR-45, and Dornier-Do-x, what other pre-747 double-deck airplanes were there? We should creation a collection article for them. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several listed at Double-decker, but there is no article that specfically lists or covers them as a group. It might be a good idea to post this on the Talk:Double decker page. Double-deck aircraft would be a good location for such an article. - BillCJ (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! - BillCJ (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Marginal service record?
The first sentence says the aircraft had a marginal service record. I don't see any later discussion in the article to substantiate this. Is the meaning that it was hard to change the oil or that it had a high number of fatalities? If the latter, 141 seems low for the years flown. However, if fatalities are meant, perhaps the phrase "marginal service record" could be elucidated.


 * An article in Flying Magazine explains this statement, which is sort of explained in the Safety Record section. In the Safety Record section, you'll notice a bunch of incidents in the early days of the plane's career.  In those days, air travel was viewed as being more dangerous than other means, and it only took a couple of accidents and no one would want to fly on the plane. Military operators of the plane can ignore or deal with such issues, but in those days, an Airline had dual obstacles, high ticket prices, and potentially low ridership due to public fear of the plane or of air travel in general.VeeFourAJ (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Stratocruiser and associated aircraft used Curtiss Electric propellers and these differed from the more usual propeller by being electrically rather than hydraulically operated. Unfortunately the difficulties involved in making a reliable electric pitch change system at that time meant that simple faults such as dirty or damp electrical contacts meant that the propeller pitch could change suddenly without warning, either going to fully fine pitch or perhaps even feathering the blade, allowing the propeller and engine to overspeed causing the propeller to shed a blade, or the engine to disintegrate due to over revving. If a blade was shed the engine would shake itself off the airframe due to out-of-balance forces if not shut down quickly. In addition, the blades were originally of hollow steel construction and these exacerbated the problems. And the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major engines themselves also had reliability issues, at least initially.

"One Minute to Ditch!"
Cornelius Ryan's book, One Minute to Ditch!, is about a Pan American Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, Sovereign of the Skies, (N1032V) that successfully ditched in the Pacific Ocean, March 26, 1955, off the Oregon coast. He had written an article about the ditching for Collier's in their December 21, 1956, issue and then expanded it into the book.


 * Ryan, Cornelius. - "One Minute to Ditch!". - Collier's Weekly. - December 21, 1956.
 * Ryan, Cornelius, (1957). - One Minute to Ditch!. - New York: Ballentine. 158 pages.

Might want to fit it in? ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Might be more relevant in the accident article Pan Am Flight 845/26. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Inverted figure 8
What exactly is meant by "6600 cubic feet of interior space was provided by the “inverted-figure-8” doubledeck fuselage design"? 8 is symmetric in both axes as drawn onscreen in the font used by Wikipedia, so 'inverting' it doesn't really make sense. A better explanation -- a diagram, perhaps? -- might help. --99.236.241.209 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * in some fonts, the numeral 8 has a smaller circle on top of a slightly larger circle. That's what is meant by inverted figure 8, the lower deck had a smaller diameter than the upper deck.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeeFourAJ (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says this now. --Compdude123 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article still just says “inverted figure 8.” That makes no sense unless we specify some font where the smaller circle is on the top as the “normal figure 8,” which seems unhelpful and unencyclopedic. I’ll change to “a figure 8, with the smaller loop on the bottom.” Edison (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Unplanned obsolescence
"propeller planes such as the Stratocruiser became obsolete" Actually, they became uncompetitive for major airlines, & many would've been sold off to feeder lines. Except I can't source it... Can somebody? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Circular origin of Stratocruiser
"The Boeing 377, also called the Stratocruiser...was developed from the C-97 Stratofreighter, a military derivative of the Stratocruiser used for troop transport."

65.210.59.2 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)LaurencKlein@gmail.com


 * Well spotted I have changed itto show that the C-97 was a derivative of the B-29. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy and readability in heading paragraph, Design and Development and Operational History
I am a newbie to editing Wikipedia articles so please forgive any gaffes! May I suggest that this article needs a bit of help by an expert? There are a few inaccuracies and it is a little clumsily written in comparison with Wikipedia's normal standard, for example:

"These planes were mega transports that could hold either a massive amount of cargo, or several decks of passengers. The main thing that was done to these aircraft to modify them was adding a huge dome like addition to the top." (Referring to the Guppy not the 377.)


 * They were never intended for passengers and probably not certified for them.
 * They weren't intended to carry a "massive amount" of cargo, whether this description was intended to imply mass or volume, they were intended for large indivisible loads like aircraft parts.
 * There was not a "dome" on the top - it was a fat cylinder.

Paragraph 2 "The aircraft had surprisingly low fuel consumption for the era" Design and development Para 1 "but the P&W R-4360 Wasp Major engines proved uneconomical"
 * These two sentences are inconsistent. The first sentence has no reference. The second one has a reference and it's possible that it means uneconomical to maintain rather than uneconomical on fuel, in which case the sentences could become consistent - but we can't assume that without checking the reference.
 * I've removed both sentences.

Para 5 "Guppys, which were versions of the Stratocruiser with an enlarged fuselage and turboprops."
 * The first Guppies did not have turboprops.
 * I've removed that reference to turboprops.

Repetition
 * In other paragraphs it repeats itself about replacement by jets, about the Guppies and the two floors.

References
 * There are not many references for the main part of the text, some of it refers to [1] http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/m377.html, but that very short article does not cover most of the points made.

I'll make some basic corrections and try to find some references. Chris.Bristol (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for helping out with this article. BTW most of this info was added by someone who was in good faith trying to expand the lead but IMHO, they made it longer than the other sections of the article.  So I trimmed down the lead and cut/pasted stuff to other parts of the article.  But I must have done a fairly sloppy job with that, so I appreciate your willingness to improve this article.  Thanks, Comp dude 123 03:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this. I've removed the last paragraph of "Operational History" and a similar bit from the first paragraph of "Aero Spacelines Guppy". The article probably will still need tidying up though. Chris.Bristol (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll shorten the heading section and move some excess bits to the Design and Development or Operational History section that aren't already repeated there. Chris.Bristol (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto the thanx. Anybody with good intentions is welcome. :) With good sources, even moreso. :D One thing, tho. Since it's a proper noun, it should be Guppys, not Guppies. Unless you think the plural of Kennedy is Kennedies...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a sort of exception to an exception to a rule! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural says "The rule does not apply to words that are merely capitalized common nouns [like] P&O Ferries (from ferry)". Since a guppy is a type of fish, "guppy" is a common noun


 * with the plural guppies Chris.Bristol (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

and "Guppy" a capitalised common noun, so I think it should be "Guppies". Chris.Bristol 13:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Due to various changes there are now only two plurals - one of each! I'll follow Wikipedia's advice on plurals and change the one occurrence of Guppys to Guppies. Chris.Bristol (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not merely "capitalized common noun", it's a name, adopted by the user (to wit, Super Guppy). Hence, "Guppys" is the correct plural. Unless, as already said, you think the plural of Kennedy (also a name) is "Kennedies".  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Compdude and TREKphiler for your encouragement on my first attempt to edit a Wikipedia page! Chris.Bristol (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Details which might be better put on the KC97 page if valid:
 * "with many more military successors to follow."


 * "The jet-powered Boeing 707 would regain Boeing's dominance in the civil airliner market," is more-or-less repeating a previous sentence.


 * "while the KC-135 would continue to serve as a jet tanker into the twenty-first century. The Lockheed C-130 of the mid-1950s was somewhat similar in size and speed, but it had turboprop power and was designed from the start as a combat airlifter, with a tail ramp and ability to operate from rough fields, so is not strictly comparable." Chris.Bristol (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris.Bristol (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Accuracy
 * I've shortened the heading section, by moving it to Operational History, removed the repetition from that and Design and Development and tidied them up.
 * I've removed the paragraphs about the Guppies and the Anak as that was repetition of the information in the Variants section.
 * It looks a bit short now! Chris.Bristol (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Changed the information about what is on the two decks to match what the consensus seems to be on other sites, but I haven't got a reliable reference and there may have been alternative arrangements for different airlines. Chris.Bristol (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Another 60 of this general design, with significant engineering differences, were built as C-97 military transports"
 * The C97 page says 888 as does McDonald Aircraft Handbook 1966. There were 60 built of one model not in total so it is a misleading statement.


 * The 377 was larger and longer-ranged than...
 * There is a statement on another site that this airliner struggled to fly the Atlantic East to West as it had shorter range than its rivals.

I am beginning to think that everything needs thorough checking! Chris.Bristol (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * References again
 * Now it's clearer what the page is trying to say it would be good to check the accuracy and provide some adequate references. Many statements have no reference and many use [1]http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/m377.html which is only a couple of paragraphs which don't cover the statements made. Chris.Bristol (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Date style
I reverted some edits by that changed the date style for writing dates in this article from the American-style (month-day-year) to the European style (day-month-year). I did not agree with this change; since this is an American-built aircraft, it ought to have American-style dates. Having the European style date format in an article about an American aircraft makes absolutely no sense at all, so please do not change it. Thanks, Comp dude 123 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is I believe normal in American military articles to use d-m-y style. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems weird, but this is an aircraft built in America by an American company and mostly used by American airlines. &mdash;Comp dude 123 19:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be wierd but you cant get anymore American than General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon which uses the d-m-y format! MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and I dont have a view on what this article uses just pointing out that USA=m-d-y is not allways true. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What was the prevalent style before the change? Since, as I understand the MOS, stable is preferred over either in particular. (Mil's also right, military standard is d/m/y.) And as long as it's clear (& not just 2/7/98...which could as well be 2 July 1498 as 7 Feb 1998...), what's the fuss?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Before I edited the article, there was a mixture of date styles. The Safety record section was almost all in ddmmyy format, while other places in the article were in mmddyy format. Since there were more ddmmyy dates than mmddyy dates in the article, I changed all of the mmddyy dates to the ddmmyy format, per the MOS guideline that Trekphiler refers to in the above comment. The edit had nothing to do with American- vs European-style dates. Rather, it was all about consistency. Comp makes the argument that mmddyy is preferred because the article is about an American-built aircraft built by an American company. I'm fine with that. The main goal of having all dates in the same format changed is achieved. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at WP:STRONGNAT, it says "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day...". Since this aircraft has American ties and it's not a military aircraft, it should use the month-day-year style.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 01:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "should generally" Yes. Not "must always". As said, agreement over preference. So what was the stable state? It appears D/M/Y was more common.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the changes made to use the mmddyy format everywhere in the article. Truthanado (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have worked on projects throughout the world, so I can understand virtually any style of date. Personally, I prefer the ISO 8601 standard of dates yyyymmdd, since it's easy to electronically sort dates in a list. Most of our Wikipedia readers, though, have difficulty with ISO 8601, so a different date format is typically used. Since most of the world uses ddmmyy format, (and that has been adopted by the US Government in official government documents) I use ddmmyy whenever I can, although mmddyy is also acceptable. As I said in my earlier post, what's more important than a specific date format is consistency (all dates in an article follow the same format). Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @trekphiler: the next section on that MOS article, WP:DATERET, says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic [my empahasis] or consensus on article talk." The "strong national ties" argument is why I brought up this issue in the first place.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 05:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To be clear, tho, I'm not opposed, I just don't see the point. If the dates are clear & they're standard, which would seem the necessaries, who cares?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't look right, and when something doesn't look right I want to be bold and fix it. That's the spirit of Wikipedia; when something's wrong, you click edit and fix it!  &mdash;Comp dude 123 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's been reason enough for me, too. :) This doesn't bug me. :)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It bugged me, I fixed it, and it's fine. No need to continue going on about this.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus; no move. The fact that "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" is not commonly used in reliable sources is problematic to gaining consensus support for this title. As Bobrayner suggests, if the most common name is "Stratocruiser", then that should be the proposed title. B2C 15:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 377 → Boeing 377 Stratocruiser – Since the last time this page was moved to the proposed title, then moved back, the general consensus for aircraft article titling has changed from "manufacturer and model" to "manufacturer, model and name". Therefore I believe it would be appropriate per both WP:AIR naming standards and WP:COMMONNAME for the full name of the aircraft to be used. The Bushranger One ping only 13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By about twenty to one better known simply as Boeing 377. Apteva (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not really,
 * Boeing Stratcruiser 39k ghits
 * Boeing 377 143k
 * 377 Stratocruiser 109k
 * Boeing B377 Stratocruiser 67k
 * Boeing 377 Stratocruiser 73k
 * Stratocruiser 306k
 * So, it would be a better title with "Stratocruiser" than without, considering the differing uses of the terms. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Stratocruiser" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only twice as common as Boeing 377 in a raw google search, so I wouldn't say it's anything "by far" -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – I think that it was better known as the "Stratocruiser" than the "Boeing 377." And it's just like how the 787 is marketed by Boeing as the "Dreamliner." After all, most military aircraft articles have the aircraft's model designation and its name. (i.e. the article for the B-17 is titled "Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress" instead of "Boeing B-17.") &mdash;Comp dude 123 00:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If "Stratocruiser" is the common name, then move it to Stratocruiser. "Stratocruiser" is not the same as "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser", and the numbers above show that "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" is far from the most common name. bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common Name isn't the only factor in titling articles, and doesn't automatically trump all other factors either. Regarding the Article titles policy, in particular note titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box. The current consensus for aircraft articles at WP:AIR/NC is to use the m-d-n for all aircraft articles, where applicable. This issue of a strictly literal interpretation of Common Name vs WP:AIR/NC has been discussed in depth at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft). - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per the aircrat project's naming conventions, which is to use the Manufacture-designation-name (m-d-n) format for all aircraft articles, where all 3 elements are common. "Boeing", "377", and "Stratocruiser" are all common elements used in reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - This is what the aircraft naming guidelines recommend, I see on strong argument to differ from the guidelines. The Stratocruiser name is indisputably linked with this aircraft. Kyteto (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move February 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 377 → Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (or Boeing Stratocruiser). I've done further research in the ~nine months since the previous discussion (which NAC'd with a result not seeming in line with the discussion, but c'est la vie). To wit, looking at both gHits (problematic but a baseline barometer of sorts) and gBooks hits, we have:


 * gHits:
 * "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" + "Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser" = 150,500
 * "Boeing 377" with "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" results subtracted + "Boeing Model 377" with "Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser" results subtracted = 68,700
 * "Boeing Stratocruiser" = 34,700


 * gBooks:
 * "Boeing Stratocruiser" = 8,240
 * "Boeing 377" with "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" results subtracted + "Boeing Model 377" with "Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser" results subtracted = 4,230
 * "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" + "Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser" = 2,680

Therefore (given the convention to drop "Model" from aircraft page titles in most cases) it seems that either "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" - which would fit the naming convention for aircraft page titles - or "Boeing Stratocruiser" is the WP:COMMONNAME in sources, the former collecting more than twice as many gHits as the current name, and the latter almost twice as many gBooks hits as the current name. It should be noted, however, that the 'official name used by Boeing is "Model 377 Stratocruiser". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Boeing 377 Stratocruiser - per nom, and current WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Hopefully we'll get a neutral closer this time, not one who has opposed the M-D-N guidelines on multiple occasions, IIRC, without gaining a consensus to change the current guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support "Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" per nom -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support some move Red Slash 20:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for the very same reasons as I mentioned in the previous RM. &mdash;Comp dude 123 23:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This does appear to be the most common name used in association with the Boeing 377, but the titles of Boeing series aircraft are inconsistent. For example, the Boeing 307, commonly known as the Stratoliner, does not include that name in the title. I agree with the comment by User:BilCat suggesting that this should be closed by an administrator who has not previously been involved in anything relating to this discussion.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   04:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That one probably should be moved later, I'll poke around at how common "Stratoliner" is when I get a chance. Thanks for pointing it out! - The Bushranger One ping only 04:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, and for changing 307 to Boeing 307 Stratoliner.NiD.29 (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Boeing 377 Stratocruiser
I remember in the 70s or 80s, a Boeing 377 from a Mexican(?) airline crashed shortly after takeoff. It could not get any altitude and crashed. Supposedly, a block of wood was jamming a control. It was supposedly surprising that it was still flying. Does anybody but me remember this?

November 8, 1957 Pan Am Flight 7 sabotage?
the paragraph on the November 8, 1957 Pan Am Flight 7 crash offers an uncited account of sabotage that is not mentioned at all in the Wiki article on that flight.

Is it factual?

Does it belong in both? Or Neither?

What's this navigation instrument?
There's a cool YouTube video about the 377. At phttps://youtu.be/xDgWUf36Buw?t=297}4:57], it shows the navigator using some large electronic instrument. In the front it looks like a viewing hood for a CRT. Anybody have any idea what it might be? Loran-A, maybe? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, did some more searching. that has to be it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)