Talk:Boeing Pelican

Future sales prospects
It's been a bit over a decade since Boeing released details of the Pelican ULTRA. It's not a surprise to ponder the possibility that the Pelican has gone the way of other giant ekranoplan projects in being rejected for full-scale development because the cost of one company (or even two or more companies) building a prototype ekranoplan on the scale of the Pelican is generally considered staggering (in other words, it's the equivalent of the cost of hauling the hulk of a rusting shipwreck and selling it to a scrap dealer). If the US Army decides against commissioning full-scale development of the Pelican, it may be intuitive to offer the Pelican to freight companies o that they can find a low-cost means of hauling huge loads of freight over sea. Boeing may also consider developing a passenger variant of the Pelican that could carry 5,000-6,000 passengers and 564 crewmembers and accomodate a ballroom, sleeping berths, 56 lavatories, a parlor, and a galley.68.4.28.33 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Resource requests
If someone could check the following resources and add any new information to the article (or let me know how/where I can obtain those resources), it would be greatly appreciated.


 * Air International Magazine, October 2003 Issue (Airdata File: Technical data and illustrations, including general arrangement drawings, of the Boeing Pelican ULTRA and Boeing 7E7, collated by Alan Dawes.)
 * Air International Magazine, October 2003 Issue (Airdata File: Technical data and illustrations, including general arrangement drawings, of the Boeing Pelican ULTRA and Boeing 7E7, collated by Alan Dawes.)
 * Air International Magazine, October 2003 Issue (Airdata File: Technical data and illustrations, including general arrangement drawings, of the Boeing Pelican ULTRA and Boeing 7E7, collated by Alan Dawes.)

Doing some tweaks to an already-great article that deserves at least B-Class
I stumbled on the article by chance, and was surprised to see it rated as only C-Class. I assume it's been improved greatly since it was last assessed, and it's overdue for a new rating. I've begun doing the usual things you do before a new assessment (adding more cites, adding relevant wikilinks, removing wikilinks that aren't terribly useful or are duplicated, moving wikilinks to the first occurrence in the text, checking all the cites, etc.) I'll be back to do more in a week or so. If anyone else wants to chip in, that would be welcome. - Itsfullofstars (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)