Talk:Curtiss C-46 Commando/Archive 1

Untitled
This entry appears to be copied from:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf6.htm

conditions of use from the site: " 2. Information presented on the USAF Museum web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied after coordination with the Museum's Public Affairs and/or Research Division. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested -- we suggest: "Photos/Information courtesy of the US Air Force Museum".

Department of Defense organizations may use web site material on official organizational pages without prior approval of the Museum staff. However, we'd appreciate a brief email describing the use for our records.

Most Information presented on the USAF Museum web site is available in the USAF Museum Archives which is open to the public for research purposes.

If you wish to use USAF Museum web site information (including photos) you should copy it from the original source material in the archives. In certain cases, the Museum's Public Affairs Division and/or the Research Division may approve reuse of material directly from the web site (i.e. copied or downloaded from the web site rather than from the original source location in the archives.) In many cases, donated photos and documents have instructions which apply to any reuse (commercial or otherwise).

These donated items are not in the unrestricted public domain. "

bob

No cruising speed listed
Anyone got one?

24.18.224.181 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)dustysquareback


 * Yep. I found a cruising speed of 173 mph in The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft (Silverdale Books 2002). SpartanCanuck 08:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents section
This list is now starting to engulf the article and is being separated into a sub-article. If every accident of a long-lasting transport type were listed, it would be unnecessarily long. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Curtiss vs Curtiss-Wright
Curtiss merged with Wright to form Curtiss-Wright quite some time before the C-46 was developed. The designation given by the company to this design was CW-20 - a new and completely different sequence from those used by Curtiss. If some sources have used Curtiss instead of Curtiss-Wright it was either in ignorance or laziness, and the name change for this page should have been discussed before it was made, especially since it is now incorrect. Curtiss did not built the Commando - Curtiss-Wright did.NiD.29 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it is the "common name" and universally described as such, Jane's identifies it as "Curtiss" from the Curtiss-Wright Airplane Division. FWiW, my boss owned two C-46s, and all manuals, materials identified the aircraft as the "Curtiss C-46". BTW, the last fighter project of the company was rolled out of the factory emblazoned with "Curtiss" in bold lettering over its nose. Bzuk (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Should we then rename each and every car article to something like, for example, the Ford Motor Company Focus? Did all those B-17s fly by the power of their Curtiss-Wright Cyclone engines? Curtiss made planes, Wright made engines. Not that complicated.--172.190.25.224 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your straw man is fatuous. The Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company (Curtiss) and Wright Aeronautical Corporation (Wright) merged in June 1929 - quite some time before the C-46 came along. I am not suggesting anything like the nonsense you've put forward - the name of the company was the Curtiss-Wright Corporation (Curtiss-Wright for short) - a different organization and a different wiki page from pre-merger Curtiss. Furthermore the 1938 edition of Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft (on page 261c) lists it as the "Curtiss-Wright model 20", while using just the Curtiss name for earlier types that lacked CW numbers.NiD.29 (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive the lateness of the reply, but hopefully your panties have unbunched after all this time. You can be as pedantically petulant as you wish, but Wikipedia and pretty much every source you'll ever see refers to the aircraft as the Curtiss C-46. You're just going to have to grit your teeth and try to live in an imperfect world filled with lesser beings than your exalted self. If it is any consolation, your little electronic hissy-fits may live on for eternity via the internet.--172.129.45.220 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please mind WP:CIVIL. However, the essence of your argument, once that is removed, is correct: "Curtiss C-46 Commando" is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME of this aircraft type - the only types I'm aware of, at least in the military arena, that have "Curtiss-Wright" as the WP:COMMONNAME are the CW-21 and CW-22; indeed, growing up I found it odd that in all my books those two types were "Curtiss-Wright" instead of "Curtiss" and always assumed it was an entirely different company! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the Curtiss Kittyhawk that was found in the Western desert a couple of years ago has a maker's plate that is headed:


 * "Curtiss Aeroplane Division"
 * "Curtiss-Wright Corporation"


 * See here at 1:01 -  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In a way it WAS a different company - from further research - after Curtiss and Wright merged, Curtiss retained its existence and identity within Curtiss-Wright as the Curtiss Aeroplane Division (as seen above), with new Curtiss designs (built as Curtiss, unhyphenated) running all the way until 1946 or so when their sequence ended at 99, coincidentally with the end of aircraft production. The Kittyhawk falls within this sequence, being a Curtiss model 87. Up until WW2, Curtiss-Robertson, originally set up to produce the Robin, designed and built a small number of aircraft under the CR- sequence, and from the merger until the end of aircraft production, Curtiss-Wright developed their own series under the CW- sequence. The Jane's from the time period actually gives three separate company entries, one for each of the Curtiss's. The Curtiss-Wright moniker is also used on a number of Travel Air designs whose development was continued under Curtiss-Wright. The CW-1 Junior, CW-14 Osprey, CW-15 Sedan and CW-16 are also primarily known by the Curtiss-Wright name. Oddly the Curtiss T-32 Condor is almost never referred to as a Curtiss-Wright but was designated CW-4. To add to the confusion, the Curtiss sequence was created in 1935 to retroactively cover all types back to 1916, with 75 being the first number assigned concurrently. That sequence has numerous errors and omissions and went through multiple revisions, and the numbers aren't always chronologically correct. Clear as mud yet?NiD.29 (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff. AFAIK the Commando was usually described as-per the common name, e.g., 'Curtiss C-46 Commando' at the time with the manufacturer being described as 'Curtiss-Wright', however I have seen the manufacturer just described as 'Curtiss'. FWIAW, the Spitfire was correctly described as the 'Vickers Supermarine Spitfire' after Vickers bought the Supermarine company however it's usually best known by the original 'Supermarine Spitfire' name.


 * BTW, a Flight archive search for the 'Curtiss Commando' with some early Curtiss advertising for the C-46 here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link - gotta love it when the company itself can't even be consistent - but then marketing departments are remarkably adept at doing whatever they want.NiD.29 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref for prohibition
"...Army General Matthew Ridgway famously issued an edict forbidding the aircraft's use in future airborne operations." Is there a ref for that? In spite of it being a moot point, did Ridgway have the authority to tell the Army Air Force what aircraft to provide?-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  15:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Single-engine rate of climb?
Near the end of the section "Design and Development," there's the statement that, "When empty, the aircraft could even climb on one engine at 200-300 feet per minute." Well, I should frickin' hope so! All of the multi-engine piston aircraft I've flown, up to and including the Lockheed Constellation, have been able to climb with an engine out, fully loaded to max gross weight, at several hundred feet per minute at sea level. It is an absolute certification requirement (as far as I know) for a multi-engine aircraft to be able to do so after an engine failure on takeoff at max gross weight, after achieving best single-engine climb speed (in the case of a twin). Saying that a C-46 could do so when empty is a foregone conclusion. Perhaps whoever wrote that meant a C-46 could do it at altitude, but if so, that should be said and the altitude specified.173.62.11.254 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I removed that uncited claim, as well as the (also uncited) sentence before it: "Tests indicated that the production C-46 was capable of carrying a substantial payload, and it could fly well on one engine." That sentence just states the obvious: the payload was clearly huge and if a twin-engine transport can't fly well on one engine, it won't be accepted. As for being able to climb at 200-300 ft/min on one engine when empty, FAA regs (Title 14, Part 121, "Appendix C to Part 121—C-46 Nontransport Category Airplanes") include a chart ("C-46 Max. Certificated Weight 48,000 Lbs. Enroute Climb Summary") which demonstrates what an underestimate that is, showing that, in standard conditions, the C-46 with one engine out has a sea-level climb rate of over 300 ft/min at 43,000 lb gross weight and 200 ft/min at 48,000 lb gross weight (the maximum allowed for civil cargo operation in most cases). --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Operators section
The operators section should be spun off into its own page, like the C-47 or the 737 ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)