Talk:Curtiss JN Jenny/Archive 1

Untitled
Suggest merging into a single article on the Curtiss JN "Jenny" aircraft. The JN-2 and JN-3 were used operationally in Mexico during the Pancho Villa Expedition


 * Vern Reisenleiter 20:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favour of maintaining separate articles about each variant...Fawcett5 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to merge the articles. They're essentially the same aircraft. We don't have separate articles for the P51-A through -F.

Sorry, should have done this before. Here is the proposed merged article. It gives a brief history of the JN series with emphasis on the JN-4. If there is no further objection, I will pull the two articles together on 5 Nov 2005. Vern Reisenleiter 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest the title of this be changed to Curtiss Jenny, or perhaps Curtiss JN--but JN4 is misleading.--Buckboard 07:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How to Fly a Jenny
Is this section really encyclopedic? I can understand a link to it, with the description of "popular bit of humour related to flying a Jenny" or something like that, but I'm not certain why it's included in the article itself. (And who exactly is the Sam Stites mentioned in it?) 156.34.221.174 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it for the time being. Text is below, if anyone can think of a way to make it encyclopedic:

Another variant...here or seperate?
The Curtiss N-9 was a seaplane variant of the JN-4, and is not yet covered in Wikipedia. I'm getting set to do an article on it, but would like input...because the airframe was fairly significantly modified, one could argue that it is different enough to cover it in a seperate article. Yet, there is also merit in keeping all the variants together in one place. Does anyone have opinions? Akradecki 05:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No response, so it'll get its own page, with a reference on this page. Akradecki 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Title change?
Every reference external to this article, and even in the article text, the model is JN-4...with a dash. I see no reason the this article should be JN4 without a dash. It goes against standard usage, and WP articles are supposed to reflect the common, standard usage. If I don't hear any objections, I plan on moving the article to Curtiss JN-4. Akradecki 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No response (I assume that means no one is actively watching this page), so I've made the move. Akradecki 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Engine
The article mentions several times that the engine in the Jenny was inline, but the article on the engine (the OX-5) linked from this article says that it was a V8. Which is correct? Or does inline refer to it being non-radial? Just trying to clear it up for myself. Demonbug 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Date formatting
This article is about a US aircraft. Per WP:MOS, the date formatting (Month/DD/YYYY) was established on December 21, 2008. Centpacrr (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a military training aircraft. Enuf said. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC).
 * This was a military trainer but was used for most of the time as a civilian aircraft. Irrespective of that, however, the date formatting was established as Month/DD/YYYY on December 21, 2008 and you made many edits to this article afterwards without ever raising a question about it that formatting. With respect, Bill, your unilateral and arbitrary attempt to change this now clearly violates both the spirit and letter of WP:MOS, as well as contradicts the very argument you have used elsewhere ("first major contributor") to justify your position on formatting in the Graf Zeppelin article as DD/Month/YYYY. You can't have it both ways. Centpacrr (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, many military aircraft go on to have a civilian life. FWiW, there is no change here, it's US, it's military, it uses the US military system. Bzuk (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC).
 * For the reasons stated above, this argument is diametrically opposed your own pervious position expressed elsewhere in discussion of the Zeppelin articles last week. I repeat, you really just can't have it both ways.


 * While the Jenny type was originally designed and produced as a trainer for the Army, it had a very much longer career as a civil aircraft. The date formatting of the article was established in 2008 as M/D/Y by its "first major contributor" (the very justification you give for changing the LZ 127 article from M/D/Y to D/M/Y), and you (and others) made many edits to it after that time without ever objecting to this formatting. With respect, Bill, your change in position now thus appears to be contrived and constitutes little more than Wikilawyering which is not supported by the MOS guidelines and is ultimately unhelpful. Centpacrr (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's like saying the B-17 is now a civil aircraft because its history is longer as a crop duster. FWiW, I've been consistent, US- US-military (D/M/Y), US-civil (M/D/Y), other nations (Usually D/M/Y). Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Images
This article now has a dozen images nine of which have been added in the last two days. That seems to me to be more than plenty for a article this size. Centpacrr (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's now thirteen with ten added in the last two days as well as image stacking (see WP:STACKING). Centpacrr (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are now fourteen images in this article. That's going the wrong direction. Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(*)

The image with the caption "The JN-4D on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force" in the "Operators" section of the article is, in fact, one of the Standard J-1s displayed in Dayton (one can see the museum photos of the aircraft on the NMUSAF info page at "http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=270" with the third of three photos available on the page showing it hanging just as in the photo in this article). When viewing a Jenny or Standard from the rear three-quarter view, as it is in this photo, one of the easiest ways to distinguish between the two types is where the front cockpit sits in relation to the rear cabane struts; the Standard's front "hole" is aft of the rearmost cabanes, while the Jenny's is ahead of the rearmost cabanes (in other words, the Jenny's front cockpit is positioned between the front and rear cabane struts under the wing center section).192.100.69.170 (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC) CBsHellcat

Design and development-update/clarification on the origin of the N-series?
Has anyone seen any references to confirm that the N-series was derived from an Avro design? If so, should the article be updated to note this? Supposedly, the designer was Thomas, formerly of Sopwith, as noted in the article.

Best regards TheBaron0530 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

surviving aircraft - citation needed
I'm going to remove the opening sentence to the "Surviving Aircraft" section - i.e., "About 50 Jennys survive...." - because the list only contains 34 aircraft. Saying 50 survive, without proof, and only listing 34, is pointless. Such information needs to be verifiable. Elsquared (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A definite error in the Curtiss JN-4 Jenny article.
Contrary to popular belief the Canadian JN-4 Cannuck was not simply a Curtiss design manufactured in Canada. The aircraft built by Canadian Aeroplanes Ltd and designated JN-4 by that company was NOT merely a Canadian built Curtiss JN-4. The Canadian firm had been building Curtiss JN-3s which were exported to the US as well as being sold in Canada. When the decision was made to produce a more advanced trainer during WWI (which Canada was then in and the USA not) the Canadian firm at first considered the Airco DH.6 which with the Avro 504 was in British service. Canadian Aeroplanes Ltd. in fact built a single DH.4. While the DH.4 was a notoriusly easy airplane to fly, in order to avoid disruption of manufacturing it was decided to design a follow on to the JN-3 then being produced in Canada. The redesign of the JN-3 was undertaken by F.G. Ericson and he produced an much improved design. The modifications involved ailerons on both upper and lower wings, and change from the Deperdussin controls to the Joy Stick in use in Europe. The rudder, wings and horizontal stabilizers were of a different configuration than the Curtiss JN-4. The structure was also of lighter construction. Simply put the Canadian Aeroplane Ltd. JN-4 though derived from the American Curtiss JN-3 as the American JN-4 was, was in fact a distinctly different aircraft. It was NOT merely a Canadian built Curtiss JN-4 despite the similarity of designation. Thus the information provided in this article is inadvertently wrong and misleading. I understand that some believe devoutly that Wikipedia should not adhere to the highest standards of scholarship. I also understand that it is not intended to be an exhaustive history of early Curtiss aircraft such as Lewis Casey's "Curtiss: The Hammondsport Era 1907-1915." Still as the Canadian Aeroplane Ltd. JN-4 and the American Curtiss JN-4 were essentially different though similar designs, should this article treat them as such instead of implying that the Canadian JN-4 was derived from the American JN-4? They were two similar efforts by two distinctly different firms working for essentially different customers. Both were derived from the JN-3 and they had similar dimensions and like designations but were distinctly different designs. Should this article adhere to historical truth by informing the reader that they were essentially unrelated though with similar designations? Or should it cater to ignorance? I am not arguing for a different article, rather perhaps an additional paragraph explaining that two distinctly different though similar designs, created by different deigners, at two distinctly different firms, for different customers, yet shared essentially the same designation? This article leaves the impression that the Canadian JN-4 was derived from the American JN-4 which is simply untrue. The designation was the same but the design of the Canadian JN-4 Cannuck had little to do with that of the Curtiss JN-4. For the record the Army serial numbers of the JN-2s, JN-3s and early JN-4s are given below:

JN-2, s/n 41 to 48. 41 to 44 & 48 were later equipped with JN-3 wings.

JN-3, s/n 52 & 53

JN-4, s/n 76 to 81, 120 to 125, 130 to 135 with the last batch ordered in early 1917.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I am being picky I know but!
In the "Variants" section the article states: "JN-4C — experimental version, only two were built."

Yet in the "Surviving aircraft" section the following examples are listed:

1 "10875 – JN-4C owned by John Shue in York, Pennsylvania."

2 "USASC 39158 – JN-4C on static display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa, Ontario."

3 "C1347 – JN-4C on display at the Royal Alberta Museum in Edmonton, Alberta, on loan from the Reynolds-Alberta Museum in Wetaskiwin, Alberta."

4 "Unknown ID – JN-4C airworthy at the Historic Aircraft Restoration Museum in Maryland Heights, Missouri."

5 "Unknown ID – JN-4C airworthy at the Pioneer Flight Museum in Kingsbury, Texas."

The meticulous resercher Joe Baugher lists only the following JN-4Cs, Army numbers 471 & 472. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1908-1920.html The JN-4C was distinguished by being modified from the preceeding JN-4B by having the RAF 6 airfoil and an OXX-3 engine.

The aircraft listed as "10875" has an interesting number as IF that is a US number it is in the middle of a block asigned to de Haviland DH-9s which were cancelled. Is the aircraft owned by John Shue the long lost #471 or #472? Is it a Canadian JN-4 (Can)? Alas Canadian Royal Air Force #10875 was American trainer design, a Fairchild PT-26B, which was a few decades and a second war too late to be a Jenny.

USASC #39158 is in fact a JN-4 (Can), aka JN-4Can, a Canadian JN-4 which is vaguely related to the American Curtiss JN-4D via development from the Curtiss JN-3. The Canadian JN-4 was like the Curtiss JN-4s as both were derived from the Curtis JN-3. But aside from having a Curtiss OX-5 engine the Canadian airplane was an entirely different design. The Canadian Aeroplanes Ltd. JN-4 was designed to Royal Air Corps specifications. While similar to the Curtiss JN-4 the Canadian airplane had a different lighter structure, wings, and tail surfaces. The Canadian JN-4 was originally considered structurally insufficient by the US Army though not Canadians, or barnstormers for that matter. Curtiss also built a version of the JN-4 to meet the specifications of the British, which was used by the US Army. The JN-4A (compare with the Canadian design JN-4). The correct Canadian s/n of the airplane is C227 which the Canada Aviation and Space Museum does not hide. Where the bogus USAC#393158 came from is your guess. http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/Blogvorm/canada-aviation-museum/

C1347 is on display at the Royal Alberta Museum in Edmonton. It is "City of Edmonton" which is a Canadian JN-4 built by Canadian Aeroplanes Ltd. It was donated to the city of Edmonton by J. Carruthers in 1919. It had previously been operated by May Airplanes Ltd. in its military markings. As far as the Canadian governmen was concerned it was registered G-CAAI by May-Gorman Aero Ltd. on May 7, 1920 and was so registered until April 30, 1924. Go figure!

The airplane at the Pioneer Flight Museum located in Kingsburty, Texas listed here as a JN-4C is clearly a Canadian JN-4 not a JN-4C. See: http://pioneerflightmuseum.org/aircraft/index.shtml

The JN-4C listed as being at the Historic Aircraft Restoration Museum is listed by them as a "Canadian JN-4C Canuck" (N4961C). It is a JN-4 Can (Canadian) s/n 496 and was asigned to Texas. for winter training at Camp Taliferro Field #1. http://www.airfields-freeman.com/TX/Airfields_TX_FtWorth_NW.htm#hicks It was transfered to the US Army Signal Corps in 1918. In US service it retained its Canadian serial number and therefore did not recive a US Army Signal Corps number (things were not always neatly done in the USASC during WWI). US ASC Serial Number 496 was assigned to a Curtiss S-6 according to US ASC records but as all but the first S-6 were cancelled perhaps it just wasn't considered important that US ASC records match reality. It was sold to Curtiss after the war.

As for the "Replica – JN-4C airworthy at the Eagle's Mere Air Museum," it is clearly a replica Canadian JN-4 Canuck and not a JN-4C. It even says so on its side. https://www.eaglesmereairmuseum.org/wp-content/themes/eagles-mere-air-museum/assets/images/aircraft/1917-jn4c-curtiss-jenny.jpg

Of the JN-4Cs cited as being in existance by the Wikipedia not one is a Curtiss JN-4C unless Mr. Shue has an extremely rare airplane (it probably is a Canuck).

What to make of this confusion? Poor research. I have been admonished by the Wikipedia Gods for having the belief that Wikipedia should be a factual encyclopedia instead of a sloppy mess. Perhaps a bit of research and inspection by others might be in order to adjust the poor research in the JN-4 article?

Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Being picky can be good! Believe me when I say I can really associate with that! However, the problem is not poor research. The problem is the need to WP:PROVEIT with reliable sources. I did a lot of the work cleaning up the surviving aircraft section a while ago and I will try to recall the reasons for each identification. For example, the USASC serial number 393158 is actually not bogus. As per the CASM's website:


 * During this work the American serial 39158 was found on the upper right longeron in the rear cockpit, establishing the original identity of the machine for the first time.


 * So, while it may not be the Canadian serial number, it is indeed a number that has been associated with that airframe. However, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum also describes the airframe as a "Canuck" and states that it is different from the American JN-4. A different page on the CASM website also does give a number of "C227 (RFC)". However, it is described as a "registration number" – making it sound like a civilian identification. Therefore, I believe my reasoning at the time may have been to use a confirmed serial number, rather than a possible civilian registration. Furthermore, the use of a USASC serial number seemed to imply that it was built in the United States, not Canada. It was not until I read the Pioneer Flight Museum page (see below) today that I realized this was not the case.


 * The variant identification of 10875 is taken directly from the FAA database. Unfortunately, the FAA just calls 10875 a "serial number" without clarification as to which type it is. So, unless you have a reliable source that contradicts the identification of this specific airframe, we cannot change it.


 * The airframe at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum is identified on their website as a "1918 Curtiss JN-4 Canuck". So you are correct that the variant should be changed. However, at the same time it actually does not mention the serial number (hence the reason for the failed verification tag), so the serial number should technically be changed to "Unknown ID".


 * The airframe at the Historic Aircraft Restoration Museum is described on their website as a "Canadian Aeroplanes Ltd Cannuck JN-4C". However, the FAA database calls it a "JN4CAN". Putting two and two together, I think it is reasonable to change the identification in the article to a JN-4(Can). (However, it is worth noting that "putting two and two" together can also be problematic due to rules on synthesis.)


 * The airframe at the Pioneer Flight Museum is identified by the FAA database as a JN-4C. However, the museum website does describe it as a Canuck. This appears to be a case of the airframe being registered under a different identity than it actually is. Therefore, it seems to be reasonable to change the identification in the article to a JN-4(Can).


 * I expect that you are correct about 10875 as well, but keep in mind that Wikipedia's goal is verifiability, not accuracy. So if the reliable sources are wrong, then Wikipedia has to be wrong.


 * As a final note, I apologize if I sound lecture-y, so I hope it doesn't come across that way. Thanks for the corrections. –Noha307 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Upon further review of the history of the airframe in the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, it appears that it never saw service in the Canada and only flew for the USASC (and civilians). Therefore, C227 is actually the "bogus" serial number, as it was painted on the airframe only for the sake of display (or at least only existed on "paper" for the sake of record keeping). As per the museum's website (linked above):


 * Manufactured in 1918, this JN-4 was one of 680 machines supplied to the U.S. Air Service by Canadian Aeroplanes Limited. After the First World War, it entered civilian service until it was purchased in 1926 by Edward Faulkner of Honoeye Falls, New York. In 1932, Faulkner decided to store the aircraft, as he rarely used it. He hung it from the roof of his barn, where it remained for over thirty years.


 * The Museum purchased the aircraft in 1962, and it was put on public display for the first time during Air Force Day in June of the same year. Between 1962 and 1964, the Museum restored the aircraft to represent a typical JN-4 "Canuck" used in the First World War. It is painted as an aircraft from No. 85 Canadian Training Squadron, with the squadron's insignia - a distinctive black cat - on the fuselage.


 * I guess this is the importance of verifiability! –Noha307 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move and merger 22 May 2021

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Curtiss JN-4 Jenny → Curtiss JN Jenny – This article covers not only the JN-4, but all JN variants except the oddly specific Curtiss JN-6H. I don't think the JN variants are notable enough to have their own articles per WP:AIR/N, so I propose that this article be moved to cover the entire JN line and that the Curtiss JN-6H article be merged with this one. ZLEA T \ C 18:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems proposed this very same thing back in 2013. - ZLEA  T \ C 19:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree about the move - currently it sort of partly covers the earlier versions (i.e. the JN-2 and JN-3 - it is unclear whether there ever was a pure JN-1) but as an aside to the various JN-4s. The JN-6H should either be merged into this article or all the Hispano-powered aircraft split off - there is little reason to treat the JN-6H separately to the near identical JN-4H. There is probably a stronger argument for treating the twin-JNs as a separate type and giving them a separate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not against splitting off the Hispano-powered variants, but we don't generally split off variants with different engines unless the modifications made to the aircraft are significant enough to make it a different type. I would say most, if not all, "Special" Jennys are different enough to have their own articles. -  ZLEA  T \ C 03:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to existing Curtiss JN-4 Jenny but not move. The rationale for the proposal does not seem to be quite right. Indeed, WP:AIR/N conflicts with the main guideline on WP:NOTABILITY. The main guideline is clear that notability is NOT a criterion for whether a new article is created; its section WP:PAGEDECIDE states that "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable" . So where WP:AIR/N states that "a subtype may be notable if its parent article requires splitting and it meets any one of the following criteria:", it must be understood to mean that "a notable sybtype may require its own article if...". I won't quote more of those guidelines, but I would suggest that the relevant issue here is the aircraft specification. To avoid clutter, we only have one detailed type specification per article. If another subtype also deserves a detailed specification then we split off a separate article for it. So the key question we should be asking ourselves is; is the JN-6H specification significant enough to be given in addition to the JN-4D? If not, then a merge is the way to go. My only general source on this is Angelucci and Matricardi's World Aircraft; Orignins - World War I, Sampson Low Guides, 1977. Their entry is titled "Curtiss JN-4" and covers the wider series from the JN-1 through to the JN-6H. The 6H was produced in similar numbers to the Canuck and 4H but less than the 4D. Sampson Low's entry gives detailed specs for the 4D and 4H. The 6H differed from the 4H principally in being armed, for gunnery training. So if we did split, per I would go for the re-engined 4H/6H range. But even the engine change between the 4D and 4H "did not involve a great many changes", mainly "radiator area and fuel capacity". So I don't see the JN-6 spec as significant enough to tabulate; the few salient changes can be added to the main article text. And since most of the rest is already in the JN-4 article, there is no rationale left for the split. As for the article title, the JN-4 was by far the most common and, since our current title for the main article aligns with Sampson Low, we should stick with it.  &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter M Bowers' ''Curtiss Aircraft 1907–1947 deals with the JN series in a chapter titled "The Jenny". Angelucci and Matricardi is not a great source and we probably shouldn't be putting much credence on what it uses for names.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These are hoary old issues. No source is perfect. Per WP:RS, A&M are a thoroughly reputable tertiary source; the fact that Sampson Low put their name to it should tell you that alone. Per WP:AIR/NC, unless overridden by WP:COMMONNAME, we default to manufacturer type name, which Bowers fails to meet. An Internet search on Curtiss Jenny (without quotes) will give you a better idea; lots of "JN-4 Jenny", almost as many plain "Jenny", no "JN Jenny" to speak of. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling the JN-3 a variant of the JN-4 would be just as wrong as calling the P-51A a variant of the P-51D. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here as "JN-4" is the name of the most well known variant and not the type as a whole.  Plus, even if it did apply, "JN-4" still identifies the aircraft as "JN" (plus a variant number), just as "P-51D" identifies the aircraft as a "P-51" (plus a variant letter). -  ZLEA  T \ C 14:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there could be a separate "Curtiss JN Jenny" page with the JN-4 being a separate article, but if the article is titled "JN-4" it should cover only the variants that had the designation and any direct derivatives. - ZLEA  T \ C 14:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I gave my vote and I am not going to change it. Please do not ping me again if all you want to do is argue your own case. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What about this aircraft is different from other aircraft that makes the designation of a variant the designation of the type as a whole? Sources making mistakes and listing all variants under "JN-4" is hardly a reason. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A better question, are you against the Model JN as a whole having its own article separate from the JN-4? - ZLEA  T \ C 15:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.