Talk:Curtiss NC-4

Did the NC-4 fly again?
There are differing stories as to whether the NC-4 flew again after re-assembly in New York. At least one source states that she never flew again; another (here) states that "she made an aerial tour of Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities, flying up the Mississippi River as far as St. Louis". Can anyone shed more light on this? Thanks --TraceyR (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this an aircraft article?
Usually an article about an aircraft describes that aircraft (Design and Development, Operational history, Variants, Specifications etc.) This article is almost entirely about the transatlantic flight. Given that this was in effect the NC-4's only operation, this is understandable, but should there really be two aircraft articles covering the same aircraft, i.e. Curtiss NC and NC-4, especially since the NC-4 was not different from the other NC aircraft? Shouldn't this article really be renamed and amended to be e.g. First Transatlantic Flight.TraceyR (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is another type of article, which is about a single aircraft. Some of these articles are about types of which therte was only one built, such as the Spirit of St. Louis. The other is about an aircraft which was one of many of one type, such as the Enola Gay, which was a B-29. This is the second type. - BilCat (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Artifacts donated to Maine Air Museum
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150266933431857&id=146233101856

Artifacts from the first transatlantic flight are being donated to Maine Air Museum on Friday, August 12th at the Maine Air Museum, 98 Maine Avenue at 11:00 a.m.

Mary Rowe, granddaughter of aircraft mechanic, John G. Lyman, will be formally donating artifacts from the aircraft NC-4 to the Maine Air Museum. The NC-4 was the first plane to successfully cross the Atlantic in 1919.

FWIW... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seaplane or Floatplane?
There is some confusion about whether the NC places were seaplanes or floatplanes, and some of that is historical -- depending on the evolution of such aircraft. 1. Arguments in favor of "seaplane". These planes seem to have floated on their fuselages, and they were rather large, four-engined aircraft, something that could be seen later on in large seaplanes of WW II. Also, what about the Pan American Clippers of the prewar 1930s, 1940, and '41, which were than pressed into service by the Navy as VIP transport planes. 2. Arguments in favor of "floatplane". Maybe that thing on the bottom was one large float, with the fuselage attached abover. Also, the NCs only carried six men, far fewer than the Pan American Clippers, for example, which carried about 30 (total) passengers and crewmen on transpacific flights. The same number applied to the Navy's Martin PBM flying boats -- a twin-engined plane. I believe that the big Japanese Kawasaki "Mavis" patrol seaplanes had four engines. 3. However, I keep on being drawn back to FOUR engines, a lot more than the single-engined floatplanes (Kingfishers, etc.) of the U.S. Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy of WW II. Those floatplanes were small enough to to be fired from the catapults of heavy cruisers, light cruisers, and battleships. They did an amazing variety of jobs for the U.S. Navy including scouting for enemy warships, spotting the landing of shellfire during bombardments, antisubmarine warfare patrols, and carrying valuable officers here and there for conferences and other duties. I don't doubt that they occasionally carried sick or wounded sailors and Marines to the hospitals on shore bases when there was a pressing need. 4. Unfortunately, when I went the the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola about a decade ago, the NC-4 was back in the workrooms having preservation work done on her! I never saw her, and to be truthful, I didn't even know that she was anywhere in that museum. If I had known that she was in some back workroom or hangar, then I could have at least ASKED if I could be taken back to see her. The answer might have been "No", but at least I could have tried. 98.81.4.166 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

NC-4 or Curtiss NC-4
Since "NC" stands for "Navy Curtiss", "Curtiss NC-4" seems redundant (like "ATM Machine"). Any period references actually calling it by this name? I'm only familiar with it being called the "NC-4". -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you point out the sources which demonstrate that this confusion exists? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curtiss NC-4. 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/20031205105647/http://naval.aviation.museum/exhibits/NC_4.html to http://naval.aviation.museum/exhibits/NC_4.html

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) 18:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curtiss NC-4. 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/20120916013528/http://artandhistory.house.gov/highlights.aspx?action=view&intID=331 to http://artandhistory.house.gov/highlights.aspx?action=view&intID=331

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) 00:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)