Talk:Fairchild PT-19

Characteristics
Unreliable engine, average flight characterists. Had a bad tendency to wing tip stall just prior to landing.

Specifications for the PT-26A (perhaps to complement the ones in the article?) Power Plant: One Ranger L-440-C5 air-cooled inline piston engine of 200 hp (149 kW) Maximum Speed: 122 mph (196 km/h) Ceiling: 13,200 feet (4,023 m) Range: 400 miles (644 km) Empty Weight: 2,022 pounds (917 kg) Loaded Weight: 2,736 pounds (1,241 kg) Span: 36 feet 0 inches (10.97 m) Length: 27 feet 8 inches (8.45 m) Height: 7 feet 7 inches (2.32 m) Armament: None Crew: 2 [one student, one instructor] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmejia (talk • contribs) 00:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Survivors
The article mentions 98 survivors "today", to which I added a //when?// tag. More specifically, I wonder if a mention should be made of the crash of an ST3KR in August 2009, at Diest EBDT Airfield in Belgium, apparently through poor fuel management. Or is this too accidental? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2022

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - As there are no clear Supports or Opposes for this move, just random discussion, consensus for a move or not is unclear. As a matter of procedure, editors participating in an RM discussion should clearly identify their position as Support or Oppose in addition to the random discussion of sources and such. Mike Cline (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Fairchild PT-19 → Fairchild PT-19 Cornell – Traditionally, the name "Cornell" has been reserved for the Royal Canadian Air Force operated examples and not applied to those used by the United States Army Air Force. However, multiple sources  state that the official nickname for the airplane was "Cornell". The September 1944 parts catalog for the airplane includes the name "Cornell" under the heading "British Model", but this is common to manuals for other aircraft (e.g. B-25) that also list their American official nickname (e.g. Mitchell) under the same heading. According to WP:AIR/NC the standard format is Manufacturer-Designation-Name.

– Noha307 (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Was there ever an actual "Fairchild PT-19 Cornell"? I thought that the US ones were Fairchild PT-19s (not Cornell) and the RCAF/RAF were Fairchild Cornells (not PT-19). The article text does not currently put PT-19 and Cornell together; it is one or the other depending on the operator. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It is best to use the most common designation and official name, where applicable. This is usually the largest operator or maybe the operator that used it the longest. These are usual practice; I don't know enough about the PT-19 to make any specific comments. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Cornell" was only used by Canada, so no the article title is better left as it is. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a reliable source that states that PT-19 and Cornell were not used together? Establishing common parlance from 80 years ago can be difficult and the fact that it requires proving a negative makes it even more so. However, at the moment there are three sources saying the names were used together (or at least that "Cornell" was an official American name) and none that do not. I will admit that I am hesitant to say that the name Cornell was used in the United States, but I can't tell if this is the influence of years of inaccurate historiography. –Noha307 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * My first suspicion is that the university-series names (Harvard, Yale, Cornell) were originally applied by the RCAF and RAF, not the US. - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The only source I have to hand is the well-respected Kenneth Munson's book on Fighters Attack and Training Aircraft 1939-45 in the Blandford Colour Series. He covers this plane as the Fairchild PT-19, PT-23 and PT-26 (page 124). He mentions "Cornell" only once (page 125), in; "The Canadian-built PT26 and PT-26A were designated Cornell I and II." By comparison he also covers the North American AT-6 Texan (pages 122), making it clear in the following text that in RAF service it was known as the "Harvard". By and large, the evidence is very strong that the university names were RAF designations. Of the trio of sources mentioned in the move request, the first describes the AT-6 as the "Texan", the second does so but also includes the later AT-16 variant as the "Harvard" (which Munson gives more specifically as the "Harvard IIB", but only when in RAF service), and the third gives the AT-6 as the "Texan". There is therefore some confusion between these sources over the Texan/Harvard usage, so we may legitimately conclude that they cannot be relied on over the "Cornell" usage either. I do think that a few inconsistent tables, rushed together in wartime, can not be cherry-picked to refute the use of "Cornell" as one of the RAF-specific university-series designations. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reply with a "well-respected" author reminded me of something I had read a while back so I went and dug it out:
 * "The name 'Kaydet' was bestowed in 1941 when the government was promoting the use of 'popular' names instead of the actual type numbers for general public reference to military aircraft. This was to avoid giving away the actual development status, as B-17F or B-17G. This system did not catch on very well with the public and of course it didn’t go over at all with the service personnel to whom the minor distinctions were important. Little use of the name was made by the postwar civil owners of surplus 'Kaydets', who preferred to call their planes 'Stearmans' (even though they were actually Boeings) or to use the actual military designation. In recent years, however, the use of 'Kaydet' as a general reference to Stearman Models 70-76 has been on the increase and is so used in this text."
 * I'm not entirely sure which side of the debate, if any, it supports though. –Noha307 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thoughts:


 * Item 4. The parts manual for the PT1-19 does not use the construction "PT-19 Cornell", ditto items 5 and 6.
 * Item 3. Forums are not normally considered Reliable Sources for wiki. That said thee content transcribed seems to be copy of Item 1 and 2. I presume the Newspaper is just repeating the official press release.
 * The onus is to show that phrase "PT-19 Cornell" was used. The sources given show it appearing in 1943-1946 period only. Aircraft naming convention does say for article naming that " In some cases... inclusion of all these elements would not meet the common name policy". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, to endorse this move I would need to see sources that show the term "Fairchild PT-19 Cornell" was used officially and not just "Fairchild PT-19" in US service and "Fairchild Cornell" in RCAF and RAF service. We should not be creating new designations that were not officially used. - Ahunt (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This was partially intended to point out that the placement of the name under the "British Model" heading does not disqualify it as also being used by the USAAF, since other "British" names included in the same position are also official USAAF names. I was initially thinking it could be argued that it is circumstantial evidence for the same reason. However, I recognize that this can be read with a completely opposite interpretation.
 * To be clear, the sole purpose of providing link to the forum was because it had the transcribed text and there either wasn't a digitized version available elsewhere or the content was behind a paywall. I can vouch for the reliability of the transcription as the posts are actually my own and I did the transcription myself. I recognize that forums are not reliable sources and I make no claims as to the rest of the content in the thread, but in this case because it was verbatim reproduction of a reliable source it was valid to cite here. (However, I would never include the actual link to the post in any reference that actually ends up in the article.)
 * For what it's worth, the "press release" is sourced to the "Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of America".
 * Fair point.
 * I very much agree and hope that my intentions do not come across this way. –Noha307 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all! I think we are all trying here to aim for historical accuracy! This is just the means of debate to get there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point.
 * I very much agree and hope that my intentions do not come across this way. –Noha307 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all! I think we are all trying here to aim for historical accuracy! This is just the means of debate to get there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I very much agree and hope that my intentions do not come across this way. –Noha307 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all! I think we are all trying here to aim for historical accuracy! This is just the means of debate to get there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (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.