Talk:Grumman Ag Cat

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
This section of the article should definitely include the Antonov An-2, because both are very large biplanes and often sued for aerial crop-dusting! 91.82.242.94 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Absurd Smithsonian claim tossed out to say anything about the Ag-Cat.
The problems with the claim are thus: Clearly the writer's knowledge doesn't extend to the distant past, or to any country outside the US, and this is far from the first such nonsense claim made by one of their writers. &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The claim itself is meaningless without some definitions. What constitutes major?
 * 2) It is a contrived claim that will only cause confusion - the sort the Smithsonian is FAMOUS for. Add enough conditions and anything can be true, but people forget the conditions, especially when there are several.
 * 3) It is preceded by multiple claimants to even that contrived (1957) claim.
 * 4) In the US, Huff Daland, who built the actual first purpose-built crop duster (pending the discovery of another earlier one), was in fact a major aircraft company. (~1924)
 * 5) Fletcher was a major aircraft company in NZ, and preceded them with their FU-24 top dresser (their term for the same basic activity). (1954)
 * 6) Auster was a major aircraft company in the UK, and preceded them with their Agricola (1955).
 * 7) Rockwell's Thrush Commander has its origins with the purpose-built Snow S-2. (1956)
 * Kind of shoots down the concept of WP:RS doesn't it? I mean the Smithsonian should be reliable, you would think.... That said I think you have made a good point here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A mass market magazine from an institution with "uneven" output. They certainly do the best, well-documented restoration work around, with a lot of research, but the expertise only sometimes extends to their non-specialist/mass market publications. On FB, their most recent 6 articles had 3 errors. Some were minor - F-4H-I instead of -1. Others less so. Other respectable museums have the same problem, as many hired web content producers with no prior knowledge of the subject matter. I don't ignore their articles, but I double check before using them as sources. The supersonic DC-8 checked out, for instance, with older publications.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we expect better of those institutions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We should send them a sternly-worded letter! - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)