Talk:Republic RC-3 Seabee

History section
A good chunk of the history section really belongs in a bio of Percival Spencer. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Percival Spencer wouldn't get many viewings. His only real claim to fame was the development of the Seabee. There's no way to seperate the two, so best to keep it all here so people can learn the whole story at one time. It makes an interesting tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs)


 * The problem is that the history section, while interesting, is basically a digression into the history of "Spence"'s career, rather than a history of the Seabee. If "Spence" isn't notable enough to rate a separate article, then why even bother providing a career synopsis here? Im my opinion, the history section would be much tigher and more readable if it focused on just those aspects of "Spence"'s career directly relevant to the Seabee. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If this was just an aircraft developed by a team from Republic I would agree that little information about Mr. Spencer would be necessairy (we don't go into details about the designers of most military aircraft in articles), but in this instance Republic didn't develop the SeaBee, Mr. Spencer did on his own, and sold the design to Republic Aviation. Further, Mr. Spencer was involved in the development of the aircraft from his early years in aviation, so I'm inclined to view Mr. Spencer's story (at least as much as it relates to the development of the Seabee) as inseperable from the aircraft's if a detailed history of the aircraft is to be presented, just as it would be pointless to seperate the history of the Wright Brothers from the story of the 1903 Wright Flyer, or of Dick Rutan from the development of the VarEZ.


 * Interestingly enough, the VariEze article does not contain much biographical information on its designer Burt (not Dick) Rutan. Similarly, the Wright Flyer article does not contain significant biographical info the Wright Brothers, aside from that directly related to the development of the Wright Flyer. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Military Designation Sequence
Please don't delete the "Military Designation Sequence". It's part of the Wikipedia format, and shows where the RC-3 fell with regard to other AAF OA- series aircraft.- Ken Keisel 6-15-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Military Designation sequence
The military designation sequence text was removed from this article because it is duplicated in the Template:USAAF observation aircraft, therefore it is not needed. Under Wikiproject Aircraft guidelines these text sequences have been replaced by nav boxes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it look the way it does?
The Seabee is a really unique (some would say 'weird') looking plane. Given its odd looks, it'd be nice if the article could delve into the thought process behind it and/or the reasons that it is shaped the way it is. It mentions in a few sentences how it looks, but doesn't explain what the intent of this design was. I imagine a good chunk of visitors are coming to this page to try and find out why it looks the way it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:BB01:7427:24DF:672C:91FC:6EC1 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding that information requires finding a reference that explains it, as per WP:V. I have never seen one, but if you have a ref that explains it it can certainly be added. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)