Talk:Spirit of St. Louis/Archive 2

Specifications
The headings in the section on specifications are inaccurate.

Here are the appropriate terms: Empty Weight--That is the weight of the aircraft plus any essential equipment permanently attached to the airplane, plus full engine oil tank, plus full hydraulic reservoirs, plus unusable fuel in the fuel tanks. This last is usually 1 or 2 gallons.,

Gross Weight--That is the maximum the aircraft can weigh under any circumstances, unless a special dispensation is provided by the FAA.

Useful Load--This is NOT the fuel capacity! This is simply the amount of weight that can be added to the plane up to its gross weight. It is calculated simply by subtracting the empty weight from the gross weight. It includes, fuel, passengers, baggage and any extra equipment.

"Loaded Weight"--No such technical term defined by FAA.

"Maximum Take-Off Weight"--Inappropriate in the context of this article. This figure is computed for any given set of conditions prior to each take-off, and may depend on temperature, length of runway, aircraft load, airport elevation and any other number of factors.

I tried to edit the article, but the format didn't come out right. Someone more familiar with the technique of editing should do this. The way the article reads now is wrong.Cd195 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to explain what is wrong rather than quoting defintions, the specification template is an agreed format if you have a problem with the definition in Template:Aircraft_specifications then you need to discuss it at the related talk page Template_talk:Aircraft_specifications. As each of the figures in the specification has already been reliably sourced then you need to discuss each one of them here as to why you think it is wrong. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifications
Thank you for the referral to the aircraft template page. I am not taking issue with the figures themselves, which are accurate. I am simply stating that the headings are not appropriate aircraft terminology. "Loaded Weight" is not a technical term found in any aircraft specification. "Useful Load" is not the fuel capacity, etc.Cd195 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See: Loaded weight. FWiW, the useful load on the Spirit might include a sandwich as well as fuel (LOL). Bzuk (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Specs
I've entered a discussion in the template discussion page. Once again, thanks for the referral. I'm familiar with the publication linked to the last message. Please note that the term loaded weight is used descriptively in the text, as this is correct English, I suppose, and the meaning is clear in discussions concerning weight and balance. But note that in the charts and figures, the correct technical term for the maximum weight of the aircraft is gross weight. You achieve the gross weight by "loading" weight into it, but loaded weight is not the term used for the max weight. It is gross weight, and for this very reason, it avoids ambiguity.

Empty weight, as previously mentioned, is the aircraft plus permanently mounted equipment, plus full hydraulic reservoirs, full engine oil tank or sump, and unusable fuel. Gross weight is the maximum allowed weight under any circumstances, and useful load is the difference between those two. That difference can be made up by passengers, fuel, baggage, cheese sandwiches, or cargo, it doesn't matter what. With those simple definitions the terms become unambiguous.

I should reiterate that maximum take-off weight should not be on the template, as this is a variable number, computed for each take off. The max take-off weight can be less than the gross weight depending on airport elevation, temperature, runway length or surface, loaded weight and balance considerations, proposed flight profile, and other considerations. Since it's a different number for each take-off, it shouldn't be part of a template. If you want to mention what the max take-off weight was for the Spirit considering the temperature, humidity, runway length and condition, etc. on the day of the famous flight, it should be included in the text, I think, or clearly labeled as to the criteria for that specific weight being given.

I hope I'm helping here. Please let me know if I'm not presenting this clearly enough.Cd195 (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest moving this discussion to the related talk page: Template_talk:Aircraft_specifications as this issue concerns more than just the Spirit of St. Louis. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Just wondering, under the design the weight of the fuel was around 2300lbs. what type of fuel did they use because fuel is right around 6lbs to the gallon.(450gallons*6lbs=2700lbs of fuel) **possible Mistake** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.210.66 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
I have moved my discussion to the Templates page, however, I note that the Useful Load in this article still lists the fuel capacity. Somebody needs to change that. I think we all agree that Useful Load is the difference between the gross weight and the empty weight, NOT THE FUEL CAPACITY.213.86.181.212 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But specifically, what else would the Spirit be carrying? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Specs
Useful load is a technical term. For the umpteenth time, IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS WEIGHT AND THE EMPTY WEIGHT! The dimensions of the Useful Load is POUNDS, not people, gasoline or cheese sandwiches! Geez! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd195 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the specs make no sense as they appear: # Empty weight: 2,150 lb (975 kg)# Loaded weight: 2,888 lb (1,310 kg). The weight of 450 gallons of gasoline is 2,812.5 pounds (more or less, depending on temperature etc.)! In fact, the Spirit seems to have weighed 5,250 pounds on takeoff from Roosevelt Field (Thomas Kessner, The Flight of the Century, 2010, p.85). Cubdriver (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Similar images
How many images taken from similar vantage points do we need? Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here, the last two images in the gallery are superfluous. FWiW Bzuk (talk)
 * Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reproductions -- clarification needed
The opening of the "Reproductions" section is tagged for clarification and rightly so since it is confusing:


 * The 1938 Paramount film Men with Wings... featured a reproduction of the Spirit of St. Louis fashioned from a Ryan B-1 "Brougham" similar to one presented to Lindbergh by the manufacturer, the Mahoney Aircraft Corporation, shortly after the Spirit was retired in April 1928. All three [clarification needed] reproductions survived with B-153 on display at..., B-156 is..., and B-159 belongs to... not far from the site of Roosevelt Field from which the original departed in 1927. Reputed to have been flown by Lindbergh during the film's production, the connection to Lindbergh is now considered a myth.

Puzzling this out, it sounds like three reproduction aircraft were made for the film, B-153, B-156, and B-159. Is this correct? This seems rather extravagant, but I suppose it's possible. Anyway, if this is the case, it needs to be spelled out.

The ref for all is this the Cassagneres book (Cassagneres, Ev. The Untold Story of the Spirit of St. Louis: From the Drawing Board to the Smithsonian. New Brighton, Minnesota: Flying Book International, 2002. ISBN 0-911139-32-X) which I don't have, so I'm asking an editor who does or has access to other material to help figure this out, thanks.

It doesn't help clarity that the replica presented to Lindbergh is interpolated in with the ones for the film further muddying what "three" are being referred to. I'd write it something like this:


 * Shortly after the Spirit was retired a reproduction fashioned from a Ryan B-1 "Brougham" was presented to Lindbergh by the manufacturer, the Mahoney Aircraft Corporation. The 1938 Paramount film Men with Wings starring Ray Milland also featured a reproduction based on the Ryan B-1; three were constructed for use in the film. All three survived...

But of course I don't know if that last bit is actually true. Herostratus (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. So unless someone comes forward with correct quotes & clarifications from the source(s), the proposed text should go in there. Minor note: maybe write ... the manufacturer of both, the Mahoney ..., because two planes are topical in the proposed text. We know Ryan and MAC are the same company over time, but their names don't show that. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Found another source in The_Spirit_of_St._Louis_(film) (ref #8):
 * Phillips, Gene D. Some Like It Wilder: The Life and Controversial Films of Billy Wilder (Screen Classics). Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2009. ISBN 978-0-8131-2570-1. It's index looks promising.
 * Our article says that there were planes for each location (lol they couldn't fly across the US then?). -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Reproductions deserve their own article? I count fifteen now. They are of encyclopedic interest (their own history, their resemblance & differences), but now they take a large part of the articvle (while the original one has still more to say). -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfectly reasonable. I suppose there are written guidelines "when to split an article" somewhere, but I wouldn't overthink that, common sense tells me it's reasonable.


 * So now wait. This article ascribes the three reproductions to Men with Wings not The Spirit of St. Louis (film). This looks to be an error. I note that Men with Wings does not include the Spirit (or Ryan NYP), although it says "aircraft used include..." which means the list is non-exhaustive so that's not proof. The ref there is to: Hardwick, Jack and Ed Schnepf. A Viewer's Guide to Aviation Movies. The Making of the Great Aviation Films, General Aviation Series, Volume 2, 1989, page 59. Herostratus (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in Splitting. Size itself is the least issue, but the "out of proportion", especially since it is diverted-from-topic. No big deal I guess, we both have the same common sense ;-). As for the sources & films, I'm out of the league from here. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No objections forthcoming, I've pulled the trigger on this and made the proposed change, not having the sources at hand and hoping its correct. It still seems odd to me that they they made three fully-operational copies for a film which was a broad history of early aircraft and presumably featured much else besides Lindbergh and since the article Men with Wings does not even mention the Spirit in the list of aircraft used in the film. But my best guess is that this is most likely correct. Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC) I was the editor who researched this section and have the original source material. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well but the passage makes no sense. What are the "all three" referred to? There is no mention of any "three" of anything, then the phrase "all three" pops up. Intermixing the Mahoney Aircraft with the Men With Wings aircraft is also poor writing. I didn't change any meaning I don't think. If you don't want me to clarify this then do so in your words. The current construction is not optimal. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another example of the "too many cooks" syndrome- now, re-written. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The curious inclusion of the myth of Lindbergh flying one of the Warner Bros. reproductions is mentioned, yet the true, but unverified story of Lindbergh visiting the NASM to sit in the Spirit, is not mentioned. I found out from the curator at the time, that Charles Lindbergh asked to sit in the aircraft. He appeared after hours, and since the aircraft is on an overhead display, museum staff assisted him in getting into the cockpit where he reputedly sat silently for a lengthy time. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's much better now. Too many cooks spoil the broth, but many hands make light work (it is not for nothing that that I am known at Casa Herostratus as Master Of Platitudes). Looks great, and glad to get the mixup between the films cleared up, as well as more clearly differentiating between flying and static reproductions. Thanks!


 * Not to look a gift a horse in the mouth (let alone imply that I'm wary of Greeks bearing gifts), but since he who hesitates is lost and we want to strike while the iron is hot, a couple of other things:
 * I'd put the first sentence in time order: one was presented to Lindbergh; a similar one was used in the movie...
 * Lindbergh supposedly flying the repro... since it's not true is it worth mentioning. It is if was a notable legend or rumor only, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Ryan Brougham is really a different design, only superficially looking like the Spirit. The resemblance was close enough that Frank Hawks flew a Brougham around the United States, advertising himself as flying an aircraft "like the one Lindy flew." The myth around Lindbergh is powerful enough to have survived till now. You know what they say about myths and legends; when the legend is more powerful than the truth, tell the legend. Much in the way that "Billy the Kid", the "Left-handed gun fighter" was not left-handed (it was a photographer reversing one of the only known photographic negatives, and printing the photograph backwards that people thought he was left-handed); he also wasn't a "Billy" and probably was more of a cold-blooded killer than the romantic figure portrayed in films. See the changes I have made to the sections in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Engine time
The article states the engine was supposed to have a useful operating life of 9,000 hours. This seems excessive. Not even modern aircraft engines go that long between overhauls. Most modern piston aircraft engines have TBO (Time Between Overhauls) of around 2,000 hours. Would the correct figure be perhaps 900 hours?

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)