Talk:Flying boat

2004 post

Wow! Who wrote this? The Spruce Goose fanclub? It's terrible! How is is possible to write an entry of this length and spend a good half of it waffling on and on about a single prototype that barely even flew, and yet practically ignore the Sunderland, the Catalina, the Empire Boat, the Boeing Clippers, the ....... Gahh. Tannin 13:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please don't forget Kawanishi H8K "Emily" too! --Kadzuwo 20:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Supersonic Flying Boat

Don´t forget the only one: [[1]] Dagoflores --189.166.14.226 (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Only Twice

To the user who was complaining about the Spruce Goose. It is only featured in the article twice. Once about the shape and once about the boat it self. There are plenty of other flying boats mentioned here. The article also has paragraphes deticated on other flying boats. Why did you focus on this one?

Mrld 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because it was written two years ago. [2] --IntrigueBlue 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The page on flying boats says it has been suggested to merge that article with the article on seaplanes. I would not to. For reasons, see Jeremy Clarkson's chapter on flying boats in his book "I know you've got soul". Why not just add a link between the two pages instead. JohnStais2000 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Flying boats and seaplanes are two entirely different types of aircraft. I think the merge tag should be removed. Herostratus 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you all are wrong. I think this article should be merged because a flying boat and seaplanes both take off on water. Some seaplanes take off on land. It makes sense to merge them. Mrld 17:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You imply flyings boats cannot be amphibious aircraft. Several flying boats (i.e. aircraft which have a fuselage which is also a hull) are amphibious. Examples: Czech Aircraft Works Mermaid and the PBY Catalina. Paul Beardsell 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first two posters. The flying boat is different enough from the seaplane that separate articles are warranted. The fact that both take off from water is only one commonality, and only slightly in any event: the flying boat is a boat with wings, whereas the seaplane is a plane with fins. Arguing that the two articles should be merged into one is like saying the articles for Battleships and Cruise Ships should be merged "because they're both boats." --Todeswalzer 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you say a flying boat is actually a boat!! Where's the ruddar or other things a boat needs? This is why these articles need to be merged. Mrld 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Many flying boats have rudders. They also have mooring ropes and anchors. As do floatplanes. Paul Beardsell 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly well understood that floatplanes and flying boats are quite different types of aircraft. To design, build, maintain and fly. That they are both seaplanes is also indisputable! And the rules and regs make support my view: Go look. There should be three articles. Seaplanes should mention there are two main categories and link to them and not say much more. And the other two articles should remain separate. Paul Beardsell 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who dares argue with three dictionaries? Paul Beardsell 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You all are right. I took the merge down. We shouldn't bash each other and turn this into an editing war. Mrld 19:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A flying boat is an aeroplane with a boat-shaped fuselage/hull for taking-off and landing on the water. A seaplane or floatplane is a land aeroplane fitted with floats to allow it to take-off and land on water. One is a purpose-built water-based aircraft, the other is a converted landplane. The exceptions would be aircraft such as the Heinkel He 115 and Arado Ar 196 which although seaplanes, were not produced in land-based version, i.e., with a normal wheeled undercarriage. What one would categorise aircraft such as the Grumman Duck as though I wouldn't like to say, technically they were probably flying boats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.50.65 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KawanishiH8K.jpg

Image:KawanishiH8K.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Distinguish between Flying boat/Seaplane/Floatplane?

The recently-added paragraphs have left the summary rather unbalanced. There is now less about flying boats than the types they are not. Isn't it the purpose of wikilinks to point to the other articles in such cases? At present it reads more like a disambiguation page than an intro to flying boats. --TraceyR (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree it needs a re-write it is factually wrong as well as flying boats are seaplanes which is not what the intro says! MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just had a little tweak of the intro to remove the floatplane details. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Boeing314.jpg

The image Image:Boeing314.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Short Solent 3 - G-AKNU Sydney - Aquila Airways - Funchal.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Philately?

Am I alone in wondering how and/or why the Philately project assesses an article about flying boats? I could understand that the Aircraft project might be concerned about the ways in which flying boats are portrayed on stamps, but vice versa? --TraceyR (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder about that too... since several flying boats were rated on displacement, I would have expected WP:SHIPS rather than stamps... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

extra plane

Also include the Kenmore Beaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.163.207 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

images in LOC Collection

This image in the LOC collection states it is a Curtiss Flying Boat sent to england and could be included in the article... it is in the Commons (no known restrictions on usage) [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.108.134 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

B-Class reassessment?

This article looks like it's been improved considerably since it was assessed as C-class. Would someone in the aviation project please take another look at it? Wi2g 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)