Talk:Ryan Navion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Assessment[edit]

If the sources were converted to inline citations this would be a B class, easy. --Colputt 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Specs[edit]

I would love to see the Specifications section expanded into a table covering all models from A to G.

I have deliberately been vague about the early history of the Navion, particularly North American's motivation for building it, because I seem to get a different story from each source. If you have bona fide details to add, please do so, but I think it would be best to leave those details out unless you have a verifiable source that you're confident is right.

Alternatively, perhaps someone could add a section explaining the various different theories about the Navion's origin. Here are some I have heard.

  • North American thought there would be a booming civilian market after the war
  • North American wanted to cash in on the fame and reputation of the P-51
  • North American intended the Navion to be primarily a military aircraft, with a potential civilian market
  • North American simply wanted to give the P-51 design team something to do while they waited for the Sabre project to be approved

--Tedd 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Booming[edit]

I see that someone has jumped in with the "booming civilian market" explanation for the Navion. Could that person provide a reference? I have certainly heard that opinion expressed, but have never known it to be documented.

--Tedd 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture[edit]

I propose this text:

A Navion is a main character in the 1972 made-for-television film "Family Flight", starring Rod Taylor and Dina Merrill.

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

A family flying a Navion is forced down in the desert. After a tough time there, they manage to fly back toward civilization, but now they find themselves low in fuel over the sea. The Navy comes to the rescue, but the only runway near is an aircraft carrier.

Aldo L 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is much more than is needed. A simple line of text saying that "The Navion played a key roll in the 1972 made-for-television film Family Flight" would suffice... --KPWM_Spotter 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean "key role"? —QuicksilverT @ 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ryan Navion" Versus "Navion"[edit]

It seems to me that the article should be about the design -- i.e., "Navion" -- not any particular implementation of the design (such as "Ryan Navion"). I propose several changes. First, reverse the redirection: "Ryan Navion" should redirect to "Navion," not the other way around (as it currently is). Second, revise all information to reflect the design, not just Ryan's implementation of it (e.g., change the introduction date from 1948 to 1946). Any details pertinent to a particular variant could go in the Variant section. --Tedd (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Including the complete production history would be fine as long as refs are cited.
As far as the article naming goes, this is discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming where it says: "US civil aircraft: Manufacturer and name or number as appropriate according to common usage: Boeing 707, Cessna Citation, Cessna 172, Convair 880 (not "Convair Skylark" or "Convair Golden Arrow")." Just naming the article "Navion" would not be appropriete. The manufacturer most associated with the design should be the one named. That is why, for instance, the American Aviation AA-5 Traveler, the Grumman American AA-5 Traveler, AA-5A Cheetah, and AA-5B Tiger, the Gulfstream American AA-5A Cheetah, and AA-5B Tiger, the American General AG-5B Tiger, and the Tiger Aircraft AG-5B Tiger are all under Grumman American AA-5 and not just AA-5. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very surprised to see you suggest Ryan as the manufacturer name associated with the Navion in common usage. (As I was to see it in the title of the article. It wasn't when I wrote the first version.) As a former Navion owner, I would have instantly named North American, not Ryan. The legend and mystique of the Navion comes almost exclusively from having been built by the same people who built the Mustang. In my experience, it's rare for the Navion to be referred to by any manufacturer's name, except when distinguishing one variant from another. It's simply the Navion. But if Wikipedia convention says we should have a manufacturer's name in the title of the article, then it should be NA, not Ryan. --Tedd (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, can you provide the dates and production numbers on the different manufacturers? Most aircraft articles in Wikipedia are named for the company that produced the greater number of the type, rather than the first manufacturer, which is why the Grumman American AA-5 has that title instead of being named for the original manufacturer, American, who didn't make nearly as many. If you can make a good case for moving it to North American Navion then we can get consensus to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

The lead image appears to be a later Continental O-520 powered Rangemaster (doesnt appear to be the real 48-1046 as marked) , perhaps it may be better to shuffle a proper L-17 into place as the lead image. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)