Talk:Boeing 367-80

I'm not convinced

The article says

"Prior to building the Dash 80, Boeing officials tried to convince airlines and the Air Force this would be an aircraft that would be useful and economical. These potential customers were unconvinced"

That contradicts what I've read. USAF was looking for a jet tanker to service its new fighters, having recognized the KC-97 was too slow, as early as 1949; the C-102 was advanced as a potential solution.... Trekphiler 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Barrel Roll

Removed the "at 500 feet". Looking at the referenced video it's clearly not at 500ft (MSL or AGL). Rphilipp (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"To date Johnston is the only pilot known to have performed a roll in a four engine jet transport." -- this is incorrect. Concorde has also been rolled.

Maybe so, but who was the pilot? Perhaps the Concorde rolled itself. Without a verifiable source (ie, not You-tube, as videos can be faked), the sourced comment in the text should stand. ALso, as text appears to have been added to the text since the original sourced item, I'm adding a {{vs}} tag for someone to check out what the source "actually" says. I'm highly suspicious that whenever someone makes a claim on WP about a US plane doing whatever, it's not long before someone adds an unsourced claim on a British aircraft that supposedly did the same thing, usually earlier, ie the Miles M.52 design, or the EE Lighning's "supercruise" ability. Conversely, for example, Americans have no trouble admiting that the angled deck, mirror landing system, and steam catapult were all British inventions that enabled modern carrier operations with jet aircraft, without the credibility-stretching "redefinitioning" that often goes on in such cases. - BillCJ (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Have tried twice to add to the Avro Vulcan article that the Dash 80 also performed a barrel roll at approximately the same date as that aircraft, but it has been removed twice - one comment being that there was no reason to mention a "foreign" (funny thought Wiki was a U.S.-based service) aircraft in their article. So, decided would reciprocate and remove the reference to that "foreign" aircraft in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That type of reaction by removing statements out of spite, simply brands you as a vandal; think twice before doing that again. Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, did the right thing and put back the parallel statement in the Avro Vulcan article - can only hope that you are consistent with the continued deletion there by "vandals." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If removing this information from this article is vandalism, then removing the mirror statement in the Vulcan article is too - presume you will be as vigilant there as here in the future (it has now been removed there four times - so four times the vandalism?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again - it's not relevant here. - BilCat (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant and ties directly to the contention that large aircraft should not be allowed to perform a dangerous maneuver. Don't get caught up in the "he said, she said" arguments. FWiW, reacting to a troll with a cause is also not productive. Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant - the Vulcan is a totally different design, with thick wings and embedded engines. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Read again, it's the barrel roll not the type of aircraft, and the contention that the 367-80 performed a dangerous feat was refuted by the Vulcan, one of many large aircraft that could duplicate the maneuver. The Vulcan's "trick" was also derided as dangerous, but was performed with an ease that showed that large aircraft were capable of airshow aerobatics, if nothing else. Later in its career, the Vulcan was thrown about with great abandon usually at high altitude. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Then add that info to the Vulcan article - this is about the Dash 80, not the Vulcan. - BilCat (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what happened to my converstaions above?? I can see them, but appranantly Bzuk can't. My IE must be messing up again. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a valid point, the 367-80 was the first large aircraft to perform a supposedly "dangerous" maneuver. Johnston was hauled on the carpet because of it, tried to explain that it wasn't as dangerous as it looked and within months, another large aircraft demonstrated the maneuver, again without any deleterious effects. The point that is being made is that the barrel roll, not the aircraft was being banned. I have placed the whole sordid mess into an "aside" note with cites. Look before you leap, the chain of actions here is very telling and a textbook example of a Tendentious editor at work. Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

You've just made the case for mentioning the Dash 80 in the Vulcan article - I'm sure you'll be adding it back, right? LOL - BilCat (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The first instance of the "barrel roll" appearing in the Avro Vulcan article was in relation to the development of the type. Kyeto said: "The context between the two articles is unequal. In one, there is a large section devoted to discussing the barrel roll, I guess it felt pertinent to mention that another large four engined jet aircraft had already pulled off that stunt earlier on, the Vulcan. However, here we do not have a section on The Barrel Roll incident, and it is mentioned in passing as a part of the wider Development information. In this context, excessive information on Barrel Rolls hardly seems justified, it is trivia, and dozens if not hundreds of jet aircraft have performed this stunt since the Vulcan did it, but just like nobody remembers what Buzz Aldren said when he stepped on the moon because he was second rather than first, it loses it's significance as it is no longer unique or a world-first, just a repetition of something braver, earlier men did beforehand. The comment certainly doesn't belong here, it doesn't fit in with the narrative of the section at all." I will do the very same, if that is the issue, make a note that the "barrel roll" was considered dangerous and even though the 367-80 had been barrel-rolled, there was an ongoing, contentious belief that the maneuver should not be performed by a large aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

I'll be honest - all along I thought the Vulcan did it first! That's how stupid this thing is - we can't mention the Vulcan pilot one-upping Tex on the Vulcan article, but we can mention it here? And you call me tenditious?? - BilCat (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Boy, thin-skinned, aren't we?! not you--- IP 69..... is the tendentious (dare I say, troll) who began this mess. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Just a bit frustrated today (personal health problems). Sorry for taking it out on you! - BilCat (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed K's contention as to who was first, but his point is still valid, in the Vulcan's case, it's a matter of trivia that the barrel roll was performed. In the case of the 367-80, it was a sensation! FWiW, no offense taken, I have long considered the "water off a duck's back" precept in dealing with Wikiwonderland matters. Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Indeed, I was wrong on the timing. I had mistakenly though that back in 1955, the airshow would be held in the same month it is in modern times, but this was not the case. Kyteto (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The month difference for FarnB confused me too. I still object to the Vulcan reference here on the grounds of Andy's protestations that the two events are not related. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(out of the "chain") As Pooh would have characterized this topic, "Oh bother..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

lol - in what universe is the Vulcan a prototype commercial airliner. One would expect a combat plane would be readily expected to perform a barrel roll - but an airliner is a different proposition. The funny thing is that this "troll" merely wanted to have equal representation of what the 707 did mentioned in the Vulcan article with the appropropriate distinction made about one being a combat aircraft and the other an airliner, but that was trashed on multiple occasions on the grounds it was irrelevant and that basically how dare the Americans want to soil our British aviation article. There is no mention of the issue on that page, yet I bet if one were to check all of the editors who want to add it back in here come from the UK. Yes, will continue to troll when this kind of stuff goes on - thanks to me the Constitution-Victory controversy was finally settle fairly - how someone can call a building a commissioned warship is hard to fathom (as it were). BTW, suspect many an American multi-engined combat aircraft performed a barrel role before the Vulcan, so truly what is the point there. Did a Comet is a more legitimate question?

Entered service???

The lead now says "The "Dash 80" was also the first swept wing commercial jetliner that entered service." Except it never entered service - it was only used for demonstration flights and as an experimental plane. I therefore propose to delete this sentence. Any objections? --JCG33 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree as it is not true - looks like BillCJ has already removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Done. These were good faith additions by an IP user with few edits, ands actually were the IPs first edits. The entire second paragraph in the Lead explains the significances much more accurately. Thanks for asking, but generally you can just go ahead and undo something like this. Good catch tho, the rest of us missed it for 22 days! - BillCJ (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reaction from industry

Hello experts; it might be nice to have something on this page about the industry's reaction to the -80. It sounds like a brave tale of engineering and commercial risk so it would be nice to include the happy ending! Adetaylor (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a single individual aircraft

As it is explained, 367-80 is not an internal code name for the 707 production aircraft, so I think that that information should also appear somehow in the opening lines. By the way, since the last flight was in 2003, I presume that it remains flight worthy, or at least, it remains intact. I suggest that the first sentence should be changed to "is a single American prototype jet transport aircraft" to put more emphasis that we are talking about one individual, existing aircraft. Aldo L (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done (but wording slightly altered) --JCG33 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)