Talk:Cessna 180 Skywagon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Cessna 180/Comments)

Use of a 180 on Sōya (icebreaker)[edit]

Recent Japanese TV and model kits depict what looks like a 180 on the Japanese ship Sōya (icebreaker). See the article discussion. Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would need a more reliable ref than a modelling website that to add! - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! I am getting the ball rolling here! The TV just released in Japan is the history of the expeditions and they clearly refer to a "Cessna", but little else. I am looking Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cessna 180 Skywagon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

one of the most popular small aircrft, assessed "high"

Last edited at 09:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cessna 180. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cessna 180. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mock model discrepancy[edit]

N1538C

The article says Mock's plane was a 1953 model. The photos of her plane show 3 side windows. According to the article, 3 windows weren't introduced until 1964 (the same year as her flight). Can't have it both ways! Dan Bollinger (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the article of N1538C show two-side windows so I cant see where the problem is. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An FAA registration inquiry for N1538C shows it is indeed a 1953 model. The photo shows only two side windows. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]