Jump to content

Talk:Curtiss SB2C Helldiver/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Tri-Color Camouflage Confusion

In the fourth to the last paragraph in the U.S. Navy section of the Operational History tab says "An oddity of the SB2Cs with 1942 to 1943-style tricolor camouflage was that the undersides of the outer wing panels carried dark topside camouflage because the under surfaces were visible from above when the wings were folded." However the third image on the page shows 1943 Helldivers on a carrier, and you can clearly see the underside of the front plane's wings and it has the lighter camouflage applied. I was able to find several pictures of Helldivers with the mentioned reverse paint scheme, so I think the sentence should have the word "sometimes" added to it. SoLongSidekick (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed ref

Surprisingly, someone removed the external link for the greek use of Helldivers, despite being the most complete relevant website on the web: http://greek-war-equipment.blogspot.com/2009/05/helldiver.html , because it's a blog, while it's a permalink and not a blog's main page. At least, could the person that removed it replace it with some other link, so that we can access such info? The existing link is about the civil war in Greece and contains minimal info about the Helldivers, not to mention that it has a highly biased tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.53.7 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising at all. Blogs are not considered Reliable Sources on Wikipedia and are forbidden to be used as source material. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Torpedo Conversion

In the fall of 1945 some Helldivers were converted to carry one torpedo in the bomb bay. The aft end of the torpedo was in the bay and the fore end stuck out and hung below the prop. As VT-74 these planes were aboard the MIDWAY on it’s shakedown cruise in the South Atlantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.232.117 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Added and Un-Cited Commentary

Sometime after I added quite a bit to the article someone decided to add commentary to the additions. Now mind you, I don't have a clue as to accuracy of the commentary, I am not a pilot nor have I served when these things flew, but it made it look like I hadn't a clue when I put down the opinions of the cited articles and that the commentary was in fact supported by the citation, which it was not. Now I haven't an opinion to the commentary one way or the other but we are supposed to show more restraint that to start sticking what appears to be opinion into a history article. In the future I would ask that this person put such commentary in its own paragraph in operations and cite accordingly not leach on to existing opinion of cited sentences.Tirronan (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are still active but if someone inserts commentary that is not supported by good references then you can and probably should just revert their edits. If this is still an issue please be specific about where the unsupported text is. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

How many modifications?

The article states that the Navy required 880 modifications. Two paragraphs later, the number is 800. Which is correct? Cwelgo (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

SB2C range at Philippine Sea

The article states "In the first Battle of the Philippine Sea, 45 Helldivers were lost because they ran out of fuel on the return to their carriers."

Firstly, those losses were due to a combination of running out fuel, intentionally ditching, and accidents upon landing. I cannot find any figures that separate the losses into these categories. I also realize that all three causes were the direct result of low fuel, so the statement is generally correct even if not technicaly correct.

Secondly, the point would be made stronger if the reader knew that 45 out of 80 Helldivers were lost in this manner, while only 35 of 470 other aircraft types were lost this way.

Your comments? Cwelgo (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of the article is too negative and written too informally (such as having the word "skippers" in the introduction) to be encyclopedic. While the early Helldiver had more than its share of problems, it matured into a good aircraft, the reality of which is made plainly evident postwar when VB and VT squadrons where combined to form VA squadrons equipped, not with Avengers, but with Helldivers.--172.190.50.79 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment but I just want to say that after reading the article, I felt the same way. It's fine to point out all the problems with the aircraft but there is almost nothing in the article about things like the actual role of the aircraft (dive bombing). I'm assuming all the negative tone is backed up by references, but I'm going to check a few because the article really does seem more negative than what I've read of the Helldiver elsewhere. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The job of Wikipedia is to produce high quality reference material, based on expert commentary from sources. If the article seems negative it's because there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the SB2C failed to meet acceptable handling standards. Legendary British test pilot Capt. Eric "Winkle" Brown was scathing of the type in his book "Wings of the Navy", AirLife Publishing, 1987. Form my recollection, the only thing he was complimentary about was the undercarriage. In case you're thinking he was carrying a British bias, he was very complimentary of a number of other US types, especially the Grummans Wildcat and Hellcat. He liked the Dauntless but recognised its shortcomings and regarded the Corsair as a bit of a mixed bag of good and bad traits. But rather than me explaining it for you, if you are any sort of aviation fan, you would find Brown's book extremely interesting and I recommend it to you highly. Flanker235 (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

on display vs. under restoration

SB2C-5 is on display at Udvar Hazy, but it is also under restoration - it's being displayed in the restoration wing of the museum. Which is the appropriate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.126.26 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Original engine?

What was the original engine before the R2600 of the Helldiver? --109.90.99.105 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Curtiss_SB2C_Helldiver/Archive_1&oldid=1188431341"