# Talk:Chase XCG-20

The wingspan seems remarkable, considering this was both a glider and a powered aircraft.  Or was the wing geometry changed with the addition of engines?
--Piledhigheranddeeper  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.70.82 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 

To the best of my knowledge, the only change to the XCG-20 to turn it into the XC-123 was the addition of engines - the C-123's fuel tanks were even mounted inside the nacelles (and were jettisonable in case of fire -!). I assume the XC-123A with its jets had internal fuel tanks (in the cargo hold?), but the airframe itself was unchanged in any significant fashion. (To the point where one source claims "every C-123 built had provision for a tow hook mounted in the nose"!). - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chase XCG-20/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CrowzRSA 01:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The cargo hold was 30 feet (9.1 m) long and 12 feet (3.7 m) wide,[3] and featured an innovative configuration, the rear fuselage being upswept with a integrated loading ramp, allowing vehicles to be driven directly on and off of the aircraft.[4] This is a run-on or something, it really doesn't read well. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done
Data from Adcock - This should be changed to a complete sentence, perhaps The following data can be verified by Adcock. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That's actually standard format for {{Aircraft specs}}. I've changed it to list the title of the book instead though.
{The largest glider ever built in the United States, it did not see… Insert "Being" at the beginning of the sentence. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reshuffled that sentence in an alternative matter, hope it reads better now.
You need to refer to the Air Force as USAAF throughout the article instead of USAF, as it was still the army air forces. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the XG-20 didn't fly until 1950, two years after the USAF was established as an independent service from the former USAAF. I have clarified the wording in several places though
hydraulic power to the landing gear and flaps,[3] The nose The comma should be a period. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done
The Primary user should be the United States Army Air Forces, not United States Air Force. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, the USAAF never used the type at all - it was the USAF that conducted all the flight testing.
However Chase had designed the aircraft to allow for the easy… Insert comma after However. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done
In the references, occasionally you refer to the page number as stuff like page 1, when it should be p. 1
 Done
That's all I see, I'll put the article on hold for a while. If the issues are addressed, I will pass the article. CrowzRSA 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! :) I've worked on everything (except the USAAF/USAF thing, as explained), hope it's improved. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Result
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Congratssss, the article is pretty short, but still passable for GA. CrowzRSA 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)