Talk:Cessna 310

message: Detailed article without references. Needs inline citations. --Colputt 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: SkyNight or SkyKnight? That is the dark question!--87.5.165.81 (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The C-320 was the SkyKnight. See  - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! Thanks for pointing it out! - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: The development section lists the power of the engine primary in kW, with hp in parens. Other sections of the article just use hp, and other articles have hp as the primary measurement with kW in parens. I put the kW in parens with the hp first.  65.169.210.66 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cant find any examples of kw used first all should be 00hp (00kw). MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: kW Instead of HP?

message: In accordance with WP:AIRPOP I have removed lists of Cessna 310 inspired toys from this page twice. I have now added the Template:NoMoreCruft to the popular culture section as the guidance material suggests. In accordance with that template please discuss any intentions to insert any more popular culture items here on the talk page first, including your references to show notability, and gain consensus of other editors prior to introducing this material. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of toys

message: I'm afraid I have to question naming the US Army and US Navy as primary users of Cessna 310s.
The only Army use I can find is in the early to mid-70s, when ex-USAF U-3s were claimed by Army National Guard units from the "boneyard" at Davis Monthan AFB. They were used as light transports and "hacks". I assume they were chosen  because of a limited number of available and suitable aircraft (as an example, the Army didn't have many T-42s...Beech Barons available) and being an "off the shelf" aircraft, they could be easily maintained by small Army National Guard units.
An example of such an aircraft can be found on page 621 of United States Military Aircraft Since 1909 by Gordon Swanborough and Peter M Bowers, Putnam 1989. Surplus U-3s were also used by the US Forest Service and many went to trade schools as maintenance trainers. Some did make their way into the civil register.
The US Navy may have procured some via the same route, but their service is harder to track down. 
NO mention of them is made in the standard reference book...United States Naval Aircraft since 1911, also by Swanorough and Bowers, Putnam 1990. 
(Similarly, the USN used surplus ex-USAF O-2s for patroling test ranges to warn away boaters, but again, such use was very limited.)
If someone has exact numbers of ex-USAF U-3s in Army or Navy service, I'd be interested in seeing them. 
Without them, I can't see the two services being listed as PRIMARY users.
````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassetman4 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary users of Cessna 310s 

message: It would be helpful if the years in production were listed under the picture. I had to read the entire article and I'm still not sure if the entire line was ended in 1980 or what,and if so why and what was it replaced with. thx.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The info box does say "produced 1954-1980". It wasn't replaced in the Cessna company line - they stopped building piston twins and haven't started again to this day. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Years in production

message: The ref cited for this accident indicates that none of the company VPs nor the CEO were involved. Please read the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents to see why this accident is non-notable and should not be included in this article. The simple fact is that this aircraft type has had hundreds of accidents like this, just like every other type of light aircraft. Just like the article on the VW Beetle doesn't report every accident that one has been in, neither do light aircraft type articles. Unless it can be shown how it fits the guideline, the accident will be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry just another non-notable light aircraft crash, would really need one of the victims to have a wikipedia article to make the grade. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it twice today so I'm up against WP:3RR. If someone else would like to remove it that would be great, otherwise it is on my list for tomorrow. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count this accident has now been removed four times and is back again! Talk about lack of consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At least 5 times now! Btw, the NASCAR crash section is a bit long. One of the victims was the husband of NASCAR board member Lesa Kennedy. Would this qualify for its own article? - BilCat (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: SIX now, all by different users. I give up - unless the page is fully-protected, this is useless. At this point, just try to keep it sourced and accurate, then review it in a few days. - BilCat (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill: In reading the NASCAR accident you are quite right - it fails to meet the guideline too - relatives of people with Wiki-bios don't count - both should be removed. There seems to a be a "wide ranging news-hound enthusiasm" for this non-notable accident right now, so I am just going to wait a couple of days and then clean it up. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tesla Motors Employees February 2010 Accident

message: For those of us who've spent little to no time in a cockpit of an airplane, can you explain what is wrong with this photo. Unfortunately, User:JGHowes, who uploaded the photo and is apparently the person in the photo, is no longer living, so he cannot participate in this discussion. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On a superficial level, it has unnatural "halos" at boundaries between colors and artificially black areas under the glareshield and around the control yokes; parts of the picture are very grainy while others are not; and the instruments appear completely two-dimensional, almost like the instrument panel has been cut and pasted from a photo taken at a different angle, then warped to fit. The photo appears to be a poor computer composite, or possibly (given the ancient radios and very 80s windbreaker the pilot is wearing) an old photograph taken using a low-resolution format such as 110 film and digitally enhanced (badly). On a more encyclopedic level, for an article about an airplane, it's a lousy photo because very little of the airplane is actually shown. Many details are obscured by the pilot or cut off by the frame. It's hard to tell that it's even a 310. Carguychris (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I agree it's a poor quality image, and shouldn't be used in the article. Photos with people are generally not the best images for aircraft articles unless it's showing something that can be shown otherwise. BilCat (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the obvious giveaway for me that it is not a real airplane is that the instrument panel is just a photograph of an instrument panel. On real instrument panels the instruments are 3D, not 2D. This is either a composite as User:Carguychris described above or some sort of cockpit marketing mock-up. The clouds and sky are obviously fake. Even if it was shot in a real cockpit it would not be suitable for use in an article, as it shows very little of the airplane and is just a portrait of a person. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanations. I'm neither a pilot nor photographer, and have poor eye sight, so I'm not qualified to make a judgement on the quality/veracity of the photograph. Since we can't just ask the photographer, and there's apparently no explanation in his userspace, getting a detailed explanation of your objections was the best way to get this settled. Thanks to both of you. BilCat (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not particularly invested in this image either way, so will respect the emerging consensus, but I would like the record to note that I place absolutely no faith in 's bad-faith guesswork and wanton display of ignorance, none of which shows the slightest understanding of a number of topics ranging from aircraft interiors to photoshop! Cheers,   SN54129 09:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: JG Howes uploaded a lot of scans of film images.Since there's no metadata, this could be a scan of a 110 print or a Polaroid, or a composite put together by the late JGH. SN54129 please withdraw the personal attack, that was uncalled-for. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockpit image