Talk:Vought V-173

A fact from Vought V-173 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the 1940s experimental aircraft Vought V-173 featured an unorthodox "all-wing" design consisting of a flat, somewhat disk-shaped body with a pair of three-bladed propellers? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/August.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Oppose merge: The reason this article exists is that it came off the orignal XF5U and needed elaboration. 'Since I wrote or substantially contributed to both articles, there is a reason for treating them as separate aircraft. The V-173 emerges as the only true flying disk aircraft while the XF5U is an interesting development, but it is an "also-ran." There is enough information that is different to make each article stand out on its. own. FWIW Bzuk 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC).FWIW Bzuk 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Since no consensus has emerged, the merge proposal is moot. FWIW Bzuk 01:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that both of these stand on their own merits. They are suitably linked together. --Colputt 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was at Futuroscope a few weeks ago and i saw this aircraft there. I think it's real but i don't speak french so i couldn't read the sign. Does anyone know anything about it? Kingeorge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingeorge (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were they showing it off in an exhibition hall or did they actually put on an airshow with the damned thing? -Toptomcat (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also come back from Futoroscope and saw this aircraft myself. It's an outdoor static display. It's sited next to a cafe within the grounds that takes it's name from this aircraft - Crepe Volaire. As to whether it's a real one or a life size facsimile I couldn't say, how many of these things were built? 82.255.21.38 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC) mspice 2215[reply]

There is only one of the original aircraft surviving and it is currently at an air museum in Dallas. I believe the one at Futurescope is a replica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.122.138 (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph in the article, as it stands, does not make any sense. The aircraft cannot both be at the Vought Plant in Grand Prairie and the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas. Given that the aircraft is pictured in an apparently restored condition at the Frontiers of Flight Museum, and that the cited webpage from the museum's states:

over an eight year period, the Vought Aircraft Heritage Foundation Volunteers donated over 25,000 labor hours to complete this effort [emphasis added]

presumably indicating that the restoration is complete; it is reasonable to assume that the airframe is no longer at the place where it was being restored. Therefore, I changed the tense of the sentence to the past tense to reflect this. A reliable source does not seem necessary when correcting such contradictions. Furthermore, the cited source seems to provide the requisite supporting information anyway.

No hard feelings intended. —Noha307 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this, but you can't change cited content to say something that isn't in the cited source. You can change the tense to indicate that something was supposed to happen by a certain date, or you can cite a new source that has updated info. - BilCat (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the part about it having been at the Vought plant for restoration, as that info isn't in the source. - BilCat (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected information about the verticle stabilizer to be more accurate about its design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toastynuggets (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]