Talk:Lockheed L-193 Constellation II
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lockheed L-193 Constellation II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead
editIt seems like a lot of the info in the lead is just repeated in the following section. I know that one purpose of the lead is to summarize and give a snapshot of the article, but it seems some of that info could just be deleted from the lead. Thoughts? HotshotCleaner (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Editing
editAlso, after doing a lot of copyediting, I think the tag could be removed. If at least one other editor agrees, I think we can take it out. HotshotCleaner (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Four engines?
editThere is no mention of the number of engines, although logic dictates that with the low power output of early jet engines, it was always going to need four (at least), but that is WP:SYNTHESIS. Another clue is the choice of "comparable" rear engined designs, the Jetstar, VC-10 and Il-62; three of my favourite aircraft! But why no mention of the DC-9, Boeing 727, Trident, Tu-134? The answer can only be that none of them have four engines.
Finally, we come to the alleged rate of climb, which at 5,500 ft/min is mightily impressive. Perhaps the L-193 was scheduled to have six engines, because even the latest KC-135R (upgraded with shiny new CFM-56s) can only reach that rate of climb on a good day. WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)