Talk:Douglas DC-4

I suspect that the DC-4E aircraft did not have a double deck, as we say here. There is a quite detailed description of the accommodation in Jane's AWA 1938 but no suggestion of such an arrangement for passengers. There was a cargo space, of course. Is it the upper row of windows that has lead to this idea? There are some comments and an internal cut-away on sky-sovereign-dc-4e.blogspot.com/ (not citable, I know) that suggest these were windows for above seat bunks for the 28 overnight passengers. Though Jane's gives the overnight numbers, it does not give details of the sleeping arrangements.TSRL (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The upper row of windows on the DC-4E were for upper bunks when in sleeper configuration. The same sort of windows were on the DSTs (Douglas Sleeper Transport) which were the first DC-3s.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC).

What year did this plane enter commercial service?

This article needs to be seriously revamped. At present, some of it is a sequence of non sequiturs.

For one thing, I can't seem to find a statement of what year the plane entered commercial service. It ought to come, at the latest, by about the third sentence of the article. Not only is that not the case, we aren't even told the 1938 first-flight year until well down the page.

I think we need to be told when the plane first flew, as well as entered commercial service, before we start hearing about its service life. When you are writing the first paragraph of a historical article, you state all the important facts, and state them in sequence.

In the 3rd sentence of the 'Design and development' section, "Retrospectively this aircraft ...", we are not sure what the referent of 'this' is. The word 'this' is often a problematic one in historical writing. By using it, you immediately assume the reader knows its referent. But the section quickly digs itself deeper into obscurity by calling 'this' aircraft -- which up until this point was a 'DC-4' ...? -- 'a DC-4E'.

Well, there's nothing wrong with naming another model number, of course. The trouble is, what happens next is a complete switch on the reader by you reverting to designation 'DC-4'. I thought you just told us the plane was called a 'DC-4E'? So, what is the difference between 'DC-4' and 'DC-4E'? Did they both fly? Is one a subset of the other?

The section 'Operational history', while informative, begins disastrously. Its first sentence ought to be the last fact named in this section -- that some DC-4s are still in service in 2011. Do you begin a history of the New York Yankees with the death of Steinbrenner?

Then, the 2nd para. of that section talks about how Douglas prepared to return -to- commercial service after WWII. Do you mean the return to service of the -DC-4-? Or, do you mean the return to service by the airline as a whole, at which time, after the war, for the first time, they will introduce the DC-4 into commercial service? And if so, what -year- was that? Where is any of this language?

You say that Douglas produced 79 "new-build" DC-4s, starting in 1946. In other words, "old-build" DC-4s were already flying in commercial service? Furthermore, would you think we'd want to know what year the new-builds started -flying-, as well as the first year of -manufacture-?

Etc., etc.

Also: Whatever paradigm is being adopted for the fact table at top, that paradigm needs to be revamped. Telling us when the plane first flew is insufficient. Does 'first flight' mean first test flight -- without seats, toilets, or landing gear, and with afore-stated three vertical stabilizers on the tail?

So the fact table, too, should disclose what year it first flew -and- what year it first entered service.

--Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The DC-4E and DC-4 were totally different airplanes. The DC-4E has it's own wikipedia page. The DC-4E probably should not be mentioned on this page except to say the DC-4E was a dog, with fleas, that no one wanted so an entirely different airplane was designed which was given the DC-4 designation.

The DC-4Es ordered before the war were all taken over by the Army Air Force. They were designated C-54-DO and C-54A-DO and delivered as such. The DC-4-1009 was offered by Douglas after the war. There were only 79 built. They were the only aircraft first flown as DC-4s. All other DC-4s were C-54s converted by Douglas after the war. Other C-54s converted by to airline configuration by other firms and airlines were still C-54s to the CAA (and later the FAA). All conversions were presented to passengers as "DC-4s" by the airlines. The term became generic for aircraft the aircraft in civilian service. The first DC-4-1009 c/n 42904 was delivered to Western Airlines on on 18 January 1946. The last DC-4 built was delivered on 9 August 1947. That airplane c/n43157, ZS-BMH is still flying as a passenger plane today.

The first passenger service was flown with a converted C-54 by American Overseas Airline between New York and Hurn, England on 23 October 1945. I have been unable to find out what day Western first flew passengers with a DC-4.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"The DC-4Es ordered before the war were all taken over by the Army Air Force." I assume you meant "DC-4s" here. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas DC-4. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131054645/http://hars.org.au/2010/10/1455/ to http://www.hars.org.au/2010/10/1455/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)