Talk:On Mark Marksman

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

See A-26 survivors page for new details added yesterday for 41-39221 (N26GT correct regn.) PeterWD (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose editing the descriptions and specifications to remove the mentions of so-called "Marksman A", "Marksman B" and "Marksman C". This is contentious because almost all references quote those names. The earliest mention is in Janes AWA 1961-62, perhaps written before the first flight (published image is retouched photo of a Marketeer), so not based on hard reality, and subsequent references seem to have copied that uncritically. Later evidence from individual aircraft FAA files indicates that all six civil Marksman conversions had a largely identical specification equivalent to the early proposals quoted for "Marksman C". I will attempt to outline specification/performance differences between the six 'civil' Marksman and the two CIA 'special operations' Marksman, that were about 2000 lb heavier!

Supplementary, for thatguy96?, the images of N46598 in Leeker PDF look to me like the colour scheme was 'insignia' blue, plus white trim areas outlined with black 'pinstripe'. PeterWD (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the color scheme bit, and if you have the information feel free to change it around. I think the phrase around here is "be bold" and just remember to cite the relevant sources. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with PeterWDs suggestion to remove the ABC. We can add the changes/specs of the eight individual Marksman aircraft (with refs) instead. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N99426

User 80.239.2.3 has inserted a new entry for N99426 in the survivors list of Marksman conversions, no reference quoted.

I purchased a copy of the FAA file for N99426 in January 2008, and I think I'm aware of all the relevant information published in print and online. As far as I am aware, the airframe remains severely damaged by Hurricane Andrew in August 1992 and was subsequently dismantled. Once stored in a shipping container at Van Nuys from 2000 to 2002, it was reported as moved to California City by 2004, no recent news but I suspect it's not accessible and perhaps not restorable.

I believe its inclusion stretches the definition of a survivor considerably, hence this narrative to help deal with any similar future amendments after deletion or annotation to the new entry. PeterWD (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it for now with reference to PeterWDs summing up - welcome to add back if a reference on its survivabilty is provided. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted re-insertion of N99426 as above. In Specifications, the Empty Weight for the Special Purpose version does not display on my system, but the source code looks similar to the Range parameters, that is displayed OK. Anyone know how to fix it ? PeterWD (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small tweak to the code looks alright on my screen. Well spotted I missed N99246 being added back. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I still get Range more OK, but not Empty Weight more, using IE7, tried various resolutions. PeterWD (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty weight more does not exist in the template so it will never show - done a fix for now need to look at getting it added to Template:Aircraft specifications. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, though perhaps the new version looks a bit ambiguous. If the Aircraft Specifications template is to be reviewed, perhaps it should be noted that Wing Loading and Power/Mass are clearly not performance parameters - they are both calculations derived directly from general characteristics. PeterWD (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Marksman C' myth

On 2010-04-09 an IP editor made unreferenced additions to the article, including mentions of the so-called 'Marksman C' version of the aircraft. In 1961, Jane's All The World's Aircraft first published advance details of the 'Marksman A', 'Marksman B' and 'Marksman C' versions. First problem, that was written in 1960, before the first Marksman flew in January 1961. Second, it was a journalist's interpretation of sales literature issued by On Mark Engineering. That literature did not mention 'Marksman A', etc; it said "There is a fully pressurized Marksman at this range of figures; Specifications A ..... $257,430.000* Specifications B ...." etc. That was in line with simple grouping of customer options always offered on B-26 conversions, such as engine power, anti-icing, radar, etc. In advertisements (example at http://www.abheston.btinternet.co.uk/photos4.htm), On Mark continued to feature the same retouched photo of Marketeer N706ME, with a more pleasing appearance than the real Marksman with its higher roof line and less-raked flat glass windscreens. From mid-1961, some sales literature and photo packs added a photo of the third Marksman N400E, posed with black limo, 'executive' luggage and a strategically-placed propeller blade masking the cockpit windows. As the IP editor wrote, the third and subsequent aircraft featured a raised rear fuselage top fairing giving increased headroom for passengers. The four currently available FAA individual aircraft files, and various photos, show no other significant ex-factory variation among the six aircraft sold to civilian customers. So, in reality, there was no Marksman A, Marksman B or Marksman C. Repeated mentions of those 'versions' continues in otherwise reliable publications, without any critical analysis or primary source references. I plan to remove such mentions, subject to any more reliable citations than those already given.PeterWD (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image N142ER not a Marksman

An image has been added to the article that illustrates an A-26 Invader conversion, registration N142ER. That aircraft was registered in November 1972, and deregistered in 1988. I own a copy of the FAA record file on the aircraft. The file shows that in 1963, quoting a previous registration, On Mark Engineering carried out work that included many of the modifications typical of the generic Marketeer variant. It did not receive the raised roof, pressurization and DC-6 flat windscreens characteristic of the Marksman, nor the wingtip fuel tanks. In the image, N142ER clearly shows a curved windscreen, though combined with a metal cockpit cover fitted in 1963. The original 1963 plastic nose section has been replaced since a photo of it taken in 1977. I recommend that the file name be amended accordingly, and a suitable caption added.PeterWD (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected, see revisions in article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

PS. The image of N142ER shows the background of Cal-Aero at Chino, the same airfield where I photographed it on 8 Sep 1979, but my photo illustrates the sleek 1963 plastic nose. The markings of the Marksman in the new image show it to be N100Y, the first conversion.PeterWD (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]