Mustang or Tempest
Here's a Rustler:http://www.gta-source.com/sa/vehicles/Rustler.jpg Here's a P-51: http://www.vg-photo.com/wallpaper/1280x1024/Mustang2_DSC_3436.jpg Here's a Tempest:http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/hawker_tempest.html Case closed. I'll be accepting your apology now, Jager.
- Oh really? Yes, it does look more like the Mustang - particularly the wings, cockpit, horizontal stabilisers, nose/bonnet/hood. However, some things look more like a combination of the two. The vertical stabiliser (tailfin) looks like the Tempest, and the air intake looks halfway between the two. The main body of the aircraft, with the split-height fuselage fore and aft of the cockpit, and the squared-off wings, probably confirm that it is the Mustang.
However, I'd very much like you to change your attitude towards your fellow editors - sure he made a mistake, because it looks slightly more like the Mustang than the Tempest (only to the trained eye), but his purpose here is the same as yours - to improve our encyclopaedic content. I'd hope this isn't a British vs American thing either. Gboyers talk 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The vertical stabilizer, I'll give you, but the horizontal stabilizers are mustang. The air intake below the nose resembles the Mustangs, as the Tempest I has a Typhoon-type intake while the Tempest II has no intake...being that it is powered by a radial engine. My exasperation comes from having to repeatedly edit the post to ensure it authenticy. When it comes to aviation...I don't make mistakes. Ever. It is not a case of UK versus US, as both aircraft are British in origin. The Mustang was designed at the request of the British Government. The British replaced the Allison engine with the Rolls Royce Merlon, famous for being the 'Spitfire Engine,' and the Mustang was born. Allison engined airframes were modified for use as dive-bombers and carried the designation A-36 Apache.
This article has been protected to prevent continued edit warring. Editors must discuss changes before seeking to make edits, as many aspects of the plane's design seem to be highly debatable, and a major source of contention. Please post your comments on this talk page regarding why you think particular design influences are more accurate than others, rather than reverting each other's edits. Discussion is a key aspect of making this wiki run smoothly. It benefits no one to argue and incessantly revert edits. The expiry on the protection is 3 days. If after this time, editors continue to war without discussing things on the talk page, the article will be protected indefinitely, and all edits will require administrator approval. EganioTalk 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I even added more important info about the Rustler. Unfourtunately, somebody had to remove it because it is "irrelevant". I don't see nothing irrelevant here. Just someone removing all of my important edits I've made for no apparent reason at all. Geez. Talk about someone that does'nt own GTA games in order to know more like me and everyone else. MetaCracken 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Your posts are irrelevant and undo a lot of my hard work. User:Sukhoi-35BM
- I think you mean my hard work, because I know much about this plane =\. MetaCracken 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not if you keep destroying my work. Trust me, I know MUCH more about aviation, both virtual and real, than you. User:Sukhoi-35BM
- Please dont talk to each other like this. Who is a better pilot is irrelevant - we need to make sure that GTW provides the correct information, and where we are unsure we need to admit that and offer all possibilities. The article doesn't need speculation or opinion, just facts. I have protected the article again because of your inability to cooperate. MetaCracken - a lot of the stuff you were adding is unnecessary or unprovable, such as "It is the oldest aircraft in the GTA series." Please make sure you stick to fact as much as possible - make sure you can provide evidence or proof of what you say. Gboyers talk 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, but I know a lot about the Rustler, and we all know who has started all of this conversation (and it's not me). MetaCracken 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Please just stop. Please turn your destructive attention on cars or something.
I'm not the one who started all this mess. It's you. I know everything, even cars, planes helicopters, etc, all because I played a lot of GTA games. You're just attempting to humiliate me, and it's not working.
You're doing that to yourself. I'm working for accuracy. And I'm a pilot. Are you a pilot? Didn't think so. If the FAA can trust me, then so can you.
I may not be a pilot in real life, but I'm good at piloting in GTA: SA. All I ever did was add more important details. Then, my edits was removed. I'm not into any arguments, so I suggest you stop this nonsense. Now. I've about had it with your argue fest. And only you got me intot his mess. 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
They are removed because you post stupid things like "the rustler is the oldest...) NO! If you look at the plane it is based on, the P-51/P-40, both flew AFTER the Douglas DC-3, which is the Nevada's template. This is an example of why your stuff gets deleted. You just...don't know.
- Shakes Head This is what I would call an "Edit War" and although amusing to read, is annoying and clogs up the talk page. And don't forget to sign your comments guys! --Chimpso 07:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Now lemme get this straight. It has been protected by countless of reverts, arguments, and all that? Wow. I'm not surprised or happy to see this. I'm just... shocked to see this. But hey, if it's locked, it's locked. I don't even mind. Forgive my misspelling. usually, I type fast, thanks to my great typing speed with my fingers. Captain Seven-Twenty 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It can't be considered "great typing" if you can't even spell words properly because of the typing.....<badge user="Optimist33gta"/> 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Uhh... Did you realize you replied to a year-old post?--Spaceeinstein 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually...it IS a P-40
The plane is a variant of the P-40 called the XP-40Q.
Picture of the Rustler for comparison
The XP-40Q was an experimental plane, ane was never brought past the prototype stage; It was an attempt at modernization of the aging P-40 design. It worked quite well, but the P-51 still worked better. and so the design was scrapped.
The only noticable differences between this and the Rustler are as follows:
- The lower scoop is a little wider up-and-down
- There are no wheel covers on the XP-40Q (likely because it was an experimental plane. They would probably have been put on in production versions.)
- There are 4 props on the XP-40Q rather than 3 on the Rustler
- The Rustler uses a "Razorback" canopy rather than a bubble canopy (though it still retains the bracing structure of a bubble canopy).
The Rustler has the tail of the XP-40Q, and in general the XP-40Q looks more like the Rustler than the P-51 ever did.
Not trolling or trying to start an argument or something, just putting forth my research on this.
Tommygun045 04:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)