More rewrite on appearances Edit
The way the article explains the appearance of private jets since GTA III prematurally implies the Shamal name has been used since GTA III when these planes are only static props, as is the case in GTA:VC, GTA:LCS, GTA:VCS and GTA IV. Either we remove the mention of non-GTA:SA versions, or note that the planes are not proper "Shamals" because they are not controllable to begin with. - ZS 07:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- You can delete that section as the prop jets aren't named the Shamal at all.--Spaceeinstein 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll get to that when I upload better screenshots of the plane. - ZS 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thought about separating it into a different section to distinguish it from the Shamal. Unless there is a proper place for this topic to go, it looks like it's fine to be mentioned as a separate vehicle here. - ZS 18:45, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
I added a new "Interior" section where the plane's interior is described more in-depth. Phoenix345 22:01, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
I think the reason why 7 sets of windows are shown in freefall when only 4 are seen on the outside is because 5 of them are closed normally this is because planes windows have flaps that can be pulled down. in freefall the flaps on all the windows are up so that's why it has 7 sets of windows. no gaming errors.Andrew nicholson 17:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Even with the window flaps down, the profile of the window portals should still be visible from the outside, unless the window flaps are installed outside, which makes no sense at all.
And it seems like you got the numbers wrong. 7 sets = 14 windows; 4 sets = 8 windows; so why only 5 windows instead of 6?- ZS 09:00, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Besides, shouldn't there be a 8 windows difference instead of 5? Because there are 16 windows inside as opposed to 8 windows outside. - ZS 09:08, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
My maths is not very good, the flaps are on the inside and I still believe some of them are closed. I just wanted to come up with a reason so the confusion about the windows would endAndrew nicholson 16:14, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
Back in GTAVEdit
Missed you, ol' buddy.
ZidaneTribal 18:19, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
Same here, mate :D ([Henriquedematos] 19:22, November 6, 2011 (UTC))
At long last, I'm reunited with my old friend. Feels good.
Fuck Buzzard, Fuck Annihilator even more, Planes, especialy the Shamal are the real thing!--Little Anime Freak 20:01, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Hell yeah! Shamal, Hydra and AT-400 FTW! \o/ [henriquedematos] (Henriquedematos 21:11, November 6, 2011 (UTC))
The shamal on tv in gta IV "im rich"Edit
Random unpilotable business jets =/= Shamal Edit
Why are the unpilotable static private jets in IV and Chinatown Wars considered "Shamals" in this article? If that is so, then the landed jets in III, Vice City and Vice City Stories can also be Shamals.
Please, review this assumption. I do agree that those jets deserve to be mentioned on the article, but they are just random business planes, NOT Shamals, at least not officially.
- They all look the same, just compare them with GTA SA and GTA V models. The one in GTA IV resembles the one in GTA SA a little more, but the CW one looks exactly like the one in GTA V.Dodo8 Talk
- But that doesn't change the fact that there isn't any kind of designation to that planes which identifies them as Shamals. The CW one doesn't even look like the Shamal in V or SA, calling every business jet a Shamal is just a poor generalization. And if being a parked business jet is being a Shamal then the parked jets in Escobar International and Francis International in GTA III also should be listed on this article.
- I'm going to clean up this page and add a "Similar business jets" section if you don't mind. (Henriquedematos (talk) 15:21, May 11, 2013 (UTC))
Commuter Jet in GTA VEdit
Judging on the liveries that the Shamal can be found in (FlyUS, Air EMU, etc) I personally think that the Shamal is now taking the role of a smaller commuter jet, and the Luxor takes the role of a private jet in GTA V. Anyone else agree with me on this