Talk:Elliott Roosevelt (general)

Warplane procurement scandal

Roosevelt sent a report to General Arnold recommending immediate purchase of the D-2... it is documented that Elliott complained to his father about Arnold's reluctance to order the F-11.

Not clear about the difference. Was the F-11 the metal version of the wooden D-2?

The F-11 was similar in appearance, but a much larger, metal redesign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valetude (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_D-2
Length: 57 ft 10 in (17.6 m)
Wingspan: 60 ft 0 in (18.29 m)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-49 , 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) each

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_XF-11
Length: 65 ft 3 in (19.9 m)
Wingspan: 101 ft 5 in (30.9 m)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-4360-31 Wasp Major 28-cyl. air-cooled radial piston engines, 3,000 hp (2,200 kW) each — Preceding unsigned comment added by W92North (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The two aircraft bear only a general familial resemblance to one another. The reason that some less-detailed sources conflate them is that Howard Hughes tried his darndest to convince the USAAF that the F-11 was a slightly improved version of the D-2 even though it was clearly a new design. His reasoning was sketchy and the attempt was mostly unsuccessful; in hindsight, the main thing he accomplished was to delay the F-11 program until the war was clearly ending and more promising competitors had emerged, leading to the F-11's cancellation. This is well documented in numerous sources. Hughes' reasons for building the D-2 in the first place are historically obscure, but well-known aviation author Rene Francillon speculates that Hughes built it for another round-the-world speed record attempt, but tried to convince the government to buy it after the outbreak of WW2 made completion of the "prototype" difficult and execution of the flight effectively impossible. Carguychris (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hansen book

It is self-published per this[1] and this[2]. See WP:SPS and WP:RS. Therefore I am removing large bits of the article that only have as its source Hansen's book. There is more but this is a beginning. I have no objection to any of it being re-added but only if sourced on something that isn't Chris Hansen's book....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I recently purchased a copy of Hansen's book since it is listed so many times on articles I'm interested in. He has over 2000 sources/references in the back of his book. I am only interested in a small section (Operation Rusty) in the book. I have a good bit of the sources he used. He pointed out several inconsistencies between the available sources. He made a couple educated guesses concerning technical aspects of the aircraft used. In the grand scheme of history they were entirely plausible and weren't far enough off to matter. (I found other primary sources that had exact details. In one case the source contradicted a veteran's personal recollection that was used. The source is backed up by other sources I've had access to.) Aside from these comments, Hansen's write up of the operation is in line with everything else we know from researching that mission. W92North (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

'Blameless'

Lede says: After the war ended, he faced an investigation by the United States Congress, on charges of corruption... Ultimately, he was found blameless.

There is no reference in the article to his exoneration. Valetude (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)