Talk:Bob Hoover

Untitled

What's up with the picture of someone unrelated flying an irrelevant plane? Marty Stu?

I think that whole paragraph about Bob Hoover personally knowing those aviators is full of inaccurate speculation. Does it belong in Wikipedia? (Correction to my previous note: He could have personally known Orville Wright, but not Wilbur Wright - my mistake).

Additionally, which "Time to climb" records did Hoover set? I couldn't find any that he set after a few cursory searches.

I do not know of any such record specifically. But a source that says he did set "time to climb" records, is the editor's note on the description of the book "Forever Flying" written by Bob Hoover himself. Anagnorisis 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure about your type of searches because it is very easy to find the info. I am posting this just a few minutes after writing what I did above. I found it not too difficult to find info about "time to climb" records. Here is one I found very easy:

Class C (Aeroplanes)

Sub-class C-1e (Landplanes: take off weight 3 000 to 6 000 kg)

Group 2 : turboprop

Time to climb to a height of 3 000 m : 2 min 21 sec

Date of flight: 27/04/1978

Pilot: Robert A. HOOVER (USA)

Course/place: Hannover Langenhagen (Germany)

Aircraft: Rockwell Turbocommander 690 B (2 Garrett TPE-331-5-251K, 717.5 SHP each). Registered: D-IAFB

Do we have to keep doubting everything we read? Hmmm .... I guess we have to. Anagnorisis 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another one:

Class C (Aeroplanes) Sub-class C-1e (Landplanes: take off weight 3 000 to 6 000 kg) Group 2 : turboprop

Time to climb to a height of 6 000 m : 5 min 16 sec

Date of flight: 27/04/1978 Pilot: Robert A. HOOVER (USA) Course/place: Hannover Langenhagen (Germany)

Aircraft: Rockwell Turbocommander 690 B (2 Garrett TPE-331-5-251K, 717.5 SHP each) Registered 'D-IAFB'

I guess two should be enough for now. Anagnorisis 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for editing here. I don't know how to do it otherwise. Feel free to remove this comment after reading and considering it. My name is JuciE (jucie at ig dot com dot br) and I am not a member of Wikipedia, just a regular user. I think the "Bob Hoover" article needs a Disambiguation page of some kind. There is a very prolific and talented technical writer named "Bob Hoover". Several of his articles were translated and published in foreign languages. He is very knowleadgeable in the experimental aircraft community. Please consider some kind of link to his writings:

  http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com

(By the way, the writer Bob Hoover is a son of the famous pilot.) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.158.150 (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoover was about the best. But even if he stole a 190(?), he did not escape to Holland -- it was occupied by Germany.

My instructor, a company test pilot, admitted he was only the second best P-51 pilot in the country. He acknowleged Hoover was better.

George Curtis66.75.110.132 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre-camcorder

"With the advent of camcorders, Hoover added a flourish to the act by pouring a cup of tea from a Thermos, while performing a slow aileron roll (a 1G maneuver). Video of this has been widely distributed, to the pleasure of Aero Commander enthusiasts." I'm not sure exactly when this famous sequence was shot, but I saw it the first time in 1966 (yeah, forty years ago!), so it has do be on 16 mm film, not video. The ice-tea is poured from a pitcher into a glass, not from a thermos into a cup. The manouver is a barrel roll, not an aileron roll. With an aileron roll there would have been ice-tea all over Bob and everywhere in the cockpit but in the pitcher or the glass! I don't want to remove this completely, but it has to be re-phrased in some way! --Towpilot 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager's 50th anniversary flight

--Aviation enthusiast 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC) "Hoover was Yeager's backup pilot in the Bell X-1 program ... and flew chase for the 50th anniversary in an F-16." On that occasion, Chuck Yeager flew an F-15 Eagle, not an F-16.

Hoover was due to be the first man through the sound barrier, not Yeager, but...

"Hoover hoped to break the sound barrier in the Bell X-1, but unfortunately, a desperate bailout from an F-84 Thunderjet shattered both his legs, dashing his hopes of flying the X-1."

This is incorrect. The reason Hoover didn't make the flight is that he buzzed the tower shortly before, and his commanding officer was so angry that he demoted Hoover to flying the F-80 chase plane you can see in the official film of the flight.

~ Paul Murphy ~

Yes, the "buzz the tower" version is correct. Mr. Hoover told me himself about it. He said that his CO said (this quote is as close as I can remember), "You're the best pilot I've ever seen, and also the most irresponsible," before handing the sound-barrier plum to Yeager. I always wondered if that scene in "Top Gun," in which "Maverick" buzzes the tower and the CO spills coffee on his shirt and later dresses him down was somehow related.

Also, regarding the various aviators mentioned, I don't know if Mr. Hoover ever met Orville Wright. I do recall him telling me that when he was first taking flight lessons, his instructor's pilot's license was signed by Orville Wright. 68.229.136.172 (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical controversy fact needed

I saw the fact tag added to the statement that Hoover's Australian pilot's license enabled him "to fly in any part of the world other than the United States." Although the phrase comes straight from page 282 of Forever Flying, the issue appears to be whether the book's statement is true or false. While I agree with the comment, "An Australian licence enables a person to fly in any ICAO state, including the United States", I think the article was trying to summarize the situation that resulted when two aviation authorities produced conflicting judgements: Australia granted Hoover a flying license/medical while the United States revoked his medical. Although the U.S. will (normally) accept a properly verified foreign medical, the FAA had already issued an Emergency Order of Revocation for Hoover's medical and would not accept independent evaluations of Hoover's health. The net result was that Hoover could fly anywhere in the world except the United States. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I inserted the fact tag, mindful that the statement in Wikipedia may be a faithful reproduction of what appears in Forever Flying. I don’t have the benefit of having a copy close at hand. It may be that Hoover genuinely believed his new Australian licence would not allow him to fly in the USA, even though that belief was untrue. That situation arises regularly, and raises the question Should Wikipedia report as true something which is untrue, simply because it can be supported by a suitable citation for verification? In that situation Wikipedia should opt for accuracy, possibly qualifying it by indicating that some people hold the contrary belief. For example, depending on what Hoover has written in Forever Flying it might be reasonable to say Hoover obtained an Australian pilot licence that allowed him to fly almost anywhere in the world, including the United States. However, Hoover believed it did not allow him to fly in the United States.

The sub-section Medical controversy appears to contain some original research. For example, there is the sentence Ironically, shortly before the revocation, Hoover had proved his still considerable skills by making a difficult dead-stick landing in densely-populated Torrance, California, after his engine had failed miles out over the Pacific Ocean. Did Hoover write factually about this event in Forever Flying, or did he write with this positive spin on things? It is my guess that Hoover merely wrote the facts, and some Wiki editor added his (her) own positive spin on the matter. An editor’s own perspective on a subject is original research and it has no place in Wikipedia. (Many experienced aviators would say that a pilot who suffered an engine failure miles out over the ocean but who pressed on over densely populated areas in order to return to a major general-aviation airport and perform a dead-stick landing was displaying considerable lack of airmanship and sound judgement! It would be better if the facts, and nothing but the facts, were reported about this incident.) Dolphin51 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so I think sourcing the statement from the book is reasonable. And if there are other opinions, WP:UNDUE states that the other views "may (and usually should) be described." Given that the FAA had already rejected a number of outside evaluations of Hoover's health, I don't understand why the FAA would accept the Australian medical and overturn the FAA's own Emergency Order of Revocation, but I think it reasonable to include the statement and its source in the article.

Regarding the dead-stick landing, page 280 of Forever Flying states, "Handling of this emergency should have convinced the FAA that my capabilities were as good as ever." I'm not sure if the book put a spin on the actual event, but per WP:V, I don't think that matters. As long as the Wiki editor correctly summarized and sourced the statement, WP:V says it may be included. If there is another source stating that Hoover's handling of the emergency was incorrect, that statement and source should also be included. Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Skeet Shooter. Not having a copy of Forever Flying I am indebted to you for helping me out.

I agree with you that having an Australian medical would not persuade the US authorities to issue Hoover with a US medical, and having an Australian pilot licence would not persuade the US authorities to issue him with a US licence. However, that is not what the Wikipedia article is talking about. In Bob Hoover it says:

Meanwhile, Hoover was granted a pilot's licence, and medical certificate, by Australia's aviation authorities, enabling him to fly in any part of the world other than the United States.

Those of us who are familiar with the Convention on International Civil Aviation, its Annex 1, and international recognition of pilot licences, will know that this statement doesn’t ring true. An Australian licence allows its holder to fly an Australian-registered aircraft anywhere in the world, including the USA; but it doesn’t allow the holder to fly an aircraft registered in any country other than Australia unless the state of registry has validated the pilot licence in some way. One of the following is at work here:

• Hoover was attempting to say his Australian licence didn’t allow him to fly N-registered aircraft (in the USA or anywhere else), or
• Hoover was attempting to say the Australian licence didn’t convince the US authorities to issue him with a US licence, or
• there is some essential background information that is missing from the account of events in Bob Hoover.

Does the information in Forever Flying allow the statement about Hoover’s Australian licence to be polished to the point that it is an accurate reflection of the facts related to international recognition of pilot licences?

I see that the positive spin on the dead-stick landing at Torrance comes from Hoover himself. The error on the part of the Wiki editor has been to violate WP:NPOV by conveying as fact something that is clearly Hoover’s opinion about his own performance. I would accept something like the following as a reasonable and neutral statement for Wikipedia:

Shortly before the revocation, Hoover experienced an engine failure off the coast of California. He returned to Torrance, California and carried out a dead-stick landing. Hoover considered his successful handling of this difficult emergency should have convinced the FAA that his capabilities were as good as ever. (Citation Forever Flying, page 280)

What do you think of this approach? Thanks for your assistance. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help, Dolphin51.

Forever Flying page 282 states:

After completion of all the tests and the flight check, I was given a first-class commercial airline pilot rating, which qualified me to fly anywhere in the world except the United States.

I think the Hoover wiki article correctly summarized the above statement and could reasonably be sourced as such. But as you pointed out, this statement, taken out of context, is confusing. Some additional statements from the book may help:

• p. 278: ...my collision course with FAA over whether it was safe for me to fly finally grounded me from flying solo in the United States
• p. 279: ... tests ... were administered by an FAA-appointed psychiatrist, who pronounced me fit.
• p. 279: the FAA, apparently bowing to internal pressure, informed me ... that I was unfit to fly and should surrender my medical certificate.
• p. 279: the FAA agreed to let me undergo a new, independent series of tests.
• p. 280: Dr. Brent Hisey ... agreed to put me through the most thorough exams ... I passed those tests
• p. 281: We were successful at the hearing, but all of the evidence was completely ignored by the NTSB when they reversed the judge's decision."

I think the book was trying to state that no matter what evidence was brought before the FAA, including the newly acquired commercial pilot's license, Hoover would not be permitted to fly in the U.S.

Regarding the T-28 landing at Torrance, I agree with your approach although you may want to clarify the statement to note that the engine was running intermittently during the return to the airport. The engine failed completely at touchdown as stated on page 280:

The engine was kept running intermittently by constantly manipulating the engine controls, throttle, mixture, and propeller lever ... Right at touchdown, the engine froze...

It is indeed difficult to present contradictory viewpoints in a fair and unbiased manner. Thank you for your diligence and effort to build consensus. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skeet Shooter. Thanks very much for your agreement with my suggested approach regarding the T-28 landing at Torrance, and thanks for the extra data about how Hoover managed to keep the engine running intermittently. I have changed the sentence so that it now says:

Shortly before the revocation, Hoover experienced serious engine problems off the coast of California. During his return to Torrance, he was able to keep the engine running intermittently by constantly manipulating the throttle, mixture, and propeller lever. Just as he landed the engine froze. Hoover considered his successful handling of this difficult emergency should have convinced the FAA that his capabilities were as good as ever.

Over the next day or two I will digest your useful information about the background to the medical decisions. Regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The section is incomplete; it leaves off with the impression that Hoover's medical certificate was left revoked. It wasn't; he managed to get it restored (with attorney-pilot F. Lee Bailey representing him). Bailey wrote about it in a 1992 issue of Flying. Unfortunatly that magazine was lost to me at least 10 years ago so I can't cite it myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bob's list of crashes

The article needs Bob's list of crashes. When he was with North American, he was introduced as the pilot who could take a plane further into a crash than any other pilot. I think the count is over 100. Just another one of the guys who spent time working at NA(R) at LAX. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoover Nozzle and Hoover Ring

The following comment was inserted in the article on 7 February 2012 by 68.6.175.30. See diff.

Bob wasn't seriously injured in this accident, he flew the routine the next day in a Commander 114 - very impressive.

I deleted the comment from the article. Dolphin (t) 01:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bob Hoover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080303205529/http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroom/releaseDetail.cfm?releaseID=166 to http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroom/releaseDetail.cfm?releaseID=166

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bob Hoover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716205557/http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/archives/archives/101597/briefly.html to http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/archives/archives/101597/briefly.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

Text and POV seems more like a press release than a neutral presentation of information. Frequent mentions of perceived wrongs by the FAA on Mr. Hoovers civilian flying as well as phrasing suggesting unreceived recognition is due. Page appears to be more for the advocacy of Mr. Hoover rather than a neutral description and presentation. Citations are limited to very pro-Hoover sources and lack objectivity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:363F:B15F:85A5:1A93:6B9F:E281 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"...lack objectivity!" Took me awhile to stop rolling on the floor with endless laughter, upon reading that statement.

Since when are Wiki Editors required to seek out "objective" sources? Not in any of the rules of editing that I have read. To the contrary, Wiki rules even state that what is included in Wiki articles needn't be true at all. All that really counts is if some regular Far-Left news source that is recognized as "WP:RS" by our betters, is cited to support statements made in Wiki articles.

Thus, we are within our rights to make statements about how wonderful was Stalin's paradise, because Walter Duranty, the Moscow Bureau Chief for The New York Times, said it was. Duranty was even awarded the Pulitzer Prize at the behest of the Times, for that reporting, in 1932. Does it matter that subsequent history proved Duranty was a consistent liar in his reporting? Apparently not. We still are supposed to treat the NY Times as WP:RS, in spite of this recent bit of garbage that it published:

"The television channel cited experts who suggested that by turning off the autopilot, the pilots were trying to pull the plane back to a horizontal position. But at that moment a stabilizing fin at the jet’s tail was switched on.

"With the fin activated, “the elevator is no longer working and the plane practically does not react to the pilot’s control panel,” the report said. The channel suggested that the pilot could have accidentally hit the button that activated the fin because of his reported “chronic fatigue.” [NY Times, March, 2-16]

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." [Galileo Galilei] EditorASC (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Official stories can be retracted. Stories by generally well-respected sources can be shown to be wrong. Any news item must be understood in context. Knowledge itself that reality can intervene. Stories out of Iraq in which Saddam Hussein was contemplating international arbitration of some drilling techniques of the Kuwaiti oil company just before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait depended upon the moral integrity of Saddam Hussein and were universally repudiated in news outlets that published them. The assurances of a diplomat are no better than the regime behind them, as shown by American-Japanese relations just before the Pearl Harbor attack.

Journalists like Walter Duranty can be duped. Hardly anyone now cites him about the realities of the Soviet political system. A long-standing medical journal might have had much to say of the fine art of blood-letting with medicinal leeches. Any physician who relies upon 'medicinal leeches' as an alternative to more modern medicine would be a joke. (There might now be legitimate uses of leeches in medicine... but this implies more recent studies of medical science.

Reputable sources can be wrong -- very wrong. But they normally correct themselves. Thus the New York Times has exposed that an official source lied or gave misleading statements upon which it issued a news report, or that one of its journalists committed journalistic misconduct. A medical journal such as the Lancet recognizes that the body of medical knowledge is always changing with new discoveries. At some point many cancers now considered untreatable might themselves become treatable with virus therapy that attacks cancer cells but not healthy cells in which case much that we all 'know' about cancer might become obsolete.

Reality is the test. No news source is omniscient, but some (the New York Times) are much more credible than others (North Korean News Agency, the National Enquirer). Valid sources correct themselves, and it is the corrected version that most matters. Propaganda and shock stories are not so reliable. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In response to these statements:

Official stories can be retracted.... Reputable sources can be wrong -- very wrong. But they normally correct themselves.... No news source is omniscient, but some (the New York Times) are much more credible than others.... Valid sources correct themselves, and it is the corrected version that most matters.

If the NYTimes is one of those reputable, well-respected news sources, then why have they failed to retract this idiotic article, which was and still is nothing less than totally ignorant garbage reporting? [1] EditorASC (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Escape to safety in the Netherlands

From May 1940 to the surrender of Nazi Germany, the Netherlands was definitely not "safety" for any American downed flier or escaped POW. The Nazis had as tight control of the occupied Netherlands as they had of Germany itself, and would have murdered Bob Hoover had they caught him. A small part of the Netherlands was liberated by the Allies in the summer of 1944, which would have been possible, but that would require some clarification. He could have flown a stolen German aircraft to the Nazi-occupied part of the Netherlands and found his way to a Resistance network that might have smuggled him to safety somewhere else in Europe. Or did he fly off to Great Britain, which really was safe? The German Armed Forces did not surrender in the Netherlands until the last week of the Second World War.

Some clarification would be appreciated. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you come to this conclusion: Hoover was captured in Feb 1944 and spent approx 16 month in a POW camp (see [2]) Near the end of the war most of the Netherlands were already freed. By the time Hoover escaped, the Nazis only kept strongholds in the cities (see also David Barnouw (1999): De hongerwinter. S. 52, ISBN 978-90-6550-446-3). So this seem very plausible and the assumption is supported by sources. Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Feb 1944 + 16 months = June 1945. Perhaps the "approx 16 months" means 15 months. IF he was captured Feb 9 then 15 months later would have been May 9. WW2 in Europe ended 8 May although some fighting continued to 11 May. 165.120.79.237 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to see that someone has pointed out the glaring inconsistency to this thing about 16 months as a prisoner. The Germans left the prison camp on April 30th and it was liberated by the Soviet Army the next day. All of the prisoners in that camp we're flown out May 13th through 15th by The 91st Bomb Group in "Operation Revival" That had special meaning to my uncle John H Temple who was Bombardier aboard "Wheel n' Deal", 322nd Squadron 91st Bomb Group which was shot down December 3rd, 1944. That was 16 months. It's strange how something like this that can't mathematically be true is so widely accepted and repeated and still, nobody did the math. The Allies have been leafleting that part of Germany for at least a month before the Soviets got there. People in that camp knew the Soviets were coming. Just how long before the Soviets arrived did Hoover decide to escape.? For weeks they've been hearing the Soviet artillery. Who would have been dumb enough to try to escape weeks before or a month before or two months before the Soviets arrived? The truth of what Hoover actually did was even dumber than that. According to another prisoner in that camp, Hoover and the two others left the camp after the German soldiers had left and after the Soviets had already arrived. He did not Escape captivity by the Germans. It was not a prison escape. He simply decided he didn't want to wait for the Americans or the British to get them out. Which happened in less than two weeks. I got to tell you this dulls the shining reputation of Hoover. He has allowed this myth to be part of his story. The Russians were not guarding the prison in the same manner as the Germans. How hard would it be to go over the wire? And how stupid? He ends up in a damaged FW190 with no parachute and flies by dead reconning to the Netherlands. Could that kind of judgment be why he ended up in the kind of group? They didn't want him to fly combat at all. He was a test pilot had demonstrated great flying skills and yet a colonel who had seen his demonstrations refused to assign him. I think more than one officer above him thought his stunt flying skills didn't make up his lack of judgment and his risk-taking. That is reflected in his decision to walk away from the prison camp into Germany and didn't even know where he thought he could go. I don't suppose anybody here is going expose destroy the myth. Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bob Hoover. 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/20150721195628/http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A20000796000 to http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A20000796000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220020706/http://www.cityoflancasterca.org:80/Index.aspx?page=208 to http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/Index.aspx?page=208#hoover
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/2014-07-30-bob-hoover-documentary-preview-screening-at-airventure-warmly-receivedEAA
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ameliaslanding.com/images/Videos/2006-3-11_bob_hoover.avi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520085044/http://www.ameliaslanding.com:80/aviation_videos.htm to http://ameliaslanding.com/aviation_videos.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722175734/http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eagle_bios/2005/hoover_2005.asp to http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eagle_bios/2005/hoover_2005.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Hoover. 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/20090512144432/http://www.legacyflightmuseum.com:80/Planes.aspx to http://www.legacyflightmuseum.com/planes.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Hoover. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroom/releaseDetail.cfm?releaseID=166
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161026075417/https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/november/19/bob-hoover-film-wins-combs-gates-award to https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/november/19/bob-hoover-film-wins-combs-gates-award

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) 01:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Hoover. 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/20150924050324/http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2005/media/julaug2005.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2005/media/julaug2005.pdf

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) 23:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Time spent in captivity

The Wehrmacht withdrew from Stalag Luft 1 in the night April 30, 1945 and the camp was subsequently evacuated between 13 and 15 of May. Being taken prisoner on February 9, 1944, Hoover therefore couldn't have spent 16 month in captivity. Even when calculating with 64 weeks instead of the full 16 month (and assuming he was transfered there on the very day of his capture), the time spent at Stalag Luft 1 would have lasted until May 2nd, which does not match the story of his escape.
I don't have any relevant literature at hand but a quick google search revealed these conflicting numbers on several sites. Taking into account the given precise date of his capture, I reckon the duration of captivity was rounded up generously.
--Zwischennetz (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Test Pilot School

Bob Hoover attended USAF Test Pilot School class 1946c, and subsequently attended US Navy Test Pilot School class 6. Tpsnugget (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)