Talk:D79-TC Pelican

Jumping the gun

Jumping the gun indeed. It would be better to put the images in the Pelican article first and then create an article if it has a new designation. Just like how we did it with the Cyclops MK.II/Mantis. — subtank 12:52, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Agreed, however I chose to do the later because I felt this Pelican is a completely different variant from the Pelicans in the previous games. Just like how the Mammoth came to be, I'm duplicating the same with this new Pelican.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 13:00, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

A bit different for the Mammoth since it didn't look remotely similar to the Elephant (aside from its mammoth size)... but I guess this is fine... — subtank 13:03, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

What made it more confusing for me was that we had two different Pelican variants (Halo CE-Reach era, Halo 3 era) and I wasn't sure which variant to put it on. That's the other half to why I created this article instead.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 13:12, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

You got a point there. If this is a third, make sure to create a disambig.— subtank 13:15, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Will do. Also in reply to your comment- "And why they have to make it... ugly... is beyond me. Bungie's design is more aerodynamic(?) whereas this one is more... bumblebee-ey?", I agree, and they gave it a "Russian Hind" chopper canopy look.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 13:17, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Dropship 79 Heavy

On Halowaypoint this Pelican variant has been offically named as the Dropship 79 Heavy so the page can now be renamed. Source http://www.halowaypoint.com/en-US/halo4guide

I would think, shortening "Dropship" to "D" would be beneficial as it matches the previous incarnations (D77 etc.) so have it as D79 Heavy etc.--94.170.227.166 22:08, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Appearance in Forward Unto Dawn

Does anyone else think that the appearance of the D79 in Halo: Forward Unto Dawn (which takes place in 2526) could be an example of artistic license? It would explain why the post-war emblem was used on the D79 in the series - in order to save themselves some effort, the filmmakers just used the more updated Halo 4 pelican in lieu of the older versions. That would also explain why all of the Covenant troops shown in the series resemble their Halo 4 incarnations (which would also make their appearances examples of artistic license)

Of course, it is also reasonable to assume that the D79 was used toward the beginning of the Human-Covenant War and then only used after its conclusion, but I think that would be more unlikelySPARTAN-347 19:26, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

When talking about the use of the MA5D, I believe they said something to the effect that they're using the Halo 4 stuff to show the connection to that game. Similar to how every MA5 on the PoA is a "B", there are none anywhere during the events of Halo 2, and all of the ones seen during Halo 3 are the "C". So, yeah, basically artistic license. Alex T Snow 21:13, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Flyable

According to that picture in the gallery, it will be. Out of curiosity, where did that come from? Alex T Snow 21:16, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

IGN's review of Halo 4.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 22:04, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Okay, thanks :) Alex T Snow 16:29, 4 November 2012 (EST)

How do you use the rail turrets?

I have used the turrets but they seem to be gun turrets or machine gun turrets and I have used the cannon but how so you use the rail guns on the pelican Spartan Matt (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

They aren't usable in gameplay. --Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 05:47, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

They actually can be manned by a passenger, so they are usable, just not really in single player. Always use the DMR. This is craZboy557, signing off. 07:19, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

The Pelican doesn't have a "railgun turret". The "rail turrets" in the armament section of the infobox are the two machine gun turrets that are on each side of the Pelican. Basically, that's already what you used, Spartan Matt. On a side note, these two turrets and the cannon (which is a bit like the Scorpion's one) are only usable in co-op. Imrane-117 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

I think you mean "cannon", not "canon". --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 10:20, 6 August 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Yeah thanks, I've fixed that. Imrane-117 (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

Gunship Variant

With there being two types of classifications of this Pelican, will it still be combined or separated? This article refers only to the Halo 4 Pelican, not Pelicans in general. The gunship's designation is G79 as opposed to a dropship's designation of D79. Should that warrant separating it into its own category or should all Pelicans be in one article? -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

It's true that the gunship is different enough in both designation and features to warrant its own article. It's probably listed on the same page because we had a lot less info when we started this page and it seems to have stuck as a sort of general article for the Halo 4-era Pelicans. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 09:02, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Since we have enough information on both Pelican variants, it is probably best that we split the article into two separate articles. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 10:49, 18 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Okay, so I assume y'all want me to do it, since I got the book ahead of time (but I suspect by now most of you have obtained it already), or that I'm the one who has the most time to do it. Which I can understand. I do have a lot of time on my hands. And I was planning on doing it. Now, if there are any further questions, concerns or objections... --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 15:40, 23 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

(reset indent) UPDATE: Okay, so nobody beat me to the punch, so I did it, now it's done. May need some expansion, and the current article will definitely need to be changed, with most of the information on the gunship variant being carried over to the new article, and then the section purged and rewritten. Then I think it will be mostly complete. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 17:38, 23 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330