Jump to content

Talk:Agusta A129 Mangusta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T129 specs

[edit]

The sources are unclear, but the improvements seem to be compared with the original A129, not the A129 International (A129I), esp the engine performance figures. I have a source[1] which states the A129I has "20% more-powerful LHTEC T800 turboshafts", exactly the same figures given for the T129. As such, I have to believe the T129 uses the same engines as the A129I, and the the performace figures are comparing the T129 to original A129 with the Gem engines, not to the A129I. Assuming the deal goes forward, more information should be forthcoming, but until then, I believe my interpretation of the figures is accurate based on verifiable sources to this point. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Frawley, Gerard: The International Directiory of Military Aircraft, 2003-2004, page 20. Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, 2003. ISBN 1-875671-55-2

The RR 1004 is the Gem, and the CTS800 is the civil version of the T800. I've seen both T800 and CTS800 listed as being in the Int'l, SO I assume there isn't much difference between the two designations, other than the usual military/civil changes. TO my knowledge, the A129I was developed in the mid-late 90s, but never sold, though the A129CBT for the Italians featured many of the improvements, except it retained the Gem engines. THe T129 may further improve on the Int'l, but to what extent I have yet to determine. - BillCJ 05:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. For now, you have to assume a T129 = A129I. It appears the bulleted items do not come from References 2 or 3. Must be improvements from A129 -> A129I, like you mentioned. -Fnlayson 06:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree that the T129 = A129I and the "T" simply refers to the fact that it will be assembled in Turkey. Bill, I understand your ref says "20% more powerful engines", but keep in mind that the article says hover performance has been increased by 20%. First, those aren't necessarily the same thing...hover performance is based on a number of things, and while engine power increase is one way to achieve it, there are others as well (such as improvements in blade design). Also, keep in mind that you can get power/performance increases out of the same engine by refining various aspects of it (fuel control system, FADEC, etc) or since many turboshaft engines are de-rated, by simply de-rating them less. Heck, on the 412, they increased MGW simply by changing the markings on the ITT gauge and changing the performance charts in the RFM. In many such cases, the performance limitations aren't really the engine, but the drive train downstream of it, and by strengthening its components, including transmissions, you can utilize more of the power available from the engines.
    • I've made a minor clarification in the lead paragraph of the article, as well, where it says that the A129 was the first attack helicopter designed and built in Europe. Seems that whoever wrote that forgot that Moscow is in Europe, too, and they've produced some rather effective attack helicopters! Akradecki 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alan, thanks for the clarifications, and for the advice. We don't know yet the exact model numer of the T129's engine, and that will tell us alot. I understand what you mean about drivetrian improvements tho, so we will have to see what eles comes out before we really know more. (Jeff, thanks too!) - BillCJ 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the late 1960s Westland designed an attack version of the WG.13 but it was not proceeded with: [1].

T129 3-view

[edit]

We're planning on converting the A139 Int'l specs to the T129 when they are released. Since the T129 is the only version of the A129I that has been sold, it seems apporpriate to list the T129 3-view there, rather than in the text. The A129I 3-view with printed text does not look professional, and it looks like it's from a presumably-copyrighted book/magazine, I am going to remove it. I won't move the T129 preveiw back to the specs at this time, as it seems to be too contentious. - BillCJ 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Application of WP:NCMAC

[edit]

Re. this revert [2]: I disagree. This is not one of the contexts where either "former Yugoslav..." or even "Republic of..." is needed. The context is one of international politics, where the simple name "Macedonia" alone is practically unambiguous (in a sentence involving "UN missions to X, Y, and Z", where Y and Z are unambiguously independent countries, it would be implausible for a reader to assume that X should be referring to anything else but also the independent country of that name.) The rule you quote is only for environments "where the context demands making a disambiguating contrast even more salient. [...] This will usually only be the case where the country needs to be mentioned in direct contrast with one of the other 'Macedonias'". Not the case here. And if you want "former Yugoslav" for reasons other than disambiguation, for instance just as a piece of background info about why there was a UN mission in that country in the first place, you'd have to ask yourself: why does this entry in the list need such background info, when the other two don't? In any case, it's irrelevant to this article, since this article isn't about what the UN was doing in those countries and why; it's purely about the machine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. You'll have to ask yourself why a simple explanatory phrase making more clear a historical situation must be thrown out to apply with a general guideline when it is in fact allowed in these situation by the guideline's own text. Of course, I played no part in writing the guidelines, so I can only go on what the text actually says, not what is says. Why don't the other two have explanatory info? Probably because a single phrase can't sum up their situations, but if you can think of some, feel free to add them. Do try keep them succint, as this article is purely about the machine. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I just quoted to you, the guideline does NOT suggest to use the phrase in a situation like this – the phrase you quoted is ONLY for cases where a disambiguation contrast must be made particularly salient, which is not the case here. What do we need the phrase for? We don't need to use it as part of the country's name (because it isn't); we don't want to suggest to the reader that it is part of the name (because we shouldn't); we don't need to use it to avoid ambiguity (because there isn't any); and we don't need it to provide historical background info (because, as you say yourself, that's not what the article is about). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm obviously not smart enough to actually understand written English, I'll stick by my interpretation that the guidelines I quoted in my summary do in fact allow such uses. Granted, the phrase was written long before the guidelines were contrived, but I don't see how keeping it harms anything. Perhaps you should get the guidelines clarified to say what you actually want them to say, then come back and enforce them. Until then! - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is crystal clear. There is a context to the phrase you quoted. It's embedded in a structure, you know. It very explicitly speaks only of a very special situation, which doesn't apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the referees involved in finalising the guideline, I have been asked to comment here. I would respectfully suggest that the guidance referred to is not applicable here and that the "former Yugoslavian" aspect be omitted altogether, since it is unambiguous as to what is being referred to without this qualifier. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree "Republic of Macedonia" is acceptable here? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Happy to help Fritzpoll (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing non-English words

[edit]

I found the applicable section in the MOS: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see Words as words)." Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agusta/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agusta A129 Mangusta. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agusta A129 Mangusta. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agusta_A129_Mangusta&oldid=1204604852"