Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

WP:GLAM/SI Ambassador

Hello, WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 28! We would like to invite your WikiProject to help with the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. Because of the Scope of your project, your project has been nominated to be part of our WikiProject Embassy, a place for WikiProjects to help Editors participating in the Smithsonian Collaboration improve articles, find materials, and create partnerships for the future. We hope that you will nominate an Ambassador for our participants to contact. Thanks!!!

Chengdu J-10

We've got an edit war going on at Chengdu J-10 Two users who are both convinced the other is biased keep reverting each other. One user is on very thin ground already, and may be a sock. SOme admin interventions would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the page so a consensus can be reached on the talk page. As we dont have many admins about! and I have been involved in editing the articles I have also asked another admin User:Mjroots to check my actions. MilborneOne (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the protection, although without doubt it's been protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION like any decent admin should do. I think the question that needs to be addressed is whether Sinodefence.com meets WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't feel sinodefence.com meets WP:RS requirements although NoBiasPlease seems to think it does and argues that the Pentagon references sinodefence.com (a fact I have trouble believing). Regardless, even if the community agrees that sinodefence.com is a reliable source, the website does not actually give a fleet size, only the number of regiments that are said to be in service with the PLAAF. Since there is no way of knowing how many aircraft are actually present in this regiment unless the website explicitly states it, it would be better to go with an already trusted source like aviation week. If a Chinese media outlet does happen to give an updated number, then I would be okay with including that. Vedant (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I've posed the question at WP:RSN. Once this matter is settled, there should be an end to the edit war. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Another image dispute

There's currently a discussion over whether File:Windecker YE-5A.jpg is replacable. The proposed subject to replace it is neither a YE-5A or even assembled, though... Any backup, assistance, or just comments would be appreciated. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List of military aircraft of the United States

Finally getting back to working on List of military aircraft of the United States after some time away...and after further thought, I've come to the realisation that the "tables and images" format I'd been converting it to might not be a good format after all. Since it introduces lots of code, isn't always clear, and not all free-use images can be found to feature in the list.

So I have two questions: one, should I change the tables back to prose-list text (not a revert though, as there were a lot of fixes too), and second, well, I've come around to the possiblity of splitting pre-/post-'62, if a split is necessary. Should it be split? Or should [[List of military aircrft of the United States (naval)] be merged back in?

Also: I would like to create a seperate rotorcraft-list page to keep the nifty table/picture format. Perhaps List of military helicopters of the United States. Pondered that on the article talk page, and there were concerns about how it would relate to the naval list. I understand that, but I think a pretty good list article could be made for the choppers. Perhaps it could be a case where they're mentioned in the "normal" format on LomaotUS but have their own "enhanced" list? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly more than one way to skin a cat! We're dealing with some very long lists here. A very clever way to do it is used at List of aircraft manufacturers. What looks like an alphabetic table of contents is actually a set of links to all the sub-pages (List of aircraft manufacturers H-L for instance). Not sure if you know about the problem of 'listcruft' (more at WP:LISTCRUFT). It's caused by excessive copying and splitting of master lists into smaller ones. A couple of months ago I reduced 22 lists of engines (virtually all derived from sections of List of aircraft engines down to seven. Helicopters are still aircraft so I personally would expect to be able to get at them from List of military aircraft of the United States even if it was just a link. Not saying don't do it, just need to put some thought into the process which you are obviously doing! On tables I find them difficult to edit as you note yourself, a newcomer will probably give up instead of correcting or entering something. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there'd certainly still be a link - same as with the link to the Experimental aircraft now. :) Liftcruft is one reason I'm floating the baloon of merging the Navy designation list back into the main list - or potentially merging it into the 1922 United States Navy aircraft designation system article, which might work even better. Hmm! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont have any strong opinions on the illustrated tables but I do think the basic list should just be simple list of the designations with just a simple link, no images or extra facts. Perhaps the illustrated tables could be linked out as supplementary but smaller listss like helicopters, fighter but retain the simple list as a parent article. It was a lot simpler but we have a lot of duplication when some of prefix designation were broken out into seperate sections duplicating content. The reason the navy list was split out was because it doesnt work the same way as the A-1 to A-99 type designations so it seemed like a good idea to keep it separate. Doesnt mean you could not link the illustrated helicopter list from both the main and the navy list. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that sounds like a good idea. I think I'll get to work on that. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, good point on the Navy designations. I'm trying to write an article on the 1956-1962 Army system but can't find diddly squat on it either Googling or Google Books. Any suggestions? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Between us in the project we have a lot of books! anything in particular you are trying to find out? MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, basically, what was the motivation of the Army for developing their own unique system? For starters, anyway. I'm working on the article in userspace here, feel free to chip in. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft in air force articles

Not sure if this is the best place but I have been reverting an IP user who is changing all Eurocopter helicopters source to the European Union rather than France and Germany and the same for Airbus which are most France and the A319 is German-built. As far as I know the EU does not build aircraft and the aircraft are legally from where they have been built. Just looking for a sanity check, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on the German IPs talk page about this thread. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Shenyang J-15

There seem to be a somewhat large point of contention with this article. It appears to me that based on the evidence supplied in the references, the Shenyang J-11B is a copy of the Russian Su-27SK. Whether this is an improved copy or a heavily modified copy, it still is a copy. A few users and anon IPs that originate from China seem to think that the wikilink to this article should be removed while not actually providing a very compelling reason. I did point out that the article I wikilinked needs to be checked for serious POV issues and added the appropriate citation needed tags but to simply remove this wikilink is puzzling and is possibly indicative of POV pushing.Vedant (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese aircraft articles (and, through geographic-rivalry-association, the Indian ones) attract a more-than-healthy following of fanboys who belive that the Chinese birds are OMGWTFBBQ awesome (and that (for instance and especially) the HAL Tejas is lame, dude). Any attempt to say otherwise will inevitably spark an edit war, alas! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that. I try keep my personal opinions on the matter independent from Wikipedia and focus on removing uncited claims wherever they may lie... That being said, it's obvious that the site is home to a fair share of nationalists and internet spin doctors of all nationalities and I'm still not convinced that Ao333's removal of the wikilink is justified. Vedant (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have to say personally I'm rather sure it's not justified. The J-11B is indeed a development of the cloned (J-11A) Flankers, and that editor's editing patterns have in the past been mildly POV-ish torwards China I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Only mildly biased? :) - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Taiwan is not a country BilCat, it's an economy. Furthermore, I will violate the consensus reached on WP and proceed to edit all the GDP related articles to that effect. The HAL Tejas is a piece of Indian-made garbage that's not even Indian because it uses American engines and Israeli avionics. On the other hand, the J-10, J-11 and J-15 are completely indigenous developments which use Chinese weapons, avionics and other equipment and any attempt to say otherwise is a travesty of justice and violates WP:NPOV. Vedant (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So by your reasoning the Mitsubishi MU-2 is not Japanese, the Piaggio P.166 is not Italian, the GAF Nomad is not Australian, the Dornier Do 228 is not German, the Harbin Y-12 is not Chinese, the Bombardier Global Express is not Canadian, the Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante is not Brazilian, the Sukhoi Superjet 100 is not Russian, the CASA 212 is not Spanish etc. etc. etc.... and violating consensus gets you nothing but a ticket to Blocktown. YSSYguy (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Err... have you familiarized yourself with the issue at hand or looked at my contributions? If I was an untrustworthy user, why would an admin have given me rollback rights? *sigh* I was being facetious in the above post and I was paraphrasing edits made by another user to that effect.

Anyways since you've obviously done some research, I will now respond to your point (in jest). Yes, the MU-2 is not Japanese, the P.166 is not Italian, the Nomad is not Australian and the Do 228 is not German. The Harbin Y-12 is definitely Chinese though as it has a Chinese name and is made by Harbin. May I violate consensus now? :D Vedant (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(Removes foot from mouth, says 'D'OH!', and then re-inserts foot) Thanks for making that clear. YSSYguy (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Vedant, you are wrong on many of your points. 1) The Tejas is indeed Indian. 2) No official source evidences J-10's "Israeli" heritage. 3) The J-15 is a Su-33 copy. 4) The J-11A is the name, which Su-27SK was license produced (not copied) under. The J-11B is a upgraded SK copy, of which the quality, you have no idea about. Linking J-11B to a page which defines it to be of "significantly inferior quality" doesn't stand as no source has even touched on the J-11B's quality standard.Ao333 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that Vedant was attempting humour in poking fun at some of the baised editing that goes on PRC and sub-continent aviation articles - sarcasm is not always easy to spot on the internet and probably not a good idea as it seems that two people failed to spot it. The real issue is to sort out the POV mess that is the J-15 article.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the assumption that Ao333 is playing stupid, cute or troll here (probably just stupid and troll) because it was his contributions I was referencing and having objection to. You know, the ones such as...

• Give the Indians a break. It's their first plane since British Raj, the supposed "symbol of independence." Though, I wonder how the plane would actually turn out. Even the Chinese have been making planes for 70 years. One thing I don't understand is how this plane is Indian. The turbofan and FCS are American; the avionics are Israeli; that leaves only the airframe and name made-in-India. Are you guys feeling proud writing about this plane.Ao333 (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) source

• No, the yet-to-be-IOCed-Tejas is not 4.5th gen. It's not even a full-fledged multirole fighter; it's more like an intercepter as it has nearly zero ground-striking capacity. Furthermore, Tejas's propulsion system ISN'T EVEN DECIDED ON YET. It's a hardcore 4th gen, and is better than the Mirage but by no means comparable to the 15/16/18E, Typhoon, Rafale or J-10B/11B which are somewhat STEALTHY, FAST, LOW ON MAINTENANCE, AND CAN ACTUALLY DELIVER ENOUGH PAYLOAD TO BE LABLED AS A MULTIROLE. "Light Combat Aircraft with carbon composites" = "We can't make Medium or Heavy Combat Aircrafts with higher-grade fibre composites." Being able to build one of world's lightest fighters is NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF. Most here would agree that a J-10 can even take out a Tejas, no problem. Having a radar which can lock on 10 targets when you can't even engage 5 is OVERKILL. The Tejas does have some fancy gadgets but its design is solid 4th gen and its propulsion system ISN'T EVEN fully 4th. Drop it. If it makes you guys who always bump it to 4.5th feel any better, think of Tejas as a 4.24th gen fighter.--Ao333 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)source

• This ofcourse pales in comparison to his offsite edits (which he assumed ownership for) that are located here

Aaaaand what a surprise do we have here? Ao333 has again reverted the edit to Shenyang J-15, an opinion Admins? Vedant (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. on a side note, what made you change your mind that the Tejas is Indian because you posted a rather POV dismissal of the plane as Indian on its respective talk page. Unfortunately you forgot to include a signature but then when Sinebot did it for you, you reverted that edit, why? Vedant (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tp digress a bit, the engine is the one thing that has worked correctly, and on time! Granted, it was already developed, which is why it was chosen to power the prototypes (as with the Dassault Rafale, btw). The Tejas was alwyas planned to be in a heavier weight class that was suitable for the F404, so the fact that the F404-powered Tejas is underpowered is really no one's fault. However, the Tejas's development has taken a long time for such a relativley simple design, even given India's relative inexperianece with such designs. Designing and buiding the aircraft entirely in the public sector probably hasn't been any help either. It did work in the Soviet union, but they have a measure of competition built in by having separate design houses. India probably could have bought a license to build the JAS 39 Gripen for far less money than has been spent, had an aircraft already in service by now, and gained some experience along the way too. But hindsight is 20/20. - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin Jetpack

Martin Jetpack appears to be written by someone connected with the company. I've removed several of the most promotional sections. Any assistance would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Griffon Aerospace

A registered user, User:Gary Tuttle, has greatly expanded the Griffon Aerospace article, and created one on one of its products, the MQM-170 Outlaw. The latter is unsourced, while rhe former has no citations, but the former has a link to the company's site and a press release. Note that Gary W. Tuttle is listed on the company article as Business Development & Program Manager. If it's the same perso, it's a definite COI. Thanks for any assistance, especially from someone more diplomatic than me! - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, the submissions are badly written and organized. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

That figures! - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, that company is in my area. :( Griffon's other UAV, MQM-171 BroadSword was mentioned in the local newspaper in a couple of months ago (online version). It did not seem that significant to me when I read it then. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some assistance please

G'day all. A PA-31 crashed in a suburban street in Sydney about 23 hours ago, killing the two on board. It has received nationwide news coverage, as it crashed outside a primary school and there was spectacular footage to be shown to the hoi polloi. I have removed mention of it from the Piper PA-31 Navajo article twice now per WP:NOTNEWS, but it's on there again. Could I get some assistance keeping an eye on the article for a little while please? YSSYguy (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a hidden note there mentioning guidelines. It might be easier/simpler to keep a short entry on it for now. Then remove it as non-notable in a week or so. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sensible idea Fnlayson, thanks. The company was Airtex Aviation; as it happens I had added a pic of the actual accident aircraft to the PA-31 article a couple of months ago and someone made this rather odd copyvio edit to the summary for that image, so maybe the image can be watched as well please. YSSYguy (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes

Most of our editors are probably aware of the Wikipedia:Pending changes trial, which is to run for at least 2 months. The trial is to involve about 2000 articles. We could probaly submit some of our the protected and semi-protected articles at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue#Pool for the trial. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Aichi D1A split

An editor has split the Aichi D1A article into the Aichi D1A1 and Aichi D1A2 without previous discussion. From reading the articles, there doesn't seem to be enough differences between the two variants to warrant separate articles. I've left a note on the user's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I split them because the Imperial Japanese Navy gave them two different designations, Type 94 for the D1A1 and Type 96 for the D1A2. I don't care either way whether they stay as two separate articles or are recombined into one. I note that that they are two separate articles in the Japanese Wikipedia D1A1 and D1A2. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I also note the pic is marked as the D1A1 in the image file, but is in the D1A2 article on jp.wp. Which is correct? - BilCat (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't specify which it is. By the way, the Japanese Wikipedia is the only other wiki which has them as separate articles. All the other languages have the two Types combined into one article. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Francillon, in Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War treats the D1A1 and D1A2 in the same entry - differences seem to be a different engine (Nakajima Kotobuki in the D1A1 and Nakajima Hikari in the D1A2), a NACA cowling in the D1A2, and the fitting of spats and an improved windshield - the photo appears to be a 2. Personnaly, I don't think there is enough there to warrant splitting the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've re-merged the article, and I tried to keep any new information that was added after the split. I didn't try to add the Lead paragraph from the A1D2 article, thoguh there is some new information there. - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have tried to find a navbox on the Japanese military aircraft designation systems#Long Type and Model Number system, but we don't seem to have one. I could not even find a list of the type numbers used anywhere on WP. I think we should at least have a list articel for the Long Type and Model Number system, and perhaps a navbox too. Any suggestions? - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes for Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft by type would help clear up confusion. For example, there were at least five Type 96 aircraft during the IJN's history, including a Type 96 torpedo bomber, Type 96 dive bomber, Type 96 land bomber, Type 96 fighter, and Type 96 reconnaissance plane. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Make seven, two more: Type 96 small reconnaissance plane and Type 96 night reconnaissance plane. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It might well end up being too big for a navbox, but certainly would work for a list. Once the list is made, we could mull over options for a navbox to keep it from being to large or complex. If we don't create a navbox, we could add a "See also" link to each of the existing IJN Short designation navboxes, which might be the better way to go anyway. - BilCat (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start at a list type article on the Navy designations in a sandbox. Comments?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tupolev SB or Tupolev SB-2?

A new editor has made massive changes to every article featuring the Tupolev SB-2, changing them all to Tupolev SB. I thought that SB-2 was the more commonly used name? FWiw Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

I would agree the SB-2 was the common name for the production version, the prototype SB had different engines, although the article variants list is a bit of a mess and it is not very clear and none of it appears to be referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SB-2 appears to be a post war invention - the proper designation appears to be just SB or SB 2M-10x (where M10x refers to the engines fitted i.e. SB 2M-100 was powered by two M-100s, SB 2-M103 powered by two M-103s etc, so the edits seem to be correct - its a shame the editor in question seems to mark every single edit as minor, however.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at tidying up (and referencing) the variants list, so hopefully it is a bit more coherent now (although there are still a lot of versions).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

“Another common Western misapprehension was to call it the SB-2. This arose from the fact that the full designation included the number and type of engines, written in the form SB-2M-100A and SB-2M-103, just as the full designation of an earlier bomber was TB-3-4M-17 (often written TB3-4M17).”(Putnam: Tupolev aircraft since 1922, p. 90). Nothing to do with prototypes or post-war production, in other words. The same editor visited the Norwegian version today, btw. I let the edit stay there... as soon as the soccer ends, I will probably redirect the Norwegian version to SB, but awaiting what happens here... Paaln (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)^{oops sorry, didn't see Nigel Ish's edit indented in the corner there...}

Yes, the Soviet designation was like the US Army Corps' where aircraft were numbered in sequence within a role. The SB was the first fast bomber design, just like the DB-3 was the third long-range bomber design. The article should be renamed, if it hasn't already been, with a redirect from SB-2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mono tiltrotor merge to Tiltrotor

It has been requested via a merge tag to merge Mono tiltrotor to Tiltrotor for several months now. The merge discussion is at Talk:Mono tiltrotor and probably has caught little attention. More input/help is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Flight Images

A user has added two images from flightglobal to de Havilland Albatross, both have been uploaded to commons using the note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) from The Editor of Flight Global, Michael Targett, as permission. I dont have a problem with File:Albatross 1938 prototype.jpg which is a screen grab from the pdf (per the note), but the other image is File:Albatross 1938 frob.jpg from the media area of the flightglobal website, these high quality images are not covered by the note. Can I remind editors to please dont abuse the kind offer from Michael Targett by using his words to justify copyright violation of the higher quality images. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

POV war

See AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. Mostly this is on the issue of the ROC/Taiwan's status as a nation, but also includes speculative edits, and violations of the WPAIR style guide. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at T-1000 previous pov edits where he writes, incorrectly, that the Taiwanese Indigenous Defense Fighter was supposedly "built by the USA" when that is completely and indisputable false and utterly untrue. The USA had refused to sell both the F-20 and F-16 jets back in the 1980's due to political opposition from the communist People's Republic of China, which was the only reason the Taiwanese government would initiate a risky indigenous program to design and build a Taiwanese jet fighter. Otherwise the Taiwanese would have preferred to just buy the proven and time-tested jet fighters of the USA, aka, the F-16. But the USA, out of an effort to maintain "better relations" with the People's Republic of China decided to forbid the transfer of aerospace technology to the ROC (Taiwan) which is why they had to go about doing the design and building by themselves. The USA has, on the indisputable record, never built or operated the IDF jet, just take a look at the US jet fighter inventory, no IDF jet in sight anywhere in the US military. Now as for the components that were subcontracted to US corporations it was already mentioned in the article. The USA does not have complete information about this IDF jet because they never had complete access to the design and construction of the jet which was maintained only on the Republic of China (Taiwan), even certain parameters of flight range and performance capability are strictly classified by the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), especially with the introduction of the new technologically upgraded "Brave Hawk" variant of the IDF jet. And as for the naming conventions, nothing has been violated, the usage of Republic of China (Taiwan) is standard in accordance with Wikipedia official policy and the official policy the president of the ROC (Taiwan), see ( www.president.gov.tw ). This so-called "pov war" has been brought up and blown out of proportion by the above user and a few others like T-1000. There is no dispute as to whether or not the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a nation, they are a former founding Security Council member of the United Nations, they are recognized by 23 United Nations member countries, see Foreign relations of the Republic of China (Taiwan), including the Holy See of Vatican City. They have their own President of the Republic of China, their own ROC (Taiwan) Army, ROC (Taiwan) Navy, ROC (Taiwan) Air Force, ROC (Taiwan) Marine Corps and ROC (Taiwan) Military Police, see Republic of China Armed Forces. They even have their own Taiwanese space program similar to NASA, check out National Space Organization (Republic of China). The Republic of China (Taiwan) is NOT a Hong Kong or Macao of which both never had a the above mentioned military forces and are currently territories of the People's Republic of China. The only reason it seems that the above user and other keep causing problems is that they are either from the communist People's Republic of China or they are sympathizers who do everything to discredit Taiwan. Now I don't care about the politics between the these two countries, I just want to make sure that articles are accurate, and saying that the IDF jet fighter is built in the USA is just a laughable and ridiculous pov based rhetoric that's meant to belittle the country that does approximately 70% of the design of Apple Iphone and Ipods, as well as being one of the biggest leaders in the high-tech global computer industry. In short, give people and nations credit for what they have accomplished instead of putting nonsense pov. And pov editing users should stop causing problems and strive to be a constructive member of the Wikipedia community. Accusing people of "pov war" is nonsense when pov editing users are the culprit trying to insert ridiculous pov into the article (i.e. "IDF was built in the USA). I have no intention and no desire of any pov war, I just want to keep the articles accurate and unbiased. Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NC-CHINA in its entirety, as your preferred edits violate that on several counts. Then discuss any further issues you have on the article's talk page. A consensuis can then be reached, and changes made to the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I already have, it clearly states that Republic of China (Taiwan) is allowed for use. Also check out the following websites if you have any doubts:

1.) www.president.gov.tw

2.) http://www.president.gov.tw/en/

3.) www.gio.gov.tw

In the chart, it states "Republic of China (Taiwan): When identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (eg. "Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include "(Taiwan)". Exceptions can be made if there is a very long separation between mentions of the ROC." (Emphasis in italics are mine). - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but just to avoid confusion, it should be present at the beginning of the article and also in the table on the right hand side of the page. Otherwise it would be inconsistent and confusion to uninitiated readers who are just reading the article for the very first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It usually is in the main text, but it gets changed so much it's hard to keep it straight. As for the Infobox, as long as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is in the National origin field, Republic of China Air force should be sufficient. - BilCat (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but we could also just use the abbreviation ROC (Taiwan) Air Force, to simplify things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

ALso, you were not paying attention: after seeing your comments on the first version I reverted to, I fuerther reverte to bypass edist by POV warrior Ao333. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo&oldid=369937104 This is the last version I reverted to, which does not state the IDF is a US project, but you still reverted it. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My intention was to shed light on the previous users which I also mentioned T-1000, who were continually pov editing "IDF is a US project"? If I included you in the accidental crossfire you have my apologies, no harm intended.

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your edits in that none of them have any citations. Also, whether ROC is a country or not is disputed. You are violating NPOV by presenting one POV as fact. T-1000 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfourtunately, your edits did not follow WP policy either. Per WP:NC-CHINA#Political NPOV:

"Text should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China. Text should not take a position on whether they are considered separate nations. Text should not imply that Taiwan is either a part of China or not a part of China. Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China.

No citations are needed to use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the text. I'm striving to be as neutral as possible per the guideliens, but it's not possible to please both sides. Rather than continue to edit war, both sides need to discuss the issues on the talk page, whicg hasn;t been used in nearly 3 years! - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The citations are needed for the submarine/jet articles. Regarding ROC's status, the consensus at the PRC, China, ROC, and Taiwan talk pages is to avoid mentioning whether ROC is a country or not. The IP can read through the talk page archives. T-1000 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As stated by BilCat, I agree with him on the fact that no citations are required for this article. It is in accordance with wikipedia policy. Also, there are no violations of the naming conventions are present in my edits. Writing Republic of China (Taiwan) treats it as an equal to the People's Republic of China, it does not go into whether or not Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China (Taiwan). It seems it is T-1000's edits that seem to treat Taiwan as subservient to the communist People's Republic of China rather than treating them as an equal.

(edit conflict) T-1000, please address your specific concerns about what needs citations on the respective article talkj pages. WP:NC-CHINA trumps any talk page dsicussions, so he doesn't need to read them. As long as he follows the policy/guideliens that are already in place, he should be fine, and his edits will be supported. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing, he isn't following the Chinese naming conventions. He is saying that ROC/Taiwan is a country, which is pushing the POV that Taiwan isn't a part of China, which violates NPOV, there was a discussion about it here: [1], the IP is also ignoring another notable POV: That the ROC is a government in exile, as seen here: [2]. T-1000 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As T-1000 referred to Wikipedia's official policy: "Text should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China." And not omitting or avoiding the subject as you mentioned in the other ROC/Taiwan articles, that would violate Wikipedia's policies. And this brings to attention the fact that the pages of the People's Republic of China and Republic of China are both treated differently in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you would look at the People's Republic of China page it saids that People's Republic of China is a "country" where in contrast the Republic of China page says that it is a "state" which is clearly a violation of the above mentioned official wikipedia policy. The Republic of China article is not treated as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China. In order for both articles to be treated equally in accordance with official wikipedia policy. Both articles must state that both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are a "country". Because only having the People's Republic of China labeled as a "country" while the Republic of China is labeled a "state" makes it look, to uninformed reader, that the Republic of China is a subservient regional territory or province of the People's Republic of China, much like the "state" of New York within the United States of America. We must revise these ROC/PRC/Taiwan articles to be in accordance with official Wikipedia policy, because as of now, those articles are still heavily biased and in complete violation of official Wikipedia policy. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the PRC and ROC articles are not within the scope of the WP Aircraft Project. 71.xxx, the best place to bring that issue up would probably be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). - BilCat (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay to bring this discussion back to airplanes:

Okay, so I looked up citations, and I've found this: [3]. It seems that the issue is that the IP user removed American involvement in designing these planes, as seen here: [4], but the global security websites states that:

"Taiwan produced the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter with extensive assistance by American corporations, led by General Dynamics. The project consisted of four sub-projects. They were the Ying-yang project (in cooperation with General Dynamics Corporation) which made the air-frame; the Yun-han project (in cooperation with Hughes Corporation), which designed the engine; the Tian-lei project (in cooperation with Westinghouse Company), which took care of the avionics system; and the Tian-chien project, which developed the weapons system. "

So this is a classic case of POV pushing by the IP user to try to push a POV that the Americans were not involved. At best, the issue is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, US corporate involvement was already acknowledged in my edit, the proof is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo&oldid=370025406 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk • contribs)

"Discussion" is not telling why the other side is wrong, and then making a wholesale revert to your preferred version. Please stop, or you risk a block for edit warring, T-1000. And now, the IP was not trying to say there was no involvement at all by US companies, but none of the US companies involed are prime contractors either. - BilCat (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, now the original version has a reference, and the Ip version doesn't. And let's face it, if the ip had any citations, he would have shown them long ago.T-1000 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My previous edit specifically gave credit and reference to the American involvement in the article. If you would go back and look at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo&oldid=370025406 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk • contribs)

It specifically states that "some minor subsystems, design, and components subcontracted to United States defense companies" which acknowledges the small contribution from the USA, but also states the truth because the USA had no reason to share any aerospace technology with Taiwan given the indisputable fact they had refused to sell Taiwan the advanced F-16 jet fighter.

T-1000 in his above statement "And now, the IP was not trying to say there was no involvement at all by US companies", if you look at my edits I specifically gave reference and credit to contribution that the American corporations gave. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo&oldid=370025406 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk • contribs)

That fact remains that the article is under dispute, and semi-protected to prevert IPs from editing. You're taking advantage of that fact to restore your preferred version, which has issues of it's own, while the IP can't edit. That's putting you at risk for beinf blocked. - BilCat (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want, you can put a dispute tag on the article. At any rate, the ip must have citations. T-1000 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To T-1000, here are the citations you requested, they fully confirm indisputably that the IDF jet fighter was designed and built indigenously by the Republic of China (Taiwan), citations as follows:

1.) http://www.aidc.com.tw/enaidcsite/web/ma02.asp

2.) http://www.aidc.com.tw/enaidcsite/web/MilitaryAircraft.asp Self-developed aircraft Made in Taiwan

You guys are playing semantic games again! The IDF jet was built in Taiwan with only some components subcontracted to the USA. This official IDF jet fighter website:

http://www.aidc.com.tw/enaidcsite/web/ma02.asp

It specifically states: "The IDF is the only military fighter produced outside the United States, and is designed and tested in total accordance with U.S. military specifications and practices. Incorporated with a modified airframe, new systems, new engines, and new missiles, the IDF demonstrates the qualities of easy handling, high maneuverability, maintainability, safety, and reliability, which enables the IDF to sustain up-to-date superior capabilities."

This is the official statement from the website of the Taiwan based Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation and it specically saids that "The IDF is the only military fighter produced OUTSIDE the United States," indisputably showing that it was not built in the USA.

And if you POV pushers have anymore doubts you can go to their other page and see the indigenous Taiwan designed and Taiwan made aircraft currently either in deployment or in development, all of these aircraft are the product of self-development by the Republic of China (Taiwan) confirm for yourself here:

http://www.aidc.com.tw/enaidcsite/web/MilitaryAircraft.asp

The article has been edited by pov pushers saying that the "IDF jet fighter was developed with extensive assistance from the USA" when that is utterly untrue, the USA had refused to sell Taiwan the F-20 and F-16 jet fighters and was under severe political pressure from the People's Republic of China, hence the USA had no will to share any aerospace technology with the ROC (Taiwan). That was the only reason Taiwan's Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation, under permission from the President, decided to go about designing and building their own Indigenous Defense Fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk • contribs)

I think we need to close this discussion, if anybody has any observations about the article then it really belongs at Talk:AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

T-1000 is taking advantage of the situation to push his false pov into the article, take a look at this citation from the following site that clearly reads: "In fact, as designer and manufacturer of the IDF, no-one else in the world knows more about this aircraft than AIDC. It could easily install a new system into any IDF, make the necessary wiring changes, and flight-test the technologies of the system."

Again showing that the United States did not build the IDF and that the involvement of American aerospace corporations was minimal, primarily just on the level providing advice. See here:

http://taiwanairpower.org/aidc.html

T-1000 is not editing the pages with accurate information. Sincerely, ProfessorJane —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Artifacts in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution

User:Kumioko has been adding Category:Artifacts in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution to some relevant aircraft articles. When the aircraft was an individual aircraft or only one was built I didnt have a problem. But it was also added to articles like Boeing 307 so I removed the cat on the ground that the museum did not hold all ten aircraft. Kumioke has come back to me with the comment that the only surviving one is in the museum and has restored the cat with a hidden note The aircraft on display at the SI is the only one of its kind still known to exist. More concerned about the slippery slope of adding museum cats to aircraft types but I could understand that a sole survivor may be valid. Just interested in other comment and to record the actions if it comes up again. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this category adds anything to the articles - what makes the Smithsonian special over say the RAF Museum Hendon or the Central Air Force Museum at Monino? There isn't really any sustification for just adding it to sole survivors.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I would agree if say the SI had one and there was another one at a different museum. I would also say that if the Central Air force museum had the last of a something then they should be categorized as well. My intent is not to place this category on the article of every aircraft or item on display or within the museums collection. Only those that are specifically named such as the Anola Gay, the Wright Flyer or items were the museum has the last in existence such as the Boeing 307. Even centerpieces such as the SR71 should not have the category because there are several that are still around. However, in the case of several of the aircraft I recently tagged the sole survivor is in the SI collection therefore if any of the readers of the article were to actually want to see one they would only be able to do that at the SI. Also, one of the goals of this category is to identify pieces within the SI museum collection so that in further collaborations we can expand them, add to them and otherwise be able to identify what we have articles for and what we lack. I hope this helps to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have a category for artifacts in the ownership of a particular museum or gallery - it's a notable property of those artifacts, after all. It's true that few aircraft articles are explicitly about a particular aircraft - there's only about 150 such articles at most, and of course many of those don't exist any more - but where they are known, it's probably worth doing the categorising. If we do it for paintings, we should do it for the Spirit of St. Louis...

That said, I do agree avoiding putting it on types or classes is probably a good idea. Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input as well Shimgray, I already added the cat to the Spirit of St. Louis and several other named aircraft. I am certain that I didn't get them all though so If you notice one that should be tagged feel free. --Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The number of Su-30MKIs in service?

The issue at hand here is exactly how many aircraft the Indian Air Force fields of this type. Globalsecurity.org claims that there are notably divergent estimates for high visibility aircraft including the Su-30MKI. The Times of India article which claimed a size of 105 in October 2009 seems reliable which is why I've used it on both the Su-30 MKI page and the list of aircraft of the Indian Air Force article. The latest report claims that HAL has produced 74 aircraft locally in addition to the 90 aircraft that were sourced from Russia. Thus would it be logical to conclude that the number in service is 164 or would it be better just to leave it at 105 for now (which I think makes sense). Vedant (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Number in service" and "Number in existence" can be quite different figures - it's likely that all or almost all the aircraft produced are actually owned by the IAF, but they may be still being tested, modified, etc, and not yet in operational service.

That said, here's what I read the situation as:

• Original order (1996) - 50 aircraft, built in Russia - total 50
• Second order (2000) - 140 aircraft, built in India - total 190
• Third order (2007) - 40 aircraft, built in Russia - total 230
• Fourth order (2010) - 42 aircraft, built in India - total 270 (counting two crashed in 2009)

Leaving out the third set, we're looking at 105 in Oct.09, of which 50 were built in Russia, so HAL would have made 55. The second ToI article says HAL's production rate is about 25/year, so between Oct.09 and now would be about 20 aircraft, for a total of 75 produced by HAL - which fits perfectly with their announcement that they've built 74 so far.

So, the third tranche. The original article notes that they "...expected to begin inducting the 40 new Sukhoi-MKIs from Russia within three years of signing the deal." This was signed in mid-2007; if they were being acquired, they'd only just be coming into service. I very much doubt all fifty, or even half that, are currently around. So the 105 number is a little outdated, but I don't think the estimate of 164 seems valid until we know the Russian fighters have actually been handed over Shimgray | talk | 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I think too. The number in existence (not service) is likely to be 50 (the initial order) + the 74 HAL has produced to date + some indeterminate number that the Russians have built in the third order. Given though that they would only start inducting the third order by 2010, it's unreasonable to conclude that all 50 have been produced. Thus the 164 number seems a little far fetched (as per your fact finding) and the most reasonable estimate would be in the vicinity of 125 - 135. However, because we can't say what's in service and what's been built with much certainty, I think it's better to leave it as 105 for now as that source clearly stated that 105 were inducted (leaving no doubt). Vedant (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Bit of original research but www.scramble.nl lists the following:

• SB001 to SB008 (total 8) Su-30K all withdrawn from use
• SB009 to SB018 (total 10) Su-30MK all withdrawn from use
• SB019 to SB050 (total 32) Su-30MKI
• SB101 to SB108 (total 8) SU-30MKI-3

So with at least two crashed the total operational appears to be 40 less 2 = 38. Just bear this in mind when looking at the other sources. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the older Su-30K and MKs were upgraded to the current spec and not scrapped or anything. I'll keep it in mind though. Vedant (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that production is still ongoing as SB110 and SB115 have been seen in the United States and I suspect the batch of Indian built aircaft is probably 24 (SB124) and a then a new batch were seen in France (SB303, SB304, SB305 and SB309) this month. Still not 164 yet! MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree that it's unlikely that it's anywhere near 164. This is just so that we have some consensus on articles pertaining to this aircraft. I think the number is most likely in the 125 - 135 range. This is ofcourse assuming that the initial order of 50 was met and all of the older K and MK aircraft have been converted to the MKI spec. I still think though that the safe number would be the one provided in the Times of India source (as 105). Vedant (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Week's 2010 Source Book lists a total of 93 Su-30MKIs (48 from Sukhoi + 45 from HAL) and 10 Su-30MKs (from Sukhoi) in service as of Jan. 2010. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible you could post the link to the 2010 Sourcebook? (I was only able to find the 2009 version) Then I could just update the inventories as per this source as AW is far more reliable than Milaviapress which is currently being used to reference service numbers. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, seems to be just subscription content. It can still be cited. I just mentioned the Av Week numbers to show that the Times number are comparable. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted, I also wanted to be able to use it for this article as well (which references Milaviapress). Vedant (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Post-Cold_War_Fighter_Aircraft

With reference to a previous discussion on this page Template:Post-Cold_War_Fighter_Aircraft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Post-Cold_War_Fighter_Aircraft, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Combustor A-Class review

Hey Everyone -- I know engine components aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I would appreciate it if a few people could take a look at the A-class review for the article. I started it in March, and not much has happened since then (although I didn't push much either). I am particularly interested in getting reviews if you're not very familar with the topic, as it's a technical topic and I want to make sure that it is explained well enough for most readers to understand. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Grumman F-11 Tiger or F11?

Now I am totally confused, is it F-11 or F11? the article mixes the two designations throughout while I thought that the US Navy still used the F-11 designation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-62 it was F11F; the 11th fighter-type design by Grumman. This was changed to F-11 when the DoD standardized all aircraft designations in 1962 between the services. I'd prefer F11F as that was its designation for the bulk of its career, F-11 coming in when it was mostly relegated to second-line roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturer in Infobox

Just removed BAE Systems from the manufacturer field in the BAE Sea Harrier infobox, mainly because they didnt manufacture the Sea Harrier. User:Fnlayson has reverted the removal with the comment Revert, manufacturer field is also for prime who provides support and upgrades. This was news to me, the infobox page doesnt say anything just looking for project comment before I add BAE Systems to the Spitfire! Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Infobox used to link] to Aircraft/Aerospace manufacturer), which mentioned about providing support. There was some discussion at Talk:Rockwell B-1 Lancer about this in 2007. There are probably discussions elsewhere too. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of these aircraft infoboxes are disappearing off down the page, I believe the spirit is that they should be used as a very brief summary, that's how I like to see them anyway if I'm reading rather than editing. It would be a shame if we can't use the manufacturer box in a brief and concise way. The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter only has Lockheed as the manufacturer in the infobox even though the majority were built by eight other companies and EADS were a big product supporter in its last days in German service (and built new wings I believe). We just can't put them all in, so the simple 'Lockheed' is good enough for me. If a company didn't actually final assemble and flight test an aircraft type then it should not be listed in the infobox to my mind. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting putting license manufacturers in there. I'm against that actually. Only manufacturers and prime contractors. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well if you include prime contractors for the 104 the list of what should be there gets even longer (Heinkel, Dornier, Fairey etc!!). We already attempt to limit the users field with nowiki notes, whoever originally added the notes to the template felt that there was a need to keep it short. From the Template:Infobox Aircraft Type documentation; Manufacturer : The firm which manufactured the aircraft. Sounds entirely reasonable to me, noting that it doesn't cater for multiple manufacturers. To keep the infobox short and technically correct we could amend the template to add an optional parameter of 'Original manufacturer'. 'Original manufacturer' would obviously not make sense for types only built by one company where just 'Manufacturer' would be used. An option perhaps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed that we can't have too long of a list. So those are prime contractors for separate operators? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• The 104 production story needs its own article really, maybe I'll have a go one day. In the UK Marshalls of Cambridge have carried out major work to C-130s and Tristars (fuselage stretches and freight doors) but they are not included as manufacturers, it should be mentioned in the text but some editors would argue that even this is excessive detail. I guess that US types around the world will have local contract support, we had a Lockheed rep at RAF Brize Norton for the Tristar but it was just one guy (who didn't seem to do very much)! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs

An editor has decided that List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs should cover covers all 500+ aircraft still in existance and not just preserved aircraft. Some discussion may be needed to agree the scope of the article - or perhaps its name.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is definitely confusion in the project over exactly what is a 'survivor'. We made a clear distinction in the engine task force because of this. A survivor is a flying example, 'on display' is just that, with the engines at least. We also noted that 'on display' means engines that are on public display and does not include other preserved units that might be in storage and not accessible. Even listing these could border on breaking WP:NOTGUIDE, i.e. we are telling the reader where they can view them (but deliberately not giving the phone number of the museum!!).

These lists can go on for ever unless some sort of notability is applied to the entries. I don't know how they got started, it's not something that you would normally find covered in Flight International or aviation general encyclopedias. It would however be found in books like Wrecks and Relics by Ken Ellis, a specialist publication, but even then he lists retired aircraft by region, not type. Could we argue for these articles' existence if someone AfD'd them on notability and WP:NOTDIRECTORY grounds (No. 7 applies)? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Gary, I concur totally. Btw, our old "friend" DaveG was the primary person who got these articles and sections started. I've never thought listing every gate guard someone drove by was notable, but it's an easy way to "contribute" to WP, much like adding pop culture, but more reality-based. I'd definitely be for a comprehensive review on the issue using WP:NOTDIRECTORY as the key point. - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A list could be argued to be notable when there are several notable aircraft and the list is too long for the parent article. Or the listing is pertinent to the history (Liberators in museums of the (areas of) countries they operated from? - eg American Air Museum at Duxford). Survivors only becames important/useful when the type goes out of service - list of surviving Phantoms is premature. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is really covering F-4s on display. So I think it should be renamed to "List of F-4 Phantom IIs on display" or some variation of that. Gates guards and similar ones not in or near a museum are generally non-notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the way to go with the F-4 at least. As Graeme notes I think a lot of these lists started when the section in their parent article got too long (should have been kept under control but it's difficult sometimes!) and now they are snowballing. There are websites that list these things ad infinitum, they can be added as external links in the list articles then no one is being 'short changed'. I spend very little time on these lists, there is more important stuff to do IMHO and there is always the risk of AfD (no point working on something that might well get vapourised!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

These lists were never meant to cover aircraft still operational as per the page guidelines:

Aircraft on display

Aircraft on display should be information on non-airworthy aircraft that are on permanent public display. It should not include partial aircraft or aircraft not viewable by the public. When a large number of aircraft are still preserved the list should be limited to the most prominent ones.

Survivors

Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use. It should include airworthy aircraft and any non-airworthy aircraft not on public display but otherwise notable.

I dont see any reasons to change these and these guidlines should also cover the break-away daughter articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the overall concept but with the proviso that sometimes partial airframes or "all that remains" should be noted if they are noteworthy. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think remains or partial airframes of notable or historic aircraft are a problem as they would have their own notability, but we did have some authors adding very small bits of really insignificant warplanes to some lists. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to indicate that I agree with MB1's approach here - lists that are broken off main aircraft type articles should retain the same nomenclature for titling as outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. In this case F-4 Phantom IIs on display or something similar will solve it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP making changes to Fighter aircraft

An anonymous IP is adamant about changing the picture of the HAL Tejas on said article. Normally I would accept this but given that this user is the same individual who tried to edit out the picture of the Shivalik class frigate on the Frigate article for very dubious reasons is at work here, I'm opposed to assuming good faith. For more information on that dispute, please see here and here. The reason this image was included was primarily to create a diverse listing of pictures so that a wide variety of aircraft from different countries could be listed. Regardless, input would be appreciated. Vedant (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a week to encourage discussion and stop edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will ensure the situation doesn't get out of hand atleast until the SPI case into the matter turns up any information. Vedant (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

More input on F-16 move needed

We need to move the F-16 Fighting Falcon article to a title which includes the maufacturer. Please comment at Talk:F-16 Fighting Falcon#Article name/move, so we can get a broader consensus. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Signpost interview

WP:AVIATION has been chosen to appear in the Signpost issue of 19 July. Make your views known here. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done! Who is next? - Ahunt (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

New KC-X entry

FlightGlobal has an article today here on a US company partnering with Antonov for the KC-X competition. Note the seventh paragraph on the An-112 entry! - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that. Pretty cool to get a mention there, but it reads like the author did not have time to check the book directly. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake on the three aircraft vs the three types of aircraft. Thanks for correcting that for me. (How do you supply a 179 aircraft contract with three planes?). Vedant (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that Vedant. I'm not sure if that's supposed to be 3 separate options or a mix of them. An article from yesterday suggests the US Aerospace/Antonov team wants some more time to do finish their proposal. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a bit of OR/Speculation: Maybe their proposal revolves around pitching all three aircraft but with each having different mission roles? Vedant (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Much ado about turboprops

Hey everyone -- There is currently a lengthy debate here on the jet engine talk page about whether or not turboprops and propfans should be mentioned in the jet engine article. I would really appreciate it if a few other editors could take a look and contribute their opinions. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the holiday weekend is over for us yanks, I'd relly appreciate it if a few people could take a look an leave an opinion... this is an issue that needs to be resolved by consensus! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion over there has dragged on for quite awhile now... can someone a few people take a look, please? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the other editor involved, that's no surprise! Wolf's a good guy, but he's very sure of himself, and not so much of others. It may take awhile, but it usually doesn't get out of hand too much. - BilCat (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, it's not that the debate is getting out of hand. I think the tone of the discussion has been been very measured. It's just that, at this point, we have very opposing opinions, and neither of us has been able to convince the other. There a couple other editors have made a comment or two, but I feel like the final decision to include or not include turboprops and propfans comes down to WP:Consensus. Right now there is none, so we can make progress towards that goal if anyone is willing to stop by and make their opinion known. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your new naming conventions

I've just noticed an article which may have slipped through the cracks of your recent massive re-naming of articles due to your new naming conventions. I have not moved the article since there are a few different possible new titles. A-4SU Super Skyhawk is the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Nomination Asia Pacific Flight Training

This is to notify the members of this project, within the scope of which this article falls, that Asia Pacific Flight Training has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training. - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Project members may note that this article, currently under AfD, has been re-listed to gain more input. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training. - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles not following naming conventions

The series of article on the aircraft listed at Template:PWS aircraft all appear jsut to use the designation, such as PWS-1. Many of these article appear to have been creted or moved by User:Pibwl. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like these should be "Podlaska Wytwórnia Samolotów PWS-(number)". -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I guess it's a similar naming scheme to Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-(number) where the abberviation/acronym is included in addition to the full name. Vedant (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, how is Eurofighter Typhoon going to be handled? (Given that Eurofighter gmbh produces the aircraft). Maybe EADS Eurofighter Typhoon or Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon? Vedant (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Eurofighter gmbh is the prime contractor, listing it alone is fine. As far as I know, "EF2000" was superceded by "Typhoon" when the name was selected. So the current title is sufficient. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We could always rename it Eurofighter Eurofighter Typhoon. ;) Vedant (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yea, that was a flaw with "Eurofighter EF 2000". -Fnlayson (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Forces

A discussion is currently underway at Talk:Canadian Forces#Maritime Command, or Canadian Forces Maritime Command regarding the use of "Canadian Forces" in the article titles of the Canadian Forces Air Command, Canadian Forces Land Force Command, and Canadian Forces Maritime Command articles. Any input from the projerct would be welcome, whatever your views on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

COI bio

I just discoved the David S. Lewis article, created in 2006. The article was written by User:Aflewis, who is apparently Andrew Lewis, David Lewis' son. Much of the article was based on Andrew Lewis' personal recollections and D. Lewis' apparently unpublished memoirs, per a note in the Refs section of the previous version of the article. The only published ref is an obit from the NY Times, which spends some time on D. Lewis' service as CEO of General Dynamics. COI is apparent in that the NYT article mentions that Lewis retiered in 1985 "after what was seen as mild official censure by the Navy for cost overruns" at GD, but this was entirely ommitted from the article by the user. Of course we expect the NYT to major on such a minor point in his career, but that cannot excuse omitting it altogether. As such, I've removed all the info that apperas to be OR. I was rewriting the article from scratch using the obit, but I have to go offline for now. I do intend to finish the article over the weekend, but would not object if someone else wants to tackle this. Also, the same user recently created an article on his uncle, John Earle "Jack" Lewis. Almost the entire artice was copied from an obit, and has been deleted as a copyvio. There may be some blowback from the user over both articles, so any help in containing the situation would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Watched! - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added several sources to the article. Most of these were written around the time of Lewis' problems at and resignation from GD in 1985, but one is from when he first came to GD in 1970. All of these should have some bio info which can be gleaned. But now this has quickly become a full article-writing endevor, and that's not one of my strengths. I certianly won't be able to complete it this weekend. If anyone wants to takeover the bulk of the writing, I would greatly appreciate it. I will still help with what I can. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm more of an editor too. Believe Lewis was at McDonnell/McDonnell Douglas for many years before General Dynamics. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as an engineer up to an executive. There's info on that in the obits, and most of it is just about facts (what he did and when), and thus probably correct and NPOV. - BilCat (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, if you want to help out, we can split up the work if no one wants to tackle the whole article at once. Just add an {{inuse}} tag when you're working, and work on whatever interests you. HGoing chronologically, and just stopping when we need to, should work best, and let's the other person know hwehre to pick up. His early work as an engineer at Martin and McD should be fairly straight-forward. The GD stuff, especially his last year, will be more contentious to write, so we can take our time on that. I'm not in a big hurry to complete it, except that I'd like to have some info more than a stub there when the original writer discovers what's happened. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff! - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I did a little more on that article too. Think that's it for me there. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dyn'Aéro

The Dyn'Aéro article could not decide if it was talking about the company or aircraft so I have split out the Dyn'Aero MCR01 as a separate article. I have some computer problems at the moment so cant get back to it until later, if anybody can look these both over it would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! I did some fixing on it, but it needs more work on the Dev section and some specs found and added! - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, Milb1! There have been other articles that covered both the manufacturer and product (usually aircraft). It seems to be done by newer editors trying to add information on a less-common product and its company, so it's something to watch out for. - BilCat (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Bill. Fortunately it is usually not too hard to split it out. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Key word: usually! :) - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OR problems

A long-time but usually lone wolf editor has been adding OR to the Lockheed L-188 Electra, per this diff. I've already used up two reverts on the OR alone, and he shows no sign of stopping. Help! (He has done this on other articlss too, usually about Lockheed aircraft.) - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed some commentary and I have re-wrote some big bits of the article as for some reason it mentioned the C-130 in nearly every section.MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done MilborneOne! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Operators section in aircraft articles that have a large number of operators.

The Cessna 208 article has a problem - the Operators section is getting too long. Please see the discussion at Talk:Cessna_208#Operators list. About 2000 have been produced and most are currently in service with probably hundreds of operators worldwide, many owning just a few or even only one. This aircraft type is right on the margin/transition between general/corporate aviation and airliner types. I've noticed that articles of GA types usually do not have an Operators section at all. A few options have been suggested to limit the operators list to a managable size: List only operators with a (to be decided) minimum number in their fleet or list only operators notable enough to have an article here on WP. Roger (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Normal practice is not to list operators for aircraft with large numbers of single aircraft operators, see for example Gulfstream IV which only list military operators and just summarises the types of civil operators. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will work so well in this case. There are civil operators with larger fleets than many military operators. Roger (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it'll have to list operators with 'X or more' as you suggested above. Or split the info to a "List of Cessna 208 operators" type article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a few options, including, eliminate the list, limit the list to notable organisations (i.e. bluelinks), start a new Cessna 208 operators article, religiously require refs to be on the list and perhaps others. This is a common problem with light aircraft articles and so should probably result in a global consensus here on what to do about this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that what MilborneOne has done with several articles (such as Beechcraft Super King Air and Piper PA-31 Navajo) is a neat and tidy way to deal with the issue overall; also it seems to be common practice to keep military and civil operators separate in sublists. Perhaps in this particular case Fedex Feeder should be named specifically as it has such a large fleet: i.e. something like "Fedex Feeder is the main operator of the Cessna 208, with over 250 aircraft. The Cessna 208 is also used by governmental organisations and by a large number of small companies for police, air ambulance, regular public transport, air charter, freight and parachuting operations". All referenced of course :-). YSSYguy (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I think it is safe to say that we generally have a consensus here on how to deal with this issue and I will add some words to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Operators for future reference as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Volareweb.com destinations

Volareweb.com destinations is up for speedy deletion. I'm not certain it's eligilble, as the content is legitimate. It's probably better merged back to the main article, and as such should not be deleted per the various licenses. Could an admin look into this? thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy was declined - it now on WP:AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volareweb.com destinations. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

G-AEUH

I would like to draw the attention of the project members to this new (10 July) article. Not sure if it makes the notability for individual aircraft, although it is an interesting story. It could use a bit of work. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Of note, not only did WikiProject Aircraft members rally-to and fix this article up nicely, but it is on the main page under DYK today! Tea and medals all around! - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit unfortunate; VH-ADU wasn't shot down. YSSYguy (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning II

This announcement is going to impact a bunch of articles Canada to spend $9B on F-35 fighter jets. You get a controversy as a bonus, too. - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The link was not working with .htm extension, at least for me. But works with .html. McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet might be the next most affected article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is going to be the Avro Arrow and EH101 debacles all over again as far as Canada is concerned. There will be lots to write about! - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll still be surprised if all 3 variants enter service in the US. A lot of fanboys supported it as the "majic bullet" over the F-22, and they're now discovering the F-35 has its own problems, some even calling them "baby seals" now. They'll soon tout something else as "better" than the F-35, and once it has been killed, they'll move on to destroying the next one. Such "oversighrt" we don;t need! - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The latest from AvWeb includes "Canadian media commentary is full of criticism of the aircraft itself, saying it's an unnecessarily complex airplane whose short range will be an issue in its primary role of long-range sovereignty patrols." Lots of controversy to report there! - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On top of it, the CAF mission is not defined and the interoperability canard is now being introduced by the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister as to why no true competition was in place. However, it was a program actually entered into by a previous government and $135m had already been invested so it may have been a very effective gambit that Lockheed Martin played to keep all the partners in line with "blue sky" promises of future subcontracts in the supply chain for a reputed 3,000 examples. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bizliner

I just found this article, which has been around since 25 February 2009, although it hasn't had any work done on it in a year, other than my adding a ref and cleaning it up today. Does it serve any purpose or is it just a dictionary definition? Perhaps it should be just redirected to Business jet? - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, its a pointless stub, the subject is already covered in Business jet. I've tweaked the wording of Business jet#Heavy jets to make it explicitly clear that they are based on airliner types. Roger (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to wait for more input, but I think the way forward here is pretty clear and probably not controversial. I will transfer the little useful text and the one ref I found and redirect it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"comparable aircraft"

Having seen a lot of these sections in various aircraft articles, I've noticed a ton of inconsistencies and comparisons across entirely different classes (i.e. single-engine interceptors to multi-engine multirole aircraft). Is it possible we could draft some sort of template for certain classes of aircraft and then just put the template there so that we can control the "comparable aircraft" section from a central location? The bonus of this would be that we can ensure we are comparing apples to apples and not oranges, bananas and pineapples. Vedant (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a long time issue. I made some suggestions to clarify its use awhile ago, but they never really went anywhere. Take a look at what was said there. Honestly, I find myself more and more in favor of just dropping that section completely and relying on categories, navboxes, and in-text mentions to relate them. As Milborne One mentioned in the older discussion, if there is a notable comparison, it should be discussed in the text. For example, the Dassault Rafale, the JAS 39 Gripen, and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet could all be mentioned in text as competitors for the Brazilian F-X2 contact. If you mention it in text, suitably referenced, you wouldn't need to list the aircraft in a seperate section, inviting all the problems that result. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sidewinder on this one! It creates more problems than it is worth! - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with removing the field altogether, many of our resident and drive-by fanboys are quite creative, and I'm afrid they'll find ways to add their own Comparable sections, now that they know it can exist! Oh, the many joys of open editing! Sorry to be a pessimist, but with banned editors continuing to edit and complaining about "harrasment" while making legal threats, it's hard to be very optimistic about the future of WP as a place for the sane to contribute. ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It is possible that the coding of Template:Aircontent needs adjusting, the nowiki notes say 'similar' but the coding produces a header of 'comparable', I know that we have been here before. It might be splitting hairs but you can 'compare' Concorde to a Tiger Moth but they are not similar. These sections get out of control when the 'similar' criteria get widened, a twin-engined aircraft should not appear in the 'comparable' section of a single-engined type IMO. We have a guideline in the engine task force which works quite well: For 'comparable' engines it is desirable to limit the number of entries by selecting the closest similar types. Some useful parameters are era, layout, number of cylinders, engine displacement and power/thrust rating. We also have to remember what the 'See also' section is for; related links that the reader might like to visit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've advocated changing the output from "Comprable" to "Similar" too, and we've had a near-consesnus for it in the past. However, the template is on Full Protection (I don't know why, as Semi-P is usually sufficuent for our templates), so I couldn't make the changes myself, even on a temporary basis. I'd certainly like to try that option before tossing the field out completely. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that Template:Aircontent is a good starting point though what I would propose is creating/cleaning up several categories for aircraft and then coding the template in such a fashion that it takes the information directly from a category listing (a central location) as opposed to filling out individual details on each aircraft article. The downside (and I do have to agree with BilCat here) is that fanboys will just start adding random aircraft to categories and ofcourse the incredible amount of time required to categorize every aircraft in the project. And then last but not least, there's the incredible amount of disruption caused by certain users. Vedant (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories have their problems as you note, sometimes it is crystal clear what should be in there and others are very murky. On the whole the 'comparable/similar' bit works well and is useful (and even advocated in WP:SEEALSO), there is rarely any problem with the engine articles. There are probably 10,000 plus aircraft type articles and this so-called 'fanboy' activity is confined to a handful of them (they are noticed because of their persistent edits against consensus). It is a struggle but the only way is to keep applying common sense. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a nice WP feature if we could leave the article un-protected but restrict the modification of categories. Vedant (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Automation is not the answer. I go with Nimbus, the problem is not huge, consequences limited, generally contained, and fixable by editors. I think a change from comparable to similar is a good idea. The only issue is when the list gets too big eg you could arguably have all the single engineed fighters of the Second World War listed in the Spitfire article and a reciprocal arrangement from the articles listed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Well categories can be 'restricted', you just remove them from an article if you don't believe it fits in the category, same as editing an article. Most of the templates have been protected because they are complex, changes can affect thousands of articles instantly and their content has been effectively fixed by consensus anyway (after several years of discussion). The last bit of WP:SEEALSO implies 'peripherally related' or 'everything on the topic'. Another reason for keeping this section (admittedly very open to opinion/original research) is that 'Comparison' articles are actively discouraged, having these 'similar aircraft' links does at least give the reader the chance to compare themselves between types and is an argument when nominating comparison articles up for deletion i.e. you don't need an article comparing apples to bananas when the link to banana is in the see also section of the apple article (or something like that anyway!!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the issue is not as serious as described earlier and has been addressed by the watchful in our group. Introducing a template appears to be a lot of trouble for little gain. FWiW, "Fanboy" submissions are typically quickly dealt with. Bzuk (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be a quite-contentious issue if an IP-hopping fanboy or two is really persistant, and no admin is willing to curtail their activities. Though such activity isn't quite as bad right now as in the past, that may be partly because of the Summer break in North American schools (and elsewhere too). Something we had suggested earlier was changing the output to "Similar in role, capability, or era", or something similar/comparable. We definitely have support this time (so far) for changing it to "Similar", and I'll try to ask one of our few resident admins to change this (and possible y the protection too). - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Would need changing for the engine parameter as well, could highlight this at WT:AETF but most people 'there' are 'here' as well. It's a no brainer to me, what was the previous argument against changing it from 'comparable'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The same template handles both fields, so that can be changed at the same time. Thanks for remebering about it! - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how changing the label from "Comparable aircraft" to "Similar aircraft" will help. It should be worse as similar is less restrictive than comparable. But "Similar in role, capability, or era" would be ideal. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The two words 'comparable' and 'similar' have subtly different meanings. From the OED, comparable 'to be compared to' and similar 'of the same kind, having a resemblance'. The header should be kept short with a more refined guideline somewhere else to 'use as a stick' in edit summaries if needed, which is what it looks like this is coming to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• That seems to agree with what I stated. In any event surely shorter comparable/similar lists are preferable to all the single-engine fighters in WWII that GraemeLeggett mentioned above. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another option is to stipulate that those lists be referenced, like anything else on wikipedia... The example of the Rafale, Gripen, and Super Hornet I mentioned above is a citable comparison. Brazil is comparing them. Just a thought... -SidewinderX (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a glorfied "See also" section - all it should be is a list of articles that the reader might also be interested in, only we've added some "cetegories" for aircrat aritcles to make the list easier to use. If a list needs to be sourced, that should be done in the main article text. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange article

I just ran across Saraph, which is an "article" about the Israeli name for the AH-64D Apache Longbow - just the name, not the aircraft! It's actually about 5 years old, and I'm surprised it has survived this long, missing several deletionist "purges" in that time. Any thoughts on what to do with it? - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is totally unreferenced. Anything that can be verified could be merged into the Boeing AH-64 Apache article. Mjroots (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Or the Israeli Air Force article if that works better. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Added merge tag to the Boeing AH-64 Apache article. Vedant (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It also seems that most of the article is dedicated to etymology/nomenclature and is not really an article about the actual aircraft. On second thought, I'm more for merging this with the Israeli Air Force article unless there are notable/distinct differences over the AH-64 in service with other countries. Vedant (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, unref and not notable enough for a stand-alone article - merge it somewhere! - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yattum is back... again

I've already submitted an SPI into the matter so it wont be long until this sock gets blocked. In the meanwhile, it seems like the troll is back per this diff page which is similar to this, this and Yattum himself here. Then ofcourse there is the matter of the user's apparent bias. Vedant (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

USAir Flight 405 FAC

Hi all -- User:Wackywace has nominated USAir Flight 405 as a FAC. If anyone is interested in reviewing, please take a look over there. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD again?

Seat configurations of the Airbus A380 survived an AFD in January, but without much input from WPAIR members. Is it time to try again? - BilCat (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it just a few days ago, little editing activity since then and still serves no purpose IMO; I'd be up for having another go at getting rid of it. YSSYguy (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Having just looked at it, I can see what they are trying to do, but i think that there is insufficient in the article for a stand alone. As examples of configurations something could be returned to the main A380 article. As several lines in that very clumsy table were effectively empty, I stripped them out.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - not enough for a stand alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

EAA Airventure photo request

Does anyone have CC photos of the API spiroid winglets on its Dassault Falcon 50 test-bed aircraft now on AeroShell Square at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh (or can take and post some)? Dhaluza (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Otto-Flugzeugwerke and Otto Flugmaschinenfabrik appear to be about the same company. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They do. I fixed it! - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Three minutes? Must do better next time! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can redirect them faster than you can think them up! I credit a fast browser. - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One photo op incident

Editors active in this project may wish to comment on the deletion nomination of Air Force One photo op incident. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dassault Mirage F1

I could use some help sorting out some POV edits/disputes on the Dassault Mirage F1 page. See this diff for a sample edit. Either version is poor writning and presentation. It might be best to remove most of the contested info altogether, and link to the articles on the war, but I wanted to get a consensus to support this first in case the disputers disagree. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the use comes down to at best two sentences with sources. I'll edit it to same.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reichsluftfahrtministerium

Air Ministry (Germany) was moved without discussion to Ministry of Aviation (Germany) today, with the edit summary "wrong translation". Is the new title a better translation? Even if it is, is the former translation a more common term? I honestly don't know, but I wanted to be sure this is the best title. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do a Google translation of the de:Reichsluftfahrtministerium German article it is titled "Air Ministry". MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Literally translated it is Reichs (belonging to an empire or nation), luft (air), fahrt (form of the verb fahren - to travel) and Ministerium (Ministry) so we have 'National Air Travel Ministry'. Translating 'Reich' is difficult but usually refers to the German Reichs. The later version of it is Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (Air Travel Federal Office) usually abbreviated to LBA. The second title seems to make a little more sense but does not specify the time period, could be confused with the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt article. The RLM seems mainly concerned with military aircraft, I don't know the ins and outs of it but hopefully my German lesson helped!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Air and Aviation Ministries would be valid translations, AFAIK. Ministry of Aviation seems clumsy to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at my Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II (first published 1945/46) they refer to it as the 'German Air Ministry'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, "Air Ministry" seems more fitting - the use of "Air" was more common at the time, and "Aviation" didn't supersede it in English until post-war. Or that's the sense I've got of it, anyway. Do we know how the organisation itself translated it, which it must have done on occasion? Shimgray | talk | 20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of Nomination for deletion of List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs

This is to inform members of this project, within whose scope this article falls, that User:76.66.193.119 has nominated this article for deletion. Interested project members are invited to add their thoughts on this proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit odd, if you ask me. Not to mention it's not our only "Survivors" article, so is he giong to AFD them all, or only the one where his edits were challenged? - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More than a bit odd; this editor has a very convoluted history of changes without consensus, acting on the WP:BOLD tenet, to a great degree. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Right on both counts, which is why opinions on the AfD are solicited! - Ahunt (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The AfD closed as a keep. Article probably should be renamed, but is move protected. -fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

G'day all, I have PRODded 1967 N3381W Piper Cherokee crash and Reading Mid-air incident. YSSYguy (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Prod tag was removed from the Piper one. Further action will have to go to AfD.. -fnlayson (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Prod

I've just prodded Project dassualt 45 which is claimed to be a secret French fighter project that was sold to India and formed the basis of the HAL Tejas. It is sourced to a forum (which doesn't appear to discuss the aircraft anyway - it appears to be a complete fake.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quite amazing what shows up on these Indian and Pakistani forums, as facts are few and far between. They're are like 2 old brothers engaged in a centuries-long feud! Btw, I've seconded the PROD. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

List of flight schools

I wanted to solicit some opinions on this list article, which is now three years old (August 2007 creation). Since most flying schools in the world are non-notable, it seems to me that this is just a indiscriminate collection of information and a spam magnet as the article history shows. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a clear AfD candidate. WP is not a "directory" (list of random stuff). Roger (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with AFD, and we can sort out any other options there. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have done so. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion List of flight schools

This is to notify members of this project that this article, which falls within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may add their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flight schools. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Airline liveries as "advertising"

There seems to be a growing movement on WP to exclude otherwise-normal images from use in articles on the basis of coprporate logos or liveries apperaing on the items in the photographs. I've run into this on several types of articles in the past few months. The Foil bearing article was one such article, where a user objected to to a link to the Mohawk Innovative Technology in the cption when the logo is on the bearing in the photo. An Emirates image has been removed from the Airbus A380 several times in the past week or so, and repalced with Airbus company livery images. Also, this image, with a large "Emirates" written on the underside of the aircraft, has been contested in the past on the basis of advertising.

To me, the entire reason for an airliner's existence is to serve in airlines in there livery. So it only makes sense to show it doing what is was designed to do - fly in airline colors. In time, a better image, perhaps in Air France or Lufthansa livery - will become availabe, and it will be in the Lead for a while. But this whole idea of excluding pics of airliners in airline livery as advertising is insidous, and it need to be curtailed - otherwise we could not use the bulk of images of aircraft posted to Commons, and that would be a great shame. - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. At Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft#Lead image I offered the opinion that, if there are suitable images which illustrate a point but do not show a corporate logo, then we ought to favor those. The image may well show an aircraft "doing its job" but with its logo obscured. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am with Bill on this one, removing images because of incidental logos is going too far in interpreting what is spam. Are there motorcycle articles that don't show motorcycles with their manufacturer's logos? Can military aircraft articles show the roundels of the air force operating them? Do logos have to be purged from software screenshots? - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like rubbish to me, I looked for image use advice at Wikipedia:Spam but there does not seem to be any. I suppose there could be editors with a COI inserting 'beneficial' images but it's unlikely with airliners surely? The selection criteria, for the lead image at least, is that it should simply be the best available image of the aircraft whatever colours it is wearing, if it happens to be for a particular airline then that should be by accident and I suppose is unavoidable, inadvertent free advertising for them. We could go for the BBC's Blue Peter method of hiding company names with masking tape when the presenters made children's toys (the glue was Copydex BTW if you never sussed it from the red and white jar!!). Many Wikipedia articles are about products or companies, if they are good products or companies then that is cited and it looks good for them, more free advertising but unavoidable. Some products are so good that the article text has to be toned down to avoid it looking like an advert. COI insertions are usually obvious, to remove something stating that it is in advert is wrong if it is clearly not a deliberate attempt at advertising. They have got hold of the 'wrong end of the stick'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nimbus's view is truly neutral, in my opinion, in prefering the best pic regardless of whether it has airline livery or not, and that is what I hold to also. Even Airbus is a corporation, so having their logo on the aircraft could be construed as advertising, as could the aircraft itself being in the photo! Then we'd have no pics of any recognizable product at all! I'd hate to have to tell photographers such as Arpingstone that they have to take a photo of empty sky, and the caption say "Photo of airspace an XXXX just flew though" Aircraft not shown nor type give to avoid advertising the company's product! - BilCat (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Even describing the aircraft would be advertising - it just gets silly! Does Airliners.net have this problem???- Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll probably end up having to have this addressed bt ther comunity before it's settle, and even then I can't predict a favorable outcome. If most pics of airiners in livery are ever considered advertisement, or if we have to get "apporoval" for every photo we use, it'll drastically change how we do aircraft articles. Frankly, at that point I'd just leave WP altogether, and I have a feeling I would'nt be the only WPAIR editor to do so. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it will never come to that, there are enough sane voices to make a logical case. I wondered about asking at WT:SPAM or looking through the archives of that page to see if it has been discussed before but that may well open a can of worms. You have to work hard at proving your neutrality around here sometimes. Do the airlines pay Flight to put a nice big glossy colour photo of one of their jets on the front cover? Probably not. The BBC seem to have relented somewhere along the way with their brand censorship, just completely impractical I guess, they were going ridiculously too far the other way. 'Sticky-back plastic' was Fablon BTW, sorry but Blue Peter cracked me up!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Russian Presidential Airplane

Russian Presidential Airplane has just been created. At first glance, it needs a new title with sentence case, and with a neutral term for "airplane" to aviod sending the Brits/Commonwealthers (Candians excluded, excpet for mild-mannered librarians) into fits! The text needs inmrpovement, and the article needs citations too. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to Russian presidential aircraft as a start. - BilCat (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer 'aeroplanes with aerofoils flying from aerodromes' myself! ;-) Fantastic long shot of the nose there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is kind of rude to refer to Putin that way! - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And insulting to the airplane! - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

I just found OKB-1 EF 140 and Aircraft 140. The former article looks to be at the better name. The latter article is newer. Someone even mentioned the other article on the talk page in March, but it was ignored. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft design process PROD

Aircraft design process as been PRODded. I really don't see any major problems with the article, but the nominee does. However, his explanation is a bitover-the-top. Is the article worth tying to keep? Should we remove the PROD to make it go to AFD? - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to side with the PROD in this case - it is almost all unref and contains such general and sweeping statements that it really doesn't have much to commend it. There probably should be an article on the processes of aircraft design, but in my opinion this isn't it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that we knew the PROD was being proposed, and that it garnered mpre than one or two opinions. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a very odd and possibly copyvio image in the article (this one). Judging by the Metadata and file description the 'creator' has taken a photo of an image in a book and then captioned it in english - very badly. S/he has described control surface actuators as "engines", unless someone is now using puffer jets to control large air transport aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, User:Mohamedhp is messing around with the article, including moving it to Aircraft Design. Not sure how to handle this, or what to do. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Prod, as the user appears to be contesting it, and I think its deletion is probably bettr handled by an AFD. I don't expect it to be kept, but this will give us a chance to discuss the options before it's gone. - BilCat (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to put it up at AfD. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Hey we made the news: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/WikiProject report. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Airspeed Envoy

Hi to all; I must bring to your attention on specifications. I think there is a clerical error in:

• Empty weight: 6,460 lb (2,930 kg)
• Loaded weight: 5,300 lb (2,410 kg)

The first value is greater than the second ... I do not think is correct. Waiting for reply, thanks. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is generally better to ask this on the article's talk page first before coming here. Loaded weight is typical/normal takeoff weight and should be higher than the empty weight. The numbers could be switched or one is just wrong. -fnlayson (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a new question. All the specifications was copy from British Aircraft Director, an external link that is no longer available, so you can use a bibliographic source? :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, the link or site looked broken to me also. If you have a book with the specs data, reference that instead. For whatever it's worth my Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft book lists for the AS.6 a max takeoff weight of 6,300 lb and an empty weight of 4,057 lb. No typical/normal takeoff weight. -fnlayson (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't any "paper" bibliographic source and I also forced me to find info in a "on line" safari :-D. However, in Italy there is a saying which reads "piuttosto che niente è meglio piuttosto", literally translated circa in "rather than nothing is better than", and if you endured an external link as a source, once I found also insert that in en.wiki page. Thanks for your help. From Italy... :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be of use - there's a payload table in thuis old copy of Flight, for the first? series there is this comprehensive spec. The Flight archive is always useful IMHO. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got H.A Taylor's Putnam book on Airspeed aircraft, which lists specs for several variants including the AS.6J. This work is clearly authoritative and citable, so unless anyone objects I'll put in the numbers from it.TSRL (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DoneTSRL (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Specs for multiple variants

It says here that the specs of only one aircraft can be included. Why can't we have the specs of multiple aircraft, as on North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This was decided by consensus on this project a while ago based on problems we had with aircraft fans adding multiple specs to aircraft articles, such as the Piper Seneca I, II, III, IV, V etc. The decision was based on the fact that Wikipedia is fundamentally a general encyclopedia and not a specialized aviation publication like Jane's All The World's Aircraft, Clarke's Cessna books or even Airliners.net where you might expect to find specs for multiple model years (Clarke, for instance, published the specs for every model year of Cessna 150 and 172). The consensus was to run one complete set of specs and describe any differences in the variants section of the main body of the article. I would also add that if a variant is so different that all of its specs are different from other models (speeds, engines, length, wingspan, etc) then perhaps it would make sense to split it into a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Stevens Otter crash

A single usee has chosen 2010 Alaska plane crash as the title for this article,a nd is refusing to even consider alternate titles. The behavior is typical of this user. We could use some help establishing a consensus for a better name, and some admins to enforce the consensus, and attempt reign in the user. The discussion is at Talk:2010 Alaska plane crash#Title. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft empty weight

Both Basic aircraft empty weight and Manufacturer's Weight Empty seem to cover aircraft non-operating empty weight (structure with no lubricates or unusable fuel). Looks like one should be merged and redirected to the other. Any particular reason not to? -fnlayson (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are actually six different articles dealing with aircraft weight, plus one dealing with CofG. How about we merge all of the weight articles to Aircraft gross weight, then there would be just two articles covering all the info regarding aircraft weight and balance. YSSYguy (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject is known as Aircraft weight and balance in the UK at least, certainly room for some merging there (and some inline cites!). Merging all the other definitions to just gross weight though could be misleading. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree we don't need six articles on aircraft weight! Aircraft weight and balance seems OK to me, but Aircraft weight might be fine too, esp if CofG is separate. BilCat (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - let's merge them all into one article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For starters I merged Basic aircraft empty weight to Manufacturer's Weight Empty. -fnlayson (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

M-ATF

The M-ATF article is quite short, and it's only reference is from ACIG.org, whose reliability has been questioned many times on WP. Should we PROD/AFD, or is it worth trying to improve? - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Google doesn't provide any reliable sources on a fighter aircraft of this name. There might be a very good article in Reported Iranian military equipment programs though. as many of the rumours are notable in their own right, even after they're proven to be either false or yet another example of 1970s-era US technology tweaked to look a bit different. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Percival/Hunting category?

Many of the Percival aircraft are not categorised by manufacturer. We have Category:Hunting Percival aircraft and I wondered whether to put them in there, might be better and more accurate to create Category:Percival aircraft for the pre-1954 types. Just checking before I do it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done (as you can see by the red link turning blue!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I have just proposed merging Malmö MFI-9 and Bölkow Bo 208 as they are two versions of the same aircraft. Discussion here.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft type clubs

I am afraid that I started this problem and now I need help fixing it. In 2005 I started the Aircraft type club article and added some information on type clubs to some aircraft type and manufacturer articles. Since then the situation seems to have got a bit out of hand with COI editors adding listings of new type clubs to the articles and even removing competing ones, especially in the cases where there are multiple clubs representing a given aircraft type. A bad example is that of Diamond Aircraft Industries and associated aircraft types where there were four (and are now three after a corporate merger) type clubs all trying to use the article to promote their club. Some of these "clubs" are just forums and nothing else, whereas some have fulltime paid staff, publish magazines and have offices, etc.

As far as I know the only aircraft type club that actually has its own article on Wikipedia is Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, although that is mostly due to persistent COI editors as much as anything (and my attempts to clean it up).

I would really like to get some input from other editors so we can come up with a guideline and add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Should we list type clubs, including giving them an external link like we do now? Should we only list "notable" type clubs (ie ones that have their own Wikipedia article) or "real" type clubs (ie not just forums)? Should we remove it all as non-notable spam? Something else? - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Never really thought they added much value to the aircraft articles as they appear to be mainly advertising. They dont actually tell the reader anything new about the subject we just provide some extra promotion for them against WP:EL and probably other guidelines. I would just remove them! but I would be interested in other views. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahunt and I have discussed this in passing before, and I pretty much agree with Milb1's views here. WP is not a directory, and I think this type if info falles into that category. We provide manufacturer's pages when available (for in-production or supported aircraft), and that's probably sufficient in most cases. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I should be more interested in the Tiger Club article, I knew it existed but only just looked at it again. Fairly innocuous and quite notable in the UK although it is actually more a flying club than an owner's club. The de Havilland Moth Club external link has been removed from articles as spam where it is actually very informative, does not have a forum and operates on a very low budget (barely commercial although they sell some parts), whoever removed the links did not actually visit the site. This put me off creating an article on the club which has historic value and notable members and achievements (which could only be explained with an article). There is some worthy stuff out there and some not so worthy (as always!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To play Devil's advocate, I can see the limited use of some type clubs such as the Moth Club because at times, the club site has useful or unique information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of these type clubs are IMO notable (the 'real' clubs as Ahunt calls them), in that they hold safety seminars and the like in order to help pilots with safe operation of the type, and provide product support that the manufacturer no longer provides. The Tiger Club would fall into this category, as possibly would the International Comanche Society, the various Bonanza Society chapters, the Mooney Aircraft Pilots Association and the Swift Museum Foundation, which actually holds the TC for the Globe Swift. Apparently the Light Aircraft Association in the UK is now responsible for the Auster series; and de Havilland Support Ltd was created by the Moth Club and the Chipmunk Club to be the TC holder for Moths and Chippies after BAe washed its hands of them and is now also responsible for the Beagle Pup. In general, I would think that clubs for older types would be more likely to be notable than those for something like Cirrus or Diamond aircraft. It might be an idea to beef up the type club article, placing more emphasis on this aspect of the role of type clubs, and perhaps it could also provide a similar role to Aircraft in fiction, which IMO is working pretty well in keeping the fanboy stuff off aircraft type articles. YSSYguy (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input so far! I should start off by acknowledging, as User:BilCat noted, that he and I did disagree on this some time ago, but as time has gone by I have come to see that his position (to mostly leave these out) was a better solution that mine (leave them in)! I think he knew what a can of worms I was creating. I do particularly like User:YSSYguy's suggestion to improve and expand the Aircraft type club article. As it stands that article is referenced to one single book on the subject, which I have to admit I was the author of (that is how I came to start the article - I knew where to find the refs for the subject).

Overall I think we have a consensus here out of all the comments so far to remove all references to mentions of aircraft type clubs in aircraft type and manufacturers' articles, unless they have their own articles already, in which case they should be mentioned and linked. Also we should work to expand the Aircraft type club article to better describe the club's roles and list those that have their own articles.

Please let me know if you think I have this wrong or if anyone has any more to add. I'll wait a few days through the weekend to see if anyone has any corrections or more to add here before I make any changes to the guidelines or the articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If a type club had a website that gave information that contributed to the article - eg on the history of the aircraft - then it would warrant an entry under External Links. A site that was a forum or contact point for the club would not.

If the type club had contributed to some notable event in the history of the aircraft design, then it would warrant mentioning in that context (eg "the Ruritanian Skyjockey Club raised sufficient funds for production to proceed meeting new legislation requirements") This would not necessarily mean that the type club is of itself notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GraemeLeggett thanks for that input - I agree except that I think if info from a type club website is used in the article then it should be cited as a ref, rather than added as an external link. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lacking any other comments I think I can safely say that the consensus is:

• Remove all mentions of aircraft type clubs in aircraft type and manufacturers' articles, unless they have their own articles or have made notable contributions to the aircraft or manufacturer's history (third party refs required)
• Type clubs that have their own articles should be mentioned and linked from aircraft type and manufacturers' articles.
• Type club websites other than forum entries can be used as references for aircraft type and manufacturers' articles.
• We should work to expand the Aircraft type club article to better describe the club's roles and list those that have their own articles.

I will update Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content from this and also try to incorporate those changes in the type articles I find. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That has all been done and a shortcut to the guideline created at WP:TYPECLUB. I have also cleaned up as many articles as I could find via search. Please feel free to fix any I missed! I also wanted to take this opportunity to tank everyone who participated here in this discussion for their comments - that is what makes this project work so well! - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that there seems to be some IP resistance to having the type club spamming removed, so if other editors would keep a watch-out that would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

New rumors on RN F-35

See this forum on Key Publishing's site about a Sunday Times story, "Navy jet switch to save £10bn". Apparent;y it's on the paper's pay side, but many forums are already abuzz about it. It's already been added (and removed) to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier per this diff. I expect more on the F-35 and Super Bug pages. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper article makes sense - as nice as the F-35 is, it is amazingly expensive for what it does. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I can't see Boeing making an easy sell either. The Rafale, Sea Gripen, and Sea Typhoon will all have proponents in the UK vying to get their et selected, and that will drive up spending. Still, Boeing isn't standing still, and the F/A-18E/F International looks to be a tough competitor. I've always thought the F-35B STOVL was a non-starter, and I'll be suprised if it ever enters service with the USMC, especially if the Domocrats retain control of the US Gov't for more than 2 more years. And I don't think the CF F-35A selection controversy is going to die quietly either. Any defections from the program will just drive the costs up more. Before long, the F-22 will seem cheap by comparision! At least someone didn't commit LBJ's folly and have the F-22 tooling destroyed, as was done with the SR-71. Yet. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Liberals (Canada) entered into the F-35 program, and the Conservatives (Canada) selected it to replace the CF-18s, so I think there is a good chance of atleast a silverbullet squadron of F-35s. Though Canada could likely buy F/A-18 E/Fs like Australia did, to fill out the rest of the CF-18 replacements. It does have two engines, which is the traditional CF requirement. Unlike the USN, I don't see where the USMC could get something to replace the AV-8B except the F-35. I could see the Democrats making the Navy an F/A-18 E/F force complemented by UCAVs, the Air Force an F-22 force with complementary UCAVs, but it would leave the USMC out with just F-35s. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My point on canceling the F-35B for the USMC is that the Harriers wouldn't be directly replaced. The Harriers would soldier on ("marine on"??) until they can't fly anymore, and then their unique capability would lapse. It wouldn't be the first time Congress has screwed a service like that! Anyway, with Boeing's efforts to improve the F-15E anf F-18E designs, I wouldn't put a dramatic upgrade to the AV-8Bs (and the RAF Harrier GR9s) past them, though I've seen nothing on whether such efforts even exist to date. It'll be interesting to watch. The USMC uses the Harriers primarily as a CAS aircraft, similar to the USAF's A-10s, but with the ability to operate from the LHAs/LHDs. Stealth and other bells and whistles are not that important once air superiority is assured, and that isn't the USMC Harriers job. The RN designed the CVFs to be large enough for catapults and arresting gear ("future proofing"), hence the Super Bug is a workable alternative for them. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My own opinion is that Canada will not buy two fighter types - the budget is too small to do that. If the F-35 purchase is not signed in 2013 I would guess that they will extend the life of the CF-18s, by reducing their yearly flying rate and then skip to the next step beyond the F-35, but time will see. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Times story has a lot of logic. The UK is skint and the F35B is more expensive, has less range and payload of the F35C. To order another carrier jet change from STOVL to a conventional layout will save money. There was nothing in the article that these were new F/A18s there will be some second hand ones around and used as a stop gap until the UK can afford the F35C or even to compliment it makes sense. A mixed carrier group of 24 F/A18, 12 F35C, 4 Hawkeye looks very attractive. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

First, the story mentions the F/A-18E/F, which is a different aircraft than the leagacy F/A-18A/Cs. As of now, all the Super Hornets are less than 12 years old or so, and so there are no second hand ones avaiable yet. Legacy Hornets could be acquired second-hand until the F-35C carrier version is available, but that's not what's been mentioned here. In the report, the Super Hornets are being proposed as an alternative to the F-35s entirely.

Second, last November, the Times published a rumor that the Prince of Wales would be acquired as a LHA/D, not as a full carrier The editors of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier article decided to not add the report until it was verified by other sources. In the end that proved to be the right decision, as there has been absolutley no follow-up to that rumor anywhere by anybody, not even a comment from the British goverment. I think that is the stand we should take on this rumor. If it does prove to have legs, that should be apparent within a week or so, and we can add it to the F-35 article then. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

With the capabilities of the Osprey (although I am not a huge fan of the aircraft myself) the USMC could replace the laps of AV8B's to a certain degree by modifying the osprey to replace a large chunk if not all of the AV8B's current mission IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The V-22 is much too large, in my opinion, and isn't designed for combat. However, something like an attack version of the Sikorsky X2 might be suitable (se pic in that article), but that is still at least a decade away, and likely to be expensive if it goes the RAH-66 route. So, the alternative might be well more AH-1Z Vipers. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I've always thought that trying to use the same design for both CTOL (land- and carrier-based) and VSTOL was a mistake, given current technology, and that was the premise of the whole JSF competition. I also wouln'd put it past Boeing to propase a new aircraft, possibly on based on the X-32 (but prettier!), but designed solely for the VSTOL mission to the USMC and the RAF/RN. If they chose the F136 engine, they might well be able to get British interest. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If the MoD does switch from JSF (F-35B) to F-18 Super Horntes it will be the best decision ever made. The F-18 Super Hornet will serve in the USN untill about 2030 - 2035 when it is replaced by UCAV. It is also cheep and is after all a 4.5 gen fighter which is a proven fighter at that! The UK could purchase 90 F-18 Super Hornets for £3.7 billion and give enough Hornets to have 4 frontline squadrons of 12 aircraft (2 navy squadrons and 2 RAF squadrons with one reserve joint navy/raf training squadron, the rest of the Hornets would be in reserve.

Example; All F-18 Super Hornets would be owend by the RAF under Join force Hornet (like current joint force Harrier)

with ALL suqdrons flying from the Royal Navys carriers just like JFH

• 1 RAF (Navy crew) squadron - 12 x F-18s
• 1 RAF (Navy crew) squadron - 12 x F-18s
• 1 RAF squadron - 12 x F-18s
• 1 RAF squadron - 12 x F-18s
• 1 RAF Reserve (Training) Squadron - 14 x F-18s
• Other 28 F-18s in storage to rotate though active suqadrons and replace attrition.

Thats plenty of aircraft for the carriers.

The RAFs Tornado GR4 fleet needs replacing by 2025, so the UK could order 75 F-35Cs to replace the Tornado fleet in 2025. By then the F-35 will be both proven and the UK will be able to afford it as this economic crisis will be long over. MoD just has to think clearly.

The F-35B is a waste of money, we just dont need it. Especialy right now Recon.Army (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange edits

I could use some help keeping an eye on User:118.216.46.160. He/she's been adding lot of aircraft to the See also sections of several aircraft, and it's getting a bit difficult to clean-up without my going over 3RR. An example is this edit to the Short 360 article, where he added the Basler BT-67, BAe Jetstream 41, Fokker 50, Dornier 328, Antonov An-140, Ilyushin Il-114, ATR 72, ATR 42, Ilysuhin Il-112, EADS CASA C-295, BAe ATP, and Antonov An-32 as comparable types! His only criterion appears to be that they each have two turboprob engines. The Short 360 has a MTOW of about 10,000 kg, and some of threse types are 2-3 times heavier. Thanks for any help/assitance. - BilCat (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What appears to be the same editor (from a Korean IP) seems to show up every few months - making more or less the same additions to see also sections (normally to the same articles) and making unsourced changes to the specifications. He/she/it seems to get bored/go back to school after a few days anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know most of our regular "content spammers", but I don't remember seeing this one before. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio issues

Ahunt and I are having difficulty with a user who created the TAI Hürkuş page, especially regarding copyvios. It's not clear whether this is an actual aircraft, a competion, or what, as it's based on an old press release from TAI. Any admin help with the copyvio issues would be appreciated, as would any other help in finding current sources. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found this reference from Flightglobal to someone winning a contract to supply an environmental control system for the Hürkuş, so the programme does seem to be real although very, very low profile.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Another 3rd party source (albeit not terribly informative) - this time from a Turkish newspaper - translation to English by Google here. Another press release from TAI here and one from what appears to be the Turkish government here, which suggests first flight is due in 2011.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to thank all the project members for wading in on this one while I was out! Thanks too for the additional refs given here, I have incorporated them into the article. Looking at the unblock conversation going on at User talk:Tolgagurcan I think there will be more on this issue in 24 hours, so continued watching of the TAI Hürkuş article would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's apparent at this point that there is a failure to communicate with him, for whatever reasons. I don't expect improvements in his behavior after the block is removed either. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional aircraft

This article, like Aircraft in fiction, is keeping a lot of junk out of the aircraft type articles. I think it serves a purpose, but it sure needs some fixing up as it almost completely lacks refs. I am looking for some input on how to improve it. Should we start requiring rigorous referencing, something that has greatly improved Aircraft in fiction, or should we take it a more hands off approach because it is drawing off a lot of cruft? I am concerned that someone with good intentions may AfD it and cause a lot of problems, if it doesn't get at least a bit more cleaned up. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should add a couple more refs to beef it up a bit and then just keep an eye on it. If someone has a copy of No Highway on the shelf, then perhaps the Rutland Reindeer could be added with the book as the ref to get started; I'm surprised it isn't already mentioned. YSSYguy (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Anyone else have any thoughts to add? - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I am working on adding some refs to the article - assistance is welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You might find Fictional military aircraft interesting it has hardly any references either ! MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As one might guess from my editing style if they know of them, I am greatly in favour of well referenced articles. Kyteto (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well your help finding refs over on List of fictional aircraft would be greatly appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

First aircraft with aluminum skin or cowling?

Does anybody know what the first aircraft (s) was (were) that used aluminum in the skin or cowling?

First one of any production quantity? Say over 50.

THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspect the answer is a Junkers, which one depending on the exact question. The Junkers J3 was Duralumin skinned, started in 1916 but not completed because of lack of official interest. The J7s, a one-off single seater was built and flew (ff 1917-09-17). Corrugated Dural all over. The two seat J8 (3 built) was similarly constructed (ff 1917-12-26), as was the J10 (ff 1918-05-04) and 44 of these were built, some after the war. The J13 (1919+) was the first metal airliner.

The cowling question is harder; lots of rotary engined pre-first war aircraft had cowlings or half cowlings to keep the sacrificial castor oil off the pilot. Sure some of these would have been made from Al, but more difficult to establish which.TSRL (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Junkers J1 is listed as "the first all-metal aircraft to go into series production anywhere in the world" at Canada Aviation and Space Museum - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Missed that one from my list and it's certainly a candidate. J1 was the military number whereas the Junkers' number (which is what I have used above) was J4. It had corrugated Dural covered wings and tail surfaces, smooth Dural on the fuselage in most models and steel in the underside of the crew area; ff 1917-01-28; 227 built by the end of WW1.TSRL (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What about in North America (U.S./Canada)? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Ford Trimotor, look in the categories for aircraft between 1920-1925. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Short Cockle may have been the first all-metal flying boat. --TraceyR (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured Picture needs to be used in articles

This image in your scope should be used in articles, otherwise it may get delisted. Please help to find a home for this image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Added to United States Air Force Thunderbirds. -fnlayson (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking help on Avro Vulcan

I've been spending some time refitting the Cold War-era British bomber, the Vulcan, for compliance with WP:RS and sourcing much of the information gathered. Nearly all of the sourcing and rewriting work for compliance is done, but I'm lacking information in one key area: Specifications. The Specifications section of this article is very detailed, but I have little clue as to where most of the information can be sourced to. It seems valid, as I've seen the majority of information in prose of books I read to get this far, but if anybody has a copy of Janes or the like to look up a table format of the data, ensure it is correct or adjust as necessary, and leave a cite, it would be a very huge amount of help. I'm hoping to take this article through GA, and aside from a rewrite of the lead, this is the problem I cannot resolve on my own. Thanks. Kyteto (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sure that I have the needed volumes of "Jane's", albeit in a cardboard box in a storage unit. I'll try to unearth the required annuals. Mark Sublette (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of Tim Laming's The Vulcan Story which has a copy of the B2 aircrew manual which is full of spec stuff! MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can help but am very leery of the "want to bring it up to... status"? revisions as a few of these recent efforts have been very frustrating to see the least. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

I'm happy that people have responded postively and offered their help. I'm sad that you disaprove of the revisions though Bzuk, I take it that it is revisions by myself that have been objected to. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to assist but found at least one exercise quite exasperating, nonetheless, "c'est la vie" as that is the way of Wikiwonderland... LOL Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC). To clarify, I was actually referring to a GA effort surrounding Amelia Earhart undertaken by a reviewer that had no background or interest in the subject and I felt no obligation to school the individual and simply did not help in the process which inevitably failed. As well, another well-meaning effort on another aviation article failed merely because the reviewer did not see the revisions that were made to satisfy the questions posed in review. Sheeesh, that's why I dropped out of being a coordinator in the WikiFilm Project because I just couldn't get wound up in the politics and back-stabbing that was inevitably linked to gaining the glorified status of a FA or GA acceptance. Bzuk (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, I'm noticed a few GAs taking place with reviewers without much background in the subject. I can also appreciate the curse that is politics, I try to keep that side of my activities to a minimum to simply not get as involved in it; I do like focusing on the pages and giving them a top-to-bottom overhaul however, and quite a few GA reviews I've gone through have been very constructive, it is luck on who chooses to review sadly. On another note; I'm very happy with how the Vulcan page is turning out, thank you MilborneOne for your contributions! I'm looking forward to taking this one through its GAN, few things are as good on Wikipedia as leaving an article in a far better state than when it was found. :) Kyteto (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

New member question

Hi. I am a pilot and interested in helping out on Wikipedia. I added my name to the list of members. I have a question. I was looking at the article for the Piper PA-20 Pacer and saw a section devoted to one fellow's airplane. Now I am sure that Miss Pearl is a nice airplane but that seemed out of place for an encyclopedia. Am I off-base on that? Thanks. Lyncs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyncs (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That might be alright if it were presented a little better. I don't think that airplane needs its own dedicated section there. Maybe it should be a Survivors section instead. -fnlayson (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As far as being a "Survivor", that term is certainly relevant to warbirds that might have a handful still flying but there were 10,000 of these made and at least hundreds, maybe thousands, still in the air. This is by no means a rare airplane, it just seems to be a pretty example. I am too inexperienced here to make the call and will leave it in your hands while I find some grammar or something to work on :) Lyncs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyncs (talk • contribs)

I have removed the Miss Pearl entry as it appears to be a bit of self-promotion with no independent evidence that it is any more important than many other PA-20s as Lyncs stated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that. I got the same feeling from that bit but was not sure how that might fit into the overall idea here. I've obviously got a lot to learn. Maybe one of you can help me with another question. I added a box to my homepage that says I am a "certified" aircraft pilot. I do not usually hear the word "certified" used in that sense. Most people I know say "licensed" pilot. The term "certified" is often misused for flight instructors. A CFI is often erroneously referred to as a "Certified Flight Instructor" when he or she is actually a "Certificated Flight Instructor" (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/108315/). Does anyone know how I might bring this to the attention of whomever might be interested in making the change to that box? Thanks. Lyncs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyncs (talk • contribs) 00:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't CFI also refer to the Chief Flying Instructor of a training unit? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

The term Certificated Flight Instructor is only used in the USA. In Canada, as User:Bzuk points out CFI means Chief Flying Instructor at a club or school. We are always dealing with national differences in terminology! As far as that user box goes I guess the person who made it up, User:Check-Six had some reason for it saying that. Maybe it is a term used in his or her country? There are quite a number of users who have that box on their page (see this page for the list of them), so I wouldn't want to change it, Instead I would suggest that you have a look at the page of aviation user boxes and see if you can find a better one there that you like and if not let me know and I can make you a new userbox to your specifications (I work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes as well as this project.) - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)