Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Specifications for US Military Aircraft

In Talk:Martin_AM_Mauler#Specifications this discussion, an editor is proposing standardising specifications for US Military Aircraft on a SINGLE source - Wagner, Ray (1982). American Combat Planes, Third Edition. USA: Doubleday & Company. ISBN 0-385-13120-8. - as apparently it is the only source that is reliable - as this has significant implications for the project - as it will require dozens of articloes to be changed, I feel this shoul;d be discussed centrally.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is such a good idea as I don't have a copy of Wagner to find out his sources. I did, however, have an older edition, but it was pretty lame and not worth retaining in one of my many moves. Does he specify where he got his specs from? A number of books quote specs from the aircraft's manual(s) and I'm not sure that they shouldn't trump all other sources. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Any proposal to use any particular source wholesale across multiple articles is silly; sources should be weighed on an article-by-article basis. I have nothing particularly pro-Wagner or anti-Wagner, although I think the editor makes a good case for Wagner in the specific case of the Mauler. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that you can't have one approved source! Jane's isn't good enough for specs? - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesnt sound like a very good idea, I can see no reason to single source anything. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the important point here is that there should be some standardization of where the stats are drawn from. Presently we have articles that reference a wide variety of publications. Not all of them are very clear on their sources, and when they do list their sources they rarely agree on who to reference. In some cases there are books referenced that have drawn their information from multiple sources and list some specs from some sources and other specs from others without any real pattern (most likely due to the author's difficulty in getting information on all the aircraft from a single source). Because there can only be one set of specs, and one source in an article it is important that there be a consistency between the articles on the data presented. At present only one author has ever attempted to do this. Ray Wagner began working on "American Combat Aircraft" in 1957, and published the 1st edition in 1960. Since then it has gone on to a 3rd edition, as new aircraft were added. It remained in constant print for over 25 years. Wagner recognized the same problem we are facing her, namely that he can't use manufacturer's data for one aircraft, and military test results for another, and publish a book that was standardized in any way. He worked on the book with the late Lee Pearson, the U.S. Navy's chief historian for most of the last half of the 20th century. He also had unlimited access to the records of Wright Field, where the Army did their flight testing, as well as the manufacturer's test data submitted to the various military branches. Wagner and his co-authors finally decided to standardize the book exclusively on the final versions of the performance and capabilities charts issued to the aircraft's flight crews. These charts reflect all the information gathered on the aircraft up to the date of retirement, and are the final word on the aircraft's actual operational capabilities. In most cases they are very close to the aircraft's original military test results, though sometimes the capabilities have been raised over years of operational service. Rarely are they lowered. In most cases the manufacturer's data is the least reliable, as it is often submitted with artificial figures designed to meet the expectations of a particular contract. It's important to note that this is not Wagner's data. It is the data he was able to acquire over the years he worked on the book. The second advantage is that to the best of my knowledge all U.S. military aircraft, include experimental aircraft, are listed, up to 1982. It will not be necessary to draw on any other source because of limitations of the book, except for aircraft that came into operation after 1986. Lastly, it's pretty cheap to purchase online. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase another editor on wikipedia. We quote from reliable sources. Where sources differ, we note the differences of opinion with attribution as necessary. Wagner may be more accurate and reliable than other sources - but who is making that judgement? If Wagner's book adds specification not already in the article, then add it and give the source. If no source at all is given, then by all means add Wagner's and adjust what's in the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, you can't do that with the aircraft specs info box. Only one set of specs from one source can be used in each article. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We can do that, and we do do that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But you can't specify that max speed, forex, was derived from source A and rate of climb from source B.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but why not? We can put qualifiers in the spec - to take your example "Rate of climb xxx m/s (with maximum weapon load") GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't use the cite template, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

HAL Tejas ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to cite a spec to a source other than the main one indicated at the top of the section, for example: Solar MS-1. Ken, I already pointed ths out on your talk page. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Meteor excepted but it is normal to cite against any figures that are derived from sources other than that first mentioned. The assumption is that the figures come from the first source if not otherwise cited. Clearly need to revisit Meteor and sort that. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

From the information above Wagner and his editors appear to be have cherry picked the test data and used a bit of synthesis it almost makes the case for not using Wagner as original research and unreliable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that this was done? - Ken keisel (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is only an opinion based on what was written above. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I often cite multiple sources for specs when, for instance, one has the dimensions and another has the airfoil section. I just list them all on the refs line at the top - no big deal. Editors should probably all keep in mind that pretty much every source out there uses manufacturer's data for their specs, yes, even Janes. They write to the manufacturer and ask for the specs. You don't see the Jane's crew traipsing around dim hangars with plumb bobs, grease pencils and measuring tapes confirming the wingspan of latest model of the Cessna 172. They all take the manufacturer's word for it, which means that most refs are as good as any other. Where different refs disagree it is usually because they are comparing different sub-models or occasionally due to typos, etc. When I worked as an aircraft type reviewer and writer I always used the manufacturer's numbers, but occasionally I did take my plum bob and confirmed a few numbers. Guess what? Even the manufacturer's aren't usually right to within an inch or two. I have measured two identical aircraft just off the assembly line and found they have wingspans that vary a couple of inches. Why? It depends how hard they jammed the wingtips on before they drilled the holes! Of course that alone will then change the wing area, wing loading, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with you in regard to variations in dimensions from one source to another. Manufacturer's data is practically worthless for military aircraft as it was almost always tailored to satisfy a contract specification. Like you I am also not a fan of Jane's. They are the worst at perpetuating mistakes made by other authors (see de Havilland Hornet). The problem seems to be that the performance specifications listed in the info box can only be attributed to one source, so you can't use the "max gross weight" from one source and the "cruise speed" from another. Until that can be corrected there needs to be some standardization of what source is used, otherwise there is no meaningful comparison for the data. Wagner is the best in this respect because he has already standardized the performance specs to one common source that can be applied to all military aircraft. No one reference is ever going to be correct 100% of the time, but at least with Wagner we can accurately compare different aircraft knowing that they are being judged to the same criteria. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I might have not been clear enough, but my argument was in favour of not using just one source. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the sources currently in use in articles for the info box draw their information from a variety of sources, not all of them clear, and they rarely standardize their information between different aircraft, why would it not be preferable to use a single source that has standardized its data for all the aircraft listed. I believe it is important that people using Wikipedia be able to make comparisons of the capabilities of different aircraft with confidence that the data presented is standardized in a reliable manner. Otherwise it is simply too easy for an editor to pick and choose the source for the info box that provides the data which best meets his or her expectations. Or perhaps was what they had on hand at the time. We need to do much better than that. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because by your own admission the book is incomplete and dated and because better data may exist for some aircraft, such as published manufacturer's POH data. Even for aircraft flown within the coverage of the book's dates I'll bet that it is missing many aircraft. I don't have this book nor the money to go and buy one, so are you going to look up and collaberate on specs for all articles being created? It is a poor argument that we should only use one book for aircraft specs and you certainly have not made your case for it here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How have I admitted that the book is dated and incomplete? Right now your are arguing about the merets of something you have never seen, and have no intention of reading. Does that make you a good canidate to judge it? Is the standard for this group of editors to pass judgement on resources they have never read? This group makes a great deal out of using sources and references, but have little interest in the accuracy of the sources you reference. Referencing whatever was on sale at half-price books is a very poor way to write articles. I'm offering the best source, and am explaining why it is the best source. What I'm hearing back is "use any source". That's a very poor way to write. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to use that book to add specs to aircraft articles, I don't think anyone here is objecting to that, but you will never get consensus to make it the only acceptable source for specs. I happen to have the original military manuals for some aircraft, I am not going to agree that we can't use those. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On the use of original military manuals I totally agree. That's why I push so hard for Wagner. His book uses only the performance capabilities cited in the final version of the original pilot's manuals. The figures in the book are merely a collection of these figures. As I previously stated, he disreguards all manufacturer specs, and military flight test results. By using only the final versions of the pilot's manuals he is able to provide the final data that resulted from all previous aircraft operations. That's a hugely beneficial set of information. One must remember that Wagner was a designer for Consolidated, and a senior researcher at the San Diego Air and Space Museum. He wrote the book in 1960 to overcome many of the very problems we have on Wikipedia today, namely stats drawn haphazardly from various points of reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I used to be with the Canadian Forces Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment, so I can tell you that the pilot manuals (AOIs) are entirely based on a combination of manufacturer's data and military flight test data. Where else do you think they would get that AOI data from? Wagner didn't do his own flight testing for each aircraft. Regardless, this discussion has now gone on for six days. The proposal was looking for a consensus on using Wagner as the only accpetable source for US military aircraft stats. In re-reading the discussion it is obvious that you are the only person who agrees with this concept and that everyone else who has responded here disagrees. There is a clear consensus here to not use Wagner as the only acceptable source, so I think we can wrap this up at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The pilot's manuals are based on the manufacturer's test data, military (and sometimes civilian) flight test data, and flight operations to date. If it is an aircraft that has been in service for a while the last version of the flight manual will have the most data drawn from operational service experience, and the least from manufacturer's and military testing. When did I say Wagner did his own flight testing? I actually said the opposite. What I'm deeply concerned about is that the idea has been rejected without anyone coming up with a single good reason to reject it, apart from people's unwillingness to invest in the purchase. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Time to drop the stick. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken; the essential problem here is that this proposal is based entirely on your say-so that Wagner is markedly superior to the sources used in our articles to date. The "single good reason" to reject it is that you simply haven't offered any compelling evidence as to why anything needs to change. You need to make a much better case for a proposal that has such wide-ranging effects. Until then, yes, this is a dead horse. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A Comanche in Pakistan??

See this repeated addition to the Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche page, which states:

"The U.S. military on May 2011 released photos of an almost complete helicopter tail section characterized by stealth technology solutions . It belonged to one of the helicopters used in the raid that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden that took place on May 2, 2011 at Abbottabad, Pakistan, operated the Navy Seals. The helicopter shot down during the operation, according to some theories, could be an AH-66 used by the Department of Defense for secret missions."

Any idea what this is all about? (The IP is in Italy, btw.) I could use help watching the page, as I've already reverted this twice. - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah! this might be the source of the speculation. Not a reliable source of course. - BilCat (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Or this. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The latter is from an AvWeek blog. better speculation than Doyle's! - BilCat (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned the whole thing up - a mess of unsourced trivia and speculation. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up! I was in a hurry to leave for a doc's appointment, and didn't erevert all the way. Also, FlightGlobal has weighed on the mystery helcopter too. We definitely live in interesting times for aviation! - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No sweat, it needed the clean-up! Odd Flight Global item that is - no wonder the SEALs wanted to destroy the crashed helicopter rather than leave it intact. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A user added something on this to Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk#U.S._Army with a reference also. That seems more fitting based on aviation articles this week. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the 'official' explaination from the White House that it was a modified (presumely a secretive variant?) Black Hawk makes a great deal more sense than a cancelled procurement program's prototype suddenly turning up in a major warzone. The last thing you want to bring into a special operation would be touchy hardware that hasn't been put though its paces and refined over a few times, exactly what a prototype would be. I also find it more likely that a utility/transport helicopter would be used over a recon/light attack helicopter; I doubt there'd have been much usage for a full attack helicopter considering the district the facility was in. Kyteto (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly highly unlikely to be a Comanche! Do we have sources for any official explanations yet? Speculation in journalists' blogs isn't much to go on by WP standards. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

Articles on this from Flight Global and Aviation Week have been out out in the last couple of days. But nothing real solid yet.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

All seems like speculative nonsense to me - something everyone has overlooked is that a Comanche only has room for a pilot and systems operator - unless the weapons bay is stripped out and lined with mattresses a la' BOAC Mosquito bomb-bays there would be no room for even half a SEAL let alone part of or a whole SEAL team...and there were supposed to be 23 SEALs involved in the op. I'm waiting for the movie from Jerry Bruckheimer to tell us what REALLY happened :) Minorhistorian (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

AvWeb says it was most likely a special version of the MH-60 Stealth Blackhawk Used In Bin Laden Raid? and quotes the Army Times who said they "were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Blackhawk." Sounds fairly likely. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What's a bit hard to understand is why they would blow up the helicpter but "forgot" about the tail on the other side of the wall! - BilCat (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess they figured the tail wasn't that important. In looking at the tail pictures on AvWeb vs the RAH-66 photos it definitley was NOT an RAH-66, the tail rotors are totally different. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

An article I read said they use (or probably used) thermite grenades to destroy it. Probably did not have time make sure it was totally destroyed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "da choppa"=

Helicopter_rotor#Rigid has some contradictory statements at the end of the paragraph. Anyone able to sort that out? SDY (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - it is now fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Stealth helicopter"

A new article, Stealth helicopter has been created, with the creator stating "Removed redirect, as this article clearly deserves to exist (>3000 visits today". It could use some expansion, assuming we ~~could~~ keep it. - BilCat (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. It is probably a notable topic and worth keeping, but it sure needs some expansion and work! - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why this could not be added to Stealth aircraft instead. But no rush. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, I agree with you. As this is a current topic, it's probably best to just try to improve it, and review what to do with it in a couple of months. - BilCat (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, you are deleting most of the referenced content in this article by claiming this is the same aircraft described on the Black Hawk page. What proof do you have that this is the case? Until you can provide a reference of some kind the information contained in this article must be considered to be about an aircraft unique to the raid - Ken keisel (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Ken keisel's addition on the grounds that it was not supported by the source given. By comparison the text as it stands after BilCat's intervention is supported by a reference. To my mind the topic is rather brief and could do with folding into Stealth aircraft post haste. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I modified the wording. Nowhere in the reference cited does it indicate that this helicopter is a Black Hawk. At this point it would be better to describe it as "an unknown type used in the raid that resulted in the death of Bin Laden." If you find something that definately identifies this as a Black Hawk then reference it, but until then what you are posting is pure speculation not supported by your reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, there's not much doubt it was a modified UH-60 that crashed. There are better sources in the UH-60 article, and I'll try to update the new article from there tomorrow. - BilCat (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming "there's not much doubt" is not the same as having valid references and sources. BilCat, simply replacing it over and over without proper references is the worst kind of editing. You are introducing speculation into an article about a current event while claiming the information is factual. Please try to find your references BEFORE introducing such material. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I double checked this article's history and can't find where BillCat added text without a reference. He mainly reverted some edits. Another reference for the special MH-60 has been added. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot has happened since the first photos came out showing the crashed aircraft's tail, and the speculation that it was a Comanche. In addition, the BBC article was already out of date by a few days when they published it, as the sources they quoted (AvWeek?) and others had already added more factual information by the time BBC published it. Jeff has used these sources in updating the UH-60 article, and if he felt that what I had added to Stealth helicopter was out-of-date or incorrect, he would have fixed that too. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that it was a variant of the MH-60. This CBC article is mostly speculation, but reasonable and includes drawings. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

FYI, Aviation Partners Inc. and Aviation Partners Incorporated. Just spotted them while browsing a category. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Aviation Partners Incorporated has been merged to the older & longer Aviation Partners Inc.. Editors are welcome to check this or help with this article in some manner. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing activities as of 26 April

Okay, a quick roundup:

Hawker Hunter is up for GAN and is to be reviewed any day now, all major work appears complete, response to reviewer comments will be necessary after they arrive.
Hawker Siddeley Harrier has been listed for A-class reviewing over on the MilHis Project, opinions and criticisms are welcome.
Folland Gnat has recently been given a lick of paint by User:MilborneOne; incidentally beating me to the punch! I'll be adding a few things I come across to the article as well, and not all the changes by MO have been implimented, watch this space.
Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel, the now-cancelled replacement Marine One helicopter programme, is now on the GAN queues, I think it is ready for this level now. Last minute tweaking is encouraged.
One final note, and not directly related to me, User:Sp33dyphil (and others) have been working hard on the Airbus A330 and could use imput in the article's FAC Review if you have the time. The article looks pretty good to me; however I'm refraining from commenting as I was close to the article's development.

Kyteto (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kyteto. The VH-71 article could use more content on the VXX contest and the helicopter itself, imo. Content on development issues and cancellation overshadow everything else. The current A330 FAC page is at WP:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive2, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would link the wrong one wouldn't I? Fixed that. I'll see what I can dig up on the early VXX as well, in effect this is my active focus for the next 24 hours. Kyteto (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That was not supposed to be a go-do for you. :) I'll try to find more background/program info as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've ended up with the following priorities so far: the Avro Vulcan and Hawker Siddeley Harrier A-level reviews, and the awaiting Hawker Hunter GAN. I've been barely able to get into work on the Vickers VC-10. Kyteto (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The three articles parasite aircraft, composite aircraft and captive carry cover essentially the same topic - aircraft conjoined in flight. They do perhaps discuss from very slightly different viewpoints, but I feel there would be a benefit in having these discussed in one single place. Anxietycello (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well "captive carry" is little more than a definition, so could be moved to wikitionary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Think merger makes sense; a lot of overlap between first two.TSRL (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Harrier variants

User:Kyteto has created the Harrier variants article, and is moving the Variants sections of all the Harriers, first and second gens, to this new article, with apparently no previous discussions on this. Such a major move needs to be discussed first. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier#Splitting off the Variants section. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Kendall K.1

This unsuccessful, though flight tested, glider started as the unbuilt Kendall Crabpot design, which won the 1947 BGA design prize. The design was then revised - by Kendall or by Miles aircraft where he worked - and Miles got a contract to build the wing out of Durestos. They called the wing, or possibly the whole aircraft the Miles M.76 This failed and EoN built the Kendall K.1 with a wooden wing and possibly also built the rest of it. Ellison implies EoN built the whole aircraft but the Flight article cited says otherwise. EoN's name for it was EoN Type 9 K-1. Anyway, a lot of names. At the moment we have it as Miles M.76 but my feeling is it would be easier to find under the name of the completed, flown aircraft. Both Ellison and a later Flight article http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%202487.html call this the Kendall K.1, so I suggest a move from M.76 to this, with appropriate redirects. Any thoughts, support or disagreement?TSRL (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

An interesting problem that happens often here! Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming provides some guidance on this. That tends to support EoN on this, but does the UK Civil Aircraft Register have any registered, as that could help? - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no CAA entry under Kendall, Kendall K.1, EoN Type 9 or M.76, nor did it get a C of A. Maybe a BGA number, but not sure where to find this or if it would have had one without the C of A.TSRL (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, glider types and individual gliders were not registered with the CAA, it was delegated to the BGA along with airworthiness matters. Things are different now with the advent of EASA regulation a few years ago. I believe the BGA had to accept aircraft types before issuing their version of a Certificate of Airworthiness and a BGA number, this may well not have happened with the M.76. There were other wonderful regulations where you didn't need a CofA if the glider launch height was kept below 120 feet! The man who could tell us, Richard 'Dick' Stratton, former BGA Chief Technical Officer, ARB member, flight engineer for the Saunders-Roe Princess and chief engineer for the Saunders-Roe SR.53 is sadly no longer with us, no doubt he would have been able to shed light (but it would have been OR in any case). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the BGA CEO to ask for a dig through the archives, still OR but it may be interesting what he comes back with. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think the trouble with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming is that it assumes "the main designer" and "the manufacturer of the type" are the same. There's a particular problem with one-off designs built by established companies for outside designers. If I design my TSRL TS.1, of which I am very proud and a) want it to carry my name and b) be well built, I should be a bit miffed for it to appear as the Ahunt TS.1 (miffed for a); of course it would be well built!). Though it might be just a case of misnaming, we do have the Buxton Hjordis, Slingsby built. Prefer a bit of minor OR, but otherwise the very citable Ellison uses Kendall K.1., as does Flight 1954.TSRL (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer I got is that all the BGA archives for this era are now with the Vintage Gliding Club, I have a contact there and will dig further. I did find Vintage glider during the search, could do with a touch of expansion or something else! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a book with an early BGA register but cant find anything that fits! was it actually completed and flown ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture and talk of earlier flight tests in the September 1954 Flight article linked in top para here http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%202487.html. According to Ellison, flight tests started at Lasham March 1954, a date which meshes with Flight's comments, but were abandoned because of the aircraft's poor handling. paticularly "unsolvable spinning characteristics". So it flew, though not well.TSRL (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Survivors articles

I have jsut reverted a change to List of surviving B-17 Flying Fortresses and corrected to the standard survivor article format as per List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires, that is by country and then status. User:Redjacket3827 says the format he is using is standard for United States aircraft (by status then country). Didnt notice any discussion or change in the current consensus. Any Comments? MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I began editing the various survivor articles when I noticed how out of date and inconsistent they were in layout and content. I tried to make them all consistent in appearance and use up to date references. I really don't mind if it is changed to country/status versus what I did with status/country. Either way is fine with me.Redjacket3827 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment Redjacket your improvements are appreciated, if nobody has any objection I am happy to look at the others concerning the layout. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330 A-class review

The article Airbus A330 has been nominated for A-class status for over a week now, and no-one has participated in the review. Anyway comments are appreciated. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 02:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

San Diego Air & Space Museum images

I recently met with staff from the Balboa Park Online Collaborative, an organization dedicated to improving public access to the content of the park's museums. One of these museums, the San Diego Air & Space Museum, has digitized a portion of its collections over the last few years. So far, they have uploaded over 100,000 images on their Flickr account. The staff have indicated that they will be able to assist in getting the licenses changed for free license use if we can determine which images could be used. With such a large selection of images available on a variety of airplanes, aviators, airlines, and other topics, I'm inviting members of this project to request images that could be used to improve various articles under this project's scope. For any image requests, please list the url of the image at the image request page so we can begin the process of uploading the images to Commons. If there are any questions, please leave them on the project's talk page. Thank you! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is: "Wow!" It's a spectacular collection, and more than just a little overwhelming! Thanks for your work with the museum, Nehrams2020. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome resource! The images which have "no known copyright restriction" (seems like all of them) may not be easily used. Binksternet (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nehrams2020, why do you suggest that project members request images to be uploaded? It seems to me that anybody can go to this collection on Flickr, save a desired image, then upload it to Commons. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of them we need to confirm they're available under a free license and we also may be able to get larger sizes/better quality versions. Listing them on the page will also illustrate to the park that multiple people are interested in the images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I certainly wish to let the providers know that their gift is appreciated! Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Then and Now" cost comparisons - a total waste of time

I have just deleted a couple of "Then and Now" cost comparisons which have been sneaked into the North American P-51 - (|unit cost=US$50,985 in 1945<ref name="knaack"/> ($862,881 in current value) - and Curtiss P-40 Warhawk info boxes: I hate these things because they are so variable and unreliable, plus they are unreferenced. It would be good if this nonsense could be expunged as soon as possible, if noticed. Minorhistorian (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ach, I think such comparisons very useful for the reader, to set a level of value to historic projects. Otherwise, the reader doesn't understand how expensive (or not) certain decisions were. If the inflation algorithm were tweaked to yield a range of values rather than attempting to fix one exact value, I think the template would be fine. Binksternet (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this website to see how variable the parameters are - how does one make a reliable calculation and add it to the inflation algorithm? Who decides what range of values should be added to the algorithm, and, if it attempts to fix only one value why is it being used in the first place? Secondly, are the figures given for the value of (eg) the P-51 (US$50,985) gross or nett - ie does this mean the cost of the airframe with or without engine and armament? What block number of P-51D does this represent? Minorhistorian (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion of these kind of comparisons at WT:MILHIST a few months ago where it was generally agreed that they were not very useful and that the inflation template isn't suitable for military hardware: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 101#Economics: Inflation, Template: Inflation, change in economic worth over time, MILHIST-A Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these are usually of no value - if they are not referenced they definitely should be removed and if they involve complex inflation calculations and other assumptions then this is WP:OR and also should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

notability of individual aircraft

Do we have guidelines on this? or previous discussion I could be pointed to? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(aircraft)#Individual_aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, don't know why I overlooked that. I was after it in respect of the Virgin Galactic "fleet" (VSS Enterprise, VSS Voyagerand VMS Eve). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem - all part of the service! - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"See also" template lists

An editor recently brought up a good point over at Template_talk:Aircontent#Whitespace. His concern was that the template we use for "see also" was not working right and causing a lot of whitespace in the articles, but after a bit of discussion I think we have decided that the problem is not so much the template, but that some of these lists have become far too long and that is the root of the problem (see Boeing 737 for one bad example of how it is not working well). I think a lot of this as been a Wikipedia:Fancruft issue in many articles. Please have a read over there for more detail and an illustrated example. I think we can help solve this problem with a project-wide effort to check, clean-up and cut down these lists. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think whitespace is a crime! but you are correct I would rather see a cull then encourage more content with columns. Or we could just ditch comparable aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that was one of my concerns with adding multi-columns - it would encourage ever-longer lists, which is not a good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Multi-columns would also look very silly with only one entry under each header which many articles have. I believe the 'comparable aircraft' or 'comparable engine' section is useful when used correctly and is just about the only place in aircraft articles where things can be compared. We know that comparison articles get deleted and comparison sections are only good if a reliable source has done the comparison for us. I am all for the reader being directed to a relevant article and doing their own comparisons. If the lists were tightened up using our guidelines (which were written to limit this problem) then things will be happier. I do appreciate that it is a daily fight for some editors to keep these sections under control. The 737 needs an overhaul and would be a good place to start, removing anything that is not from the same era, same weight class, same range class, same passenger capacity class and does not have two underwing mounted engines, that should thin it out a bit!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as competence is not actually required to edit WP, well have such problems! I'd support eliminating the Comparable section merely on the grounds of reducing editor workload. However, that wouldn't prevent these fan-people from adding their own sections, and we'd still have to remove it. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have anywhere a "suggested maximum number" of "similar aircraft", etc? I was thinking that more than five is probably not justified in most cases. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Problem with the 737 article is it covers an era from the late 1960s to present day (and another decade or more). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The 737 is split into all the variants though isn't it? I wonder if it is worth tightening the guideline wording (being aware of 'instruction creep')? It currently says for 'comparable aircraft' those of similar role, era, and capability which is quite broad. I have removed entries before but they were often reverted so I gave up. WP:SEEALSO gives some good advice, using the spirit of that advice 'comparable aircraft' are (should be?) 'peripherally related'. It also says to use bulleted lists which we are. I'm certain I've typed this here before!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Concorde has an interesting, and fairly unique, See Also section. Perhaps that example could help with the larger sections on other articles? Personally I'd prefer to see them reduced, but this may help if that can't be done on some articles. Kyteto (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The see also section of the Concorde article was exactly what I was proposing to change the aircontent template to use.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Very non-standard, I don't watch that article but I would have re-formatted it as an error if I saw it like that. If I tried to correct it now someone would no doubt revert the change. Who ever did that used their own personal style, someone else comes along and says 'but it's like that in the other article' and we all go round in circles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the muti-col approach looks particularly jarring (does any other article use a mutiple column see also?). I wouldn't have expected to see the BAC 221 and Handley Page HP.115 in the list since I would have expected them to be mentioned in the development section - but strangely they aren't! If they had of been the see also list wouldnt have them and would look even more unbalanced. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Had a think about the issue and I have come to the conclusion that we dont really need the Aircontent template, it should be depracated and we can use the standard See Also (see WP:ALSO Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. So my suggestion is just to use a see also list of relevant articles:

See also

Boeing 797 - a later development of the same design
Foobus 456 - a similar four-engined thing that competited with the Scruggs Wonderliner in the 1960s
Best Supersplat - a 1960s fighter used is a similar role
List of flying boats and stuff

This would mean that every entry (except lists) must have some reason in the text why they are relevant. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support that proposal. Although it does mean that aircraft articles will have a greater degree of variability in the see also list composition, it would give more flexibility! - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In defence, I think the air content template does a good job of focussing editor attention as to what should go in the see also, and organising it for the reader. If articles take liberties with the template then revise the number of articles listed - the same could happen with the 737 whether there was a templated form or not. That said , it would be good practice for entries to have explanation assuming they are not obvious from the link name ( "List of RAF etc ) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I like it! Requiring every entry in a See Also list to be properly explained/justified is an excellent way to cut the cruft. Roger (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer limiting it to like five comparable aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme that going to simple bulleted lists would not solve the "list bloat" problem seen in Boeing 737, in fact it might make it worse, but it would allow multi-columning if really really required. I like Jeff's idea of limiting the lists to five comparable aircraft. That would solve a lot of problems. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of removing or changing the aircontent template. The headers serve to explain how the links are related (instead of adding a note after each link as suggested at WP:SEEALSO), I think it is neater this way. The guideline also says that it is down to editorial judgement whether to re-add links that already appear in the text, I do add any related developments again as the reader might be skip reading (reads the lead then the 'see also' section), articles regularly pass FAC with repeated links in the 'see also' sections. We do obviously have a problem with the comparable aircraft, I think the only types that should be listed there are close competitors for civil aircraft (737/Airbus) and adversaries for military aircraft (Spitfire/Bf109) and only if they have been mentioned in the text. On a practical level I think we have more constructive things to do than wade through 7,000 + articles just to change some formatting. My first year or two as a member of this project saw great turbulence as we had to re-order the bottom sections of articles (they were against the MoS I think) and convert the 'sequence' lists to navboxes. The layout of aircraft articles is relatively stable now and all we should be doing is concentrating on improving the content. To put it in perspective only one editor has complained about whitespace to my knowledge and in many cases there is more whitespace to the right of specification sections where there are no images yet than the largest 'see also' sections. The logical answer to that is to multi-col the specification numbers until an image arrives, that would also not get my vote!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here (feel free to correct me) is, basically, just an unwillingness to take on the task that either changing the template or not using the template might entail. That's fine by me, I'm not looking to dump a bunch of work on anyone else's lap here. There does appear to be acknowledgement that the template itself may be problematic in some cases though, and that some "see also" sections are out of control. So, all I'm wondering is, are members of this project going to squawk if I start changing how this template is used (and, on occasion, removing it from use altogether)? As an aside, I also still believe that the sub-headings that the aircontent template adds are garish, if only because they're both bolded and use a big font. With that criticism in mind I'm going to start another discussion on the template talk page with suggestions on changing that.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If I am reading the conversation right my take is that there is no consensus to get rid of the template or go to using a basic bulleted list, columned or not, instead, but there is one to cut down entries in articles where they are excessive. Changing the heading sizes or format might work okay, but we'd need to make the change, or mock it up, and see how it looks. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not considering an attempt to change every article that uses the template overnight. I was going to make changes manually, one page at a time... which probably means an average of addressing 2-3 articles per day. My read agrees with your own that there's no support for completely removing the template from all articles, but I don't see support for the stance that using the template is required either. If I remove the template from a specific article, and someone decides that it should be retained, I don't have an issue with it being re-added. I just don't want to start working at the list of articles that use the aircontent template and find that any changes that I make are going to be reverted because this project wants to do... something else, I guess. Know what I mean?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't see an issue with discussing it on an article-by-article basis on the article talk pages, but perhaps others disagree here and want to retain the standard formatting and instead cut the list contents down, rather than end up with a hodge-podge of formats in aircraft type articles. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WWI US Aircraft - identification

(Sorry if this is the wrong place for this sort of question - please feel free to move it if required).

An aircraft identification issue has come up on WP:RD/H, and this project was mentioned as a potential source of information. (a) Are the two attached photos of the same aircraft? (b) If so, is it a Curtiss R-2, or is it some other aircraft of the era? See also here for another photo of the accident.

Tevildo (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

USAAS Serial No 250 (serial number on side in linked image) is listed as a Curtiss JN-4B at http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1908-1920.html MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info. Is the "Reconnaissance Type" aircraft also a JN-4B? Tevildo (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Err - sorry for being dense, but I don't see 250 on that list. Whereabouts is it to be found? Tevildo (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

S/N 250 falls in the 229/264 line on that web page. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Not the most conventional of notations for a range of numbers. :) Apologies again. Tevildo (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your help. I've added the file to the appropriate category and amended the description. BurtAlert (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fieseler Fi 99

I'm currently writing an article about the Fieseler Fi 99, however, one of the sources I found appears to contradict itself on the number of seats in the aircraft: see this google books result. The source appears to be rather reputable, so I assume it's probably a typo, so is there anyone who knows anything about this aircraft who can clarify the number of seats in the Fi 99? Thanks, Bramble claw x 22:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the German Wikipedia the Fi 99 had two seats. The source of this is Nowarra Heinz J.:Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, Bernard & Graeffe Verlag, Koblenz 1993, ISBN 3-7637-5464-4. If you have a look at this photography, you will see that this is correct. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Bramble claw x 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplicates?

We have Velie Monocoupe and the newly-created Monocoupe Model 22, they appear to be one and the same aircraft type. Would normally just redirect but each article has its own merits, one is referenced, the other has a picture! To me Velie Monocoupe is the more common name. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you mentioned it to User:FlugKerl, they could move the new material to the other article and create a redirect. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I should do that first I suppose, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No response to my note, the user is currently editing but does not appear to interact with anyone on their talk page or is apparently not seeing a bright orange message banner there. Makes a collaborative project quite difficult!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

FlugKerl has added an infobox which indicates that the Velie Monocoupe was after the Model 22 and before the Model 90 but the Model 90 image appears on both articles, all rather confusing, are they the same or not? MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

After another duplicate article incident I got a response from this editor and have asked him to join this conversation here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)]

- Sorry I have not responded, but I have not been active on the talk pages. I apologize If I create duplicate articles from time to time... I am going through my old library of magazines, books, personal photo's and I am finding adding the info to wikipedia makes the articles much more interesting, especially if I find interesting links between pilots,engineers,locations, and makes. I do a search before firing up the wikipedia template, but occasionally, a duplicate comes up under a odd name... I just had two back to back... In the case of the Velie Monocoupe, I started an article after reading about Clayton Folkerts involvement with the Monocoupe Model 22, which was redlinked on the Monocoupe Aircraft page. After creating the Monocoupe Model 22 with the template, The Velie monocoupe article was brought to my attention as a duplicate, and I didn't know what to make of it. The Monocoupe articles go in two directions... There is a article on the Monocoupe 90 that seems to roll up all models past and present with a incomplete history, there are also individual articles for each model. I have mixed feelings on merging it, since the "monocoupe" name applies to half a dozen company names and a dozen or more models which would also have to be merged and details dropped to keep the size reasonable. Technically, it should have been a "Central States Aircraft Company Model 22" with links to veile and monocoupe as future owners.

After typing in an article on the Gyrodyne_Company_of_America_XRON-I_Rotorcycle, A duplicate was found under the name Gyrodyne RON. Again, I did not find this on searches, because it was not wikilinked to the Gyrodyne_Company_of_America page, and I was not looking for a aircraft named RON, because all my reference material listed it as a XRON or YRON, but not a RON. Articles on it's variant Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH did not refrence the "Ron" article as well. The core piece of information about the XRON being developed from the Bendix 2C, and it's tip brake controlls, and all the citations were blown away when the article was simply redirected. To give credit... the RON Rotorcycle was first, but it should be renamed, and the new info should be merged, rather than discarded. FlugKerl (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing member(s)?

Anyone know what happened to The Bushranger? Very active, was made an admin then no contribs from the end of March for no apparent reason. Talk page is just automated notices. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I noted that too, made admin and then disappeared on 27 March 2011. No sign of him, which is too bad as he was a good editor and admin. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did oppose his RfA for shouting (deliberate caps lock on in his own RfA, bless) but otherwise a very good guy. Anyone e-mail him regularly? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(S)he was a very active CUP participant, and I was quite startled when TB disappeared in the second round. A God send, I guess. Hope TB's alright. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - whenever a close contributor just disappears like that from Wikipedia I always hope that they just got busy and weren't in a car accident or worse, but in many cases since we don't know real names it is impossible to find out. Sometimes they show up months or even years later with a good story. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, BilCat has retired

Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently. Hopefully not too long.. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A320 family vs. Airbus A320 et. al.

In February there was a small discussion, initiated by Sp33dyphil, about whether to break up the Airbus A320 family article into seperate articles for the different members of the family. Within the albeit-limited discussion there was consensus to do so, to the extent that MilborneOne started the Airbus A318 article from the redirect (actually the third time this has been done, if you look at the edit history). For my part, for the past few months, whenever I came across a link to the family article in the course of editing airline articles etc., I have changed the links from going to the family article into links to the individual type (Airbus A320, Airbus A321 etc.). However in the same time frame and as recently as yesterday, Sp33dyphil has been making AWB-assisted edits to change the links back to the family article again, which is actually against the rules of use for the AWB anyway. Leaving that aside, my question is - at the risk of sounding blunt - what are we doing? YSSYguy (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It looked like the links changes were from a piped A320 link to a redirect, e.g. [[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A319]] to [[Airbus A319]] (now a redirect). So if more of these redirects are converted to articles, the links will be ready. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, he's going in the opposite direction, i.e. changing [[Airbus A319]] to [[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A319]], which I used to do myself. However since the discussion in February, I have been changing [[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A319]] to [[Airbus A319]] and so on whenever I found cases of it in an article I was editing, and SP33dyphil's edits keep on popping up in my watchlist, reversing the changes I have made. I don't mind either way, I would just like to be part of a consistent approach. YSSYguy (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, A320 edit on June 4 did it that way. Guess I read it backwards before. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry guys; when someone sets up the articles Airbus A319, I'll be going over pages that are linked to "[[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A319" and change it to "[[Airbus A319" using AWB. Same with the A321, Anyway, I didn't realise the links in the 4 June edit were actually unneccesary. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 09:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to note the cunning plan is still to create the A319 when I get time or somebody does it first! MilborneOne (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got my full support. Don't worry about my edits right now, just go ahead with your editing. Once you've created Airbus A319 or Airbus A321, I'll go around rewikifying articles toward your future new creations. Cheers

Sp33dyphil ^{Ad astra} 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All that you are achieving is undoing work that doesn't need to be undone; doing work that will need to be undone; increasing your edit count for no reason; and contravening the rules for using the AWB. Why not stop making these edits and use the time to start one of the articles? YSSYguy (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Free advertising?

Scotts Bell 47, incorrectly titled and looks like a free advert to me. Didn't know where to start (assuming they meet the company notability guidelines). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Scotts article doesn't look good. For example: "affectionately known as the Bell 47". You could try Proding it, or maybe merge & redirect to Bell 47#Variants. I don't see anything there to justify a variant entry though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As a company they just might be notable, that's why I left it but it does need a massive trim and a POV removal exercise, it's got to have been written by someone close to the business, their only contribs. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm...Bell 47 wants looking at as well, I'm sure they were made by Bell?!!!!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that a merge to Bell 47 is probably sensible - hand-on-heart I think that it struggles to meet notability requirements for companes - there doesn't seem to be a lot of significant, third party coverage here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I say CSD the article as spam and add a single sentence to Bell 47 indicting who owns the TC now, the same as in Schweizer 2-33. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Yeah they are only an overhauler and parts supplier, not a manufacturer. I have fixed up Bell 47. I'll do the CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Crikey, it's gone already!! Good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I just set 'em up, the Admins do the spiking. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As a long time rec league volleyballer, setting takes more skill and is more difficult. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Museum Cats

We did have a discussion a while ago that the addition of Category:Aircraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution to aircraft was not appropriate and would open a floodgate of similar cats. After being convinced that the Smithsonian was a special case because it was a special project with wikipedia I think it was not followed through. As feared another museum cat Category:Industrial designs of the Museum of Modern Art is being added to aircraft articles, I reverted it on Bell 47 and Schiebel Camcopter S-100 but thought I would come here for other views. Just to note as an example if we created a cat for every museum that the Spitfire was on display that would be a lot of cats on one article. Thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree - aircraft articles have an "Aircraft on display" section if appropriate and museum articles list notable exhibits so these cats are unnecessary. It goes beyond aircraft though (e.g. see Bic Cristal) and if this weed isn't killed at it's root (Category:Museum collections) it'll probably keep popping up. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Might be worth seeking opinions at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization as the regulars there might have a better idea of the worthiness of this category, seems like over-categorisation to me. It could be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and see what happens, I have nominated a few for deletion and they were deleted without contest but they weren't museum collection categories. The Rolls-Royce Merlin had Category:Collections of Derby Museum and Art Gallery added to it a while ago, it does look very odd on its own at the bottom of the page. If, as you say, all the museums that display a Merlin are listed as categories we will quickly run out of web space! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Merlin has arrived in that category as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/Derby which is part of Wikipedia:GLAM, the Derby team have tagged 103 articles. Have not looked at what the aims of GLAM are but it does look like they want to create museum collection categories and tag exhibit articles. If there is no going back then we could easily help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Museum categories could really get out of hand very quickly. I much prefer listing aircraft and other exhibits on the museum article page over categories as is done in National Soaring Museum for instance. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Have just read Wikipedia:GLAM getting started and it seems to be a very laudible goal, asking museum curators to improve or create articles on subjects that they have in their collections, it says nothing about creating collection categories though. Someone else must be creating and adding the categories, possibly misinterpreting the aims. We could, as a project, chose to remove these categories from articles and let them get on with it but we would probably be accused of being insular as we have in the past. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Museum exhibit categories to see if we get a response. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly we should not add a great multiplicity of museum categories for aircraft which are overly common as exhibitions (eg, the Spitfire). But it should be kept in mind that museum exhibition will be a major point for rarer aircraft that are only preserved in one or a few institutions, and I think part of WikiProject Aircraft's job would be to determine how to draw this line for the more common aircraft.

I also think that the case of MoMA should be evaluated as somewhat differently from the aerospace museums. For industrial designs it should be kept in mind that many of these articles already mentioned the MoMA affiliation in the intro as something enhancing basic notability; because of the museum's historic place in the field, the ubiquitous phrase "preserved in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art" is a kind of de facto a badge of what is really the world's best-known Industrial design award.--Pharos (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, just to point out that aircraft on public display in museums and elsewhere are listed in each aircraft article so we dont have a problem with listing aircraft as exhibits it is just we dont see the need for categories. Not sure I agree with the statement about the MoMA as I for one had to look at the wiki article to find out where it was! so as far as I known it has never been a factor in notability of aircraft or worthy of a mention in the article lead. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, industrial design always includes both raw engineering, and the artistic component too. Although aircraft may lean a bit toward the raw engineering side, their creation partakes of art as well, and I would feel confident in saying that MoMA is preeminent in recognizing this latter component.--Pharos (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Northrop F-20 Tigershark

I feel like the Grim Reaper, in effect I've deleted over 20% of the article's content. Not on a wild whim, but due to hundreds (this would not be an exaggeration) of violations of WP:RS, lack of reliable citation of a huge amount of information, and often huge chunks of uncited paragraphs excessive in detail and either WP:OR or just extremely obscure. I have been doing my best to be more of an editor than a hangman, but this article has been in a real state. It still needs serious work, the entire Overview section is uncited, and could be nothing but hearsay (I have a feeling some of it is true, but without citations for years, that's not easy to find, and I've been trying). By no means am I done, but as the job was becoming so extensive, I thought I had best place a note here so that those with resources and knowledge can correct/assist me in my redrafts and create a better article. Kyteto (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're work is outstanding – I'd rather read a small article that is proper cited, rather than a mass of crap which has no truth behind it. For the Overview section, I suggest using the figures from the sourced Specifications (F-20); I can already see discrepancies and conflicting figures. While we're at it, I'm wondering whether ANG role is needed, given that it's most uncited. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Think of it as being a gardener; trimming off the bad parts to help the plant grow. Or something like that anyway. If needed rewrite/rework the Design basics based on the references you have. Leave the other details uncited & tagged in case somebody else can help with them. I'm sure you know this stuff, so carry on. I'll check my F-5/T-38/F-20 book for design info when I get back home in a few days. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've worked fast and hard on the article. Hours of editing later, everything is either cited or cut. I've finished a readover, added half a dozen plus books that I read and cited new content from this morning; and have just put the article in for a GAN. Furth contributions are welcome, and I'll be certainly making them when the Review comes in, but I think my overhaul is more or less completed. Kyteto (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I was going to suggest combining the Design and Development sections if the design text got small from the trimming. But that move is not needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Specifications template question - What is the difference between "Loaded weight" and "MTOW"?

In the Beechcraft Bonanza article an IP editor has changed the "Loaded weight" to the same as the MTOW without any explanation. I understand the definition of MTOW but I don't know what "loaded weight" means? Roger (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they mean the same thing, although I;m not certain about it. What does it say in the source? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the article by updating the specs template to the latest format which is Template:Aircraft specs and resourcing the specs from scratch. This template only specifies empty weight, gross weight and max take-off weight and so resolves the issue! - Ahunt (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In what appears to be the source [1] - which is the current Beechcraft specs for the G36 Bonanza, the Max Take-off weight is given as 3650 lb (i.e. what the article says) and the Basic Operating Weight as 2700 lb (i.e. what the article said was loaded weight). It doesn't seem to give a separate empty weight.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The 2009 specs, which were the one originally used, as found using the wayback machine [2] gives a more detailed breakdown of the weights - a Basic empty weight of 2530 lb (including standard interior, avionics and unusable fuel and oil), a Basic Operating weight of 2700 lb (i.e. with the addition of a 170 lb pilot) - i.e. as for the current specs, a typical equipped basic operating weight of 2770 lb (including de-icer and aircon options) and a max take-off weight of 3650 lb.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The current specs page uses Basic Operating Weight but doesn't define it. Some manufacturers use it as "empty weight" while other may include crew in that. The numbers on the rest of the page (Max Takeoff Weight minus Useful Load) seem to indicate that the equipped empty weight should be 2517 lbs, which is 183 lbs lower than the Basic Operating Weight, which makes me think that it includes one pilot. I will fix the empty weight accordingly. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A related question - are there any aircraft that regularly fly heavier than their MTOW? I'm thinking of a situation where a carrier based aircraft takes off with a large load of weapons but only a small amount fuel on board and then after take-off gets fuel from a tanker that takes its total weight above its MTOW. Roger (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed some military aircraft are authorized high gross weights for some missions, for instance the Twin Otter has a normal max gross weight of 12,500 lbs but in Canadian service it is authorized a higher take-off weight for SAR missions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Loaded weight is used for listing the normal or typical takeoff weight. AH-1 Cobras & SuperCobras have operated over MTOW during combat. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find specs like "loaded weight" to be confusing when they are provided without explanation. Maximum takeoff weight is clear and well-defined, as is maximum landing weight, but "loaded weight" is not. It implies to me that the maximum takeoff weight is an exceptional loading not achieved under normal conditions, but that raises more questions than it answers. To make "loaded weight" a useful spec, the distinction between the normal and maximum loads should be explained. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Maximum (TO, taxy, Landing) Weights are good if they are available because, as CDH says, they are well defined. Many sources, though, quote AUW or gross or loaded (less common?) weights. Even if "maximum" is added, they are less well defined but are often all we have. Maybe we should wl the weights in the template as we do Airfoil? I've suggested before that some other specs, particularly height and wing area are far from being well defined; not suggesting not quoting them, of course, but some guarded comments might help.TSRL (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Loaded weight seems to be used more frequently for older types, while MTOW seems to more modern (i.e. post WW2), although often the terms seem to be used interchangably in sources. I tend to use whatever the sources use.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Russian aircraft identification

This file File:Jak-3U.jpg is described as a Yak-3U. There is a discussion on the Finnish wikipedia that it may not be a Yak but a Lavochkin. Can anybody here give a positive ID? NtheP (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't find any discussion there, and what kind of Lavochkin this should be, but I've seen a discussion somewhere else from someone who couldn't grasp that there were several developments of this ~~plane~~aircraft. It is registered as a Yak. This page could be helpful if you run it through Google translate. Paaln (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Finnish discussion is here at the Village Pump. NtheP (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, same old story, "I see no exhaust pipes, so this plane is not what you say it is"... Paaln (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

RA-3482K is a replica Yak-3UA built in the last few years in Romania by Avione Cariova and has a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial engine. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Active military aircraft cats

This was discussed briefly in January and I have now nominated the above cats for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June_22#Category:Active United Kingdom military aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Issoire Aviation

I just popped in from reading this FlightGlobal article, and found that the Issoire Aviation article and those of its products could use some attention from our resident light aircraft experts. I've also moved the aircraft to titles that incllude the manufacturer (Issoire APM 20 Lionceau, Issoire APM 30 Lion, Issoire APM 40 Simba), though the titles could be contested. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have missed having you around BilCat. Kyteto (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

New German template

New template Template:WWIIGermanAF is being added to articles - doesnt appear to add any value as they duplicate and are all listed in Template:RLM aircraft designations, any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a little easier to use than the RLM designation template. OTOH, it's massively incomplete and fails to list all of the LW trainers, forex.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Too vague, incomplete, listcruft, duplication etc. TfD. Strange that a user's first contrib is a complicated template, wish I could do that when I started. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

NASA "factsheet" quoted in entirety in article

I have come across an aircraft article where the operation history section appears to a complete copy of NASA factsheet. This strikes me as problematic - though it's my understanding that work published by US agencies are in the public domain, we shouldn't be just repeating the text even with correct attribution, and it isn't attributed properly at the moment either. As such tagging copyvio seems inappropriate/OTT. I'm tempted to blank the section and just put a few facts back in and then editing in the normal course of things will build up the section again. The alternative is rewriting in situ which would I think would still come out as too close phrasing. Any thoughts? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the text, but add {{Include-NASA}} add the bottom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ta, Northrop X-4 Bantam so marked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be completely rewritten anyway. Even though the text is public domain and therefore copying it is legal, that is not how we create an encyclopedia, by just copying existing text. - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ACRs : YF-23 & XF-85

FYI, there's an A-class review going on for the Northrop YF-23. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Northrop YF-23. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors are invited to help with this by reviewing article or making improvements. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also an ACR for the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin. Editors, welcome... Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling to arms

Ever heard of the Pugachev's Cobra? Ever heard of a Sukhoi, or a MiG? Ever heard of "Foxbats", "Flankers", "Fulcrums", or Fullback"? Do you know what they are? Do you know what the Soviet aerospace industry is like? Do you know who the Americans really fear? Do you know how much headache it caused to the West? Do you know how much attention the fighters are getting? If the answer is NO, then there are clearly some catching up to do. During the next few days, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37. I want to bring them all up to the same standard as the Su-33. If you want to participate, please come along and help out. Don't be hesitant. Give the Soviet aerospace industry the recognition it really deserves. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of the Soviet/Russian/Ukraine aircraft articles could use some help. But the Ilyushin, Mil, Tupolev, and Yakovlev aircraft articles probably need more help than the Mikoyan and Sukhoi ones. Generally speaking that is. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

E-11A

Anybody know what the Northrop Grumman E-11 or more exactly E-11A is? [3], thanks MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer my own question probably the Global Express being used for Battlefield Airborne Communications Node but still looking for a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A blog but this http://mt-milcom.blogspot.com/2011/06/e-11a-aircraft-goes-into-usaf-sw-asia.html indicates a purchase of the BACN Global Express aircraft by the USAF.MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Air transport of the Royal Family and government of the United Kingdom‎‎

The section in this article entitled "Cost of Royal Travel" has been written almost entirely by one editor and goes into a great deal of detail regarding the travel budgets of the UK Royal Family over the last few years. I feel this places undue weight on this particular aspect of the subject of this article. I have proposed splitting this section out into its own article on the article's talk page. Opinions of other editors would be appreciated. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Obviously a Brit taxpayer who wonders where his money has been going! It is unbalanced, royal costs are not what they used to be, don't know if it shows that fairly. No mention of 'Purple Airspace' (i.e. get out of the way or else!). Nobody will find the title easily anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Aircontent}} Does Not Section

[4]

I've started the above section, seeing as the most recent discussed changed has much to do with my topic.

There doesn't seem to be much reason to not include sections (headlines, and to have them show up in TOCs). Feel free to comment at the section.Curb Chain (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

DC-7B N836D

New article N836D DC-7B needs a tidy up but is it notable, cant see anything in its history of note it was out of use for 32 years. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Article will be renamed as per specs. It is notable as the only restored to flying condition DC-7 and it is sourced. It was parked for 32 years as indicated in the cited article. I have confirmed the basic facts and history with the foundation and the author of the Airliners Magazine article. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: renaming: It is proposed to rename to Douglas DC-7B N836D which I concur and if no objections will do so, leaving a redirect. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally can't see any notability. There are or have been quite a few "only one flying in the world" preserved aircraft, and while I have personal experience in getting old aircraft large and small back in the air, the mere fact that someone has done it after x number of years does not confer notability. YSSYguy (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the opinion, but in any case, it is a regular at airshows and has been written up in major newspapers (one link provided). -- Alexf^(talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an AfD was started on this at WP:Articles for deletion/Douglas DC-7B N836D. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews underway

See {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} for reviews and other aviation related actions.

There are a few aircraft and related reviews ongoing now. These are ~~American Airlines Flight 191 GA~~, ~~Airbus A330 FA~~, ~~Neil Armstrong GA~~, ~~Hawker Siddeley P.1127 GA~~, and ~~Northrop YF-23 GA.~~ There are a few others in the queue that have not started also. Try to help with these where you can. Appreciate any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've scratched a few out that have been completed. Thankfully the backlog has now reduced somewhat, and the A330 should be about to complete as well, which should ease the pressure off, even allow some more projects to commence. On a related note, I'm going to put in that nomination of Saab JAS 39 Gripen now, seems like a good moment. Kyteto (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Further update: the AA Flight 191 article was promoted to GA, and the A330 article was not promoted to FA. Other aircraft articles have been nominated since the original post. Note on the GA nomination page, the War and Military section has a long list of over 40 articles now. The list in the Transport section is short. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles Northrop F-20 Tigershark, ~~Sukhoi Su-33~~, Sukhoi Su-35, Sukhoi Su-37, Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche and ~~North American XF-108 Rapier~~ are at GANs at the moment. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sukhoi P-42

Resolved

Hi, is it OK if I start an article on the record-breaking Sukhoi P-42? It was a single Sukhoi Su-27 which broke many air-speed and time-to-altitude records. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Notability#Individual aircraft. A parallel perhaps would be the Streak Eagle which does not have its own article, the coverage of the Streak Eagle looks the same as the P-42 gets in the Sukhoi Su-27 article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd put it on the same level as the Streak Eagle, or the SEPECAT Jaguar prototype with the fly-by-wire control system, worthy of a paragraph, but an individual article is a bit much. Kyteto (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft propulsion

The page on Aircraft propulsion currently redirects to Aircraft engine. I don't like this for several reasons, not least because it ignores propeller design (e.g. ducted fans) and a few exotica such as man-powered flight, ornithopters, etc.

There is a germ of an article at Air propulsion but it needs a lot of work.

Powered flight redirects to Aviation history which is just wrong.

I propose to move the Air propulsion stub to Aircraft propulsion, make Air propulsion and Powered flight redirect there, then hopefully improve the content in its new home. Any objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You could bring it up for discussion at WT:AETF as it is aero engine related although I guess that most members are also watching this page. The Aircraft propulsion redirect goes back to 2006 and may well not be right. I can understand why the title of Powered flight redirects to Aviation history but it's not necessarily right either. These general articles are a minefield, their scope is often not clearly defined (or it was and has now been changed) and they overlap content. Air propulsion appears to be an original research essay that would be difficult to reference, aircraft engine is not in the best state either IMO which is shame because 1,400+ aero engine articles link to it through the infobox or lead.

What may be needed is a new article filling the 'Aircraft propulsion' redirect that ties in aircraft, engines, propellers, jets, rockets, ducted fans, control systems and their history etc. The content could be taken from the relevant articles and summarised. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Nimbus227 on this. Air propulsion, while a good start does look like WP:OR and has no refs. I really prefer smaller, more restricted topics that don't tend to run away into OR, plus wider and wider scope over time. Is there a way to break the topic down to limit the scope of individual articles? - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

'Air propulsion' is not a term used in the English language AFAIK, at least not related to aircraft. Which articles are likely to link to this potential new article? Is it needed? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Some 50+ pages link to Air propulsion, and 30-odd to Powered flight/Powered Flight, hardly any to Aircraft propulsion. So it is high time we had a decent article for them to link to, but the article name might be up for debate. I still prefer "Aircraft propulsion", as "Powered flight" seems a bit too unfocused. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Powered aircraft or powered flight

Well, DexDor's creation of Powered aircraft certainly has a logic in matching the article on unpowered aircraft, so I have gone with that - for now at least. However with hindsight I wonder whether powered flight and unpowered flight would be a better pair of names. Worth making the change - or not? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems about the same either way to me. Not worth the change from aircraft to flight (or vice versa if things were reversed). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sleeping on it, my instinct now is that "powered flight" is far more widely used for this kind of expository topic. Looking at my own book titles, I have Man Powered Flight, Animal Flight and even Interplanetary Flight, but all the Xxx Aircraft titles, such as Combat or Concept or World, are mere compendia of specific models which Wikipedia deals with using "List of xxx aircraft" pages. Google gets confused by all the "xxx-powered aircraft" hits, but on the unpowered equivalents "unpowered flight" (191,000) is the clear winner over "unpowered aircraft (28,700 including Wikipedia scrapes). Maybe that's because a birdman is unpowered but is not an aircraft, whatever, but I think the evidence backs up my instinct. We should not go against such clearly established usage on unpowered flight and I also think is sensible to align our organization of powered and unpowered. Categories need some gardening too - we have category:unpowered aircraft, category:unpowered flight and category:unpowered aviation but on the powered side only category:Aircraft by propulsion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC) (category links above now fixed — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

The Google result is a bit of a red herring as the 191Ghits includes for example 16.5Ghits for "unpowered flight in a" (presumably followed by a type of aircraft). I prefer Un/powered aircraft for several reasons: 0. It's the status quo and we shouldn't change it without a good reason, 1. It refers to a tangible object (rather than a concept) so is easier to get a grip on, 2. Un/powered flight would potentially include all sorts of animals etc and I don't think that'd be helpful (unless we excluded it by something ugly like "Artificial unpowered flight"), 3. There are other things (e.g. "underwater flight" gets 51.7Ghits) that we don't want brought into the scope of these articles. DexDor (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the move from unpowered aircraft to Unpowered flight and it should be reversed. The article is about aircraft until today's very brief insertions. The general case of flight without power is already covered in Gliding flight. The trajectory of wind-borne seeds and insects hardly counts as flight. I think it is customary to insert something on the Talk Page of an article before it is moved. Please reverse it. JMcC (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I realise that I owe you an apology for that, and this is about the most public place I can find. The move came as fallout from the powered changes, but that's no excuse. I apologise for the upset and inconvenience I caused. I see someone has already restored Unpowered aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II as a replacement for the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

Please contribute to the discourse in the talk page of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. The entire section on the B-2's replacement was recently deleted because the cited passage was characterized as "completely irrelevant" and "unrelated" by an anon and another editor. The section was restored twice but is presently in limbo. This is the entire statement:" When the B-2 is no longer able to penetrate enemy defenses, the role of the manned nuclear armed penetration bomber may be taken up by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which also carries the B61 nuclear bomb, but as a tactical bomber is not covered by strategic arms limitation treaties such as New START.{<{ref}>}Grant, Rebecca. "Nukes for NATO." Airforce Magazine, July 2010.{</{ref}>}" This is the statement in question that was cited from Air Force magazine: "The F-35 could be thrust into the spotlight if the planners judge that the B-2 reaches a point where it is no longer able to penetrate enemy air defenses—especially in daytime. The B-2 does not carry standoff weapons, noted Alston. Threats that keep a B-2 from performing direct nuclear attacks could, in effect, hand that mission, too, to the F-35." Other sources also deal with the replacement of the B-2 as being radically different than the present aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

See the Replacement section on the B-2 talk page for more.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Atlanta Pilot Training

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlanta Pilot Training. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Greetings! Anyone interested in chipping in at McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is welcome. The article is largely complete, except for the "Design" section. I plan to nominate the article for GA, and eventually, FA statuses. The reason I'm posting this message is that if any party is interested, please immerse yourself into the article, and hopefully we can take this a long way. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apostrophes and italics

I've got a question about when we use the apostrophes (") or italics during a particular circumstance. For example, if we want to say an aircraft had been renamed to Sukhoi Su-43, do we use "Sukhoi Su-43", or Sukhoi Su-43? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing quotation marks and apostrophe. I for one don't see why we need to mark the name with quotes or italics at all. To me it seems acceptable to use unmarked normal text: The aircraft has been renamed to Sukhoi Su-43. I'm not sure if there is any guidance on this in the MOS. Roger (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know normal text is used when refering to aircraft types, I dont know any reason why you would use italics or quotes. MilborneOne (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason, whenever the first mention is made in the renaming of an object, that is identified by quotation marks, as a means of indicating a different meaning of a word, title or phrase than the one typically associated with it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

There is no different meaning - Sukhoi means Sukhoi. What you are referring to is commonly called scare quotes and is not relevant to this situation. AFAIK only the specific names of individual aircraft would be italicised such as Spirit of St. Louis or Enola Gay following the precedent of ship names. Type designations are not marked. Roger (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Scare quotes" is a misnomer for a very genuine use of identifying unconventional meanings/derivations/definitions or colloquialisms. This is a very legitimate use of the quotations to identify the Su-42 becoming the "Su-43." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

What does "identifying unconventional meanings/derivations/definitions or colloquialisms" have to do with a manufacturer or operator changing the designation of an aircraft type/model? In any case we're putting the cart before the horse here. You first need to make the case that it is at all necessary to emphasise in any way the aircraft type/model/variant designation when stating that it has been changed. How it is then marked, whether by italics, quote marks, bolding, underlining, whatever, is another matter that we can deal with if the consensus decision is that such marking is required. BTW Scare quotes are usually (and correctly) used to mark a word used in a way that differs from its normal everyday literal meaning. A change in model number/letter does not fall in that category. Roger (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about the very same thing, here. When a designation or unusual connotation is derived from a commonly understood word, title or phrase, it is contingent upon the author to explain through use of quotation marks, that there is a new meaning or an unconventional use of the identified change. If a manufacturer, media or the public make that change, for example, calling Lindbergh, "The Flying Fool," the B-36, the "Peacemaker" or the Avrocar, a "flying saucer," typically that change is identified as inconsistent with the generally understood descriptions, meanings or definitions. I have been consistently giving the reason for the occasional use of "scare quotes" (geez, I hate that, as the very term is an example of misuse or misunderstood use of terminology) in aviation articles. It is infrequent and not to be generally applied to manufacturer's designations (again, except in rare instances, when these are unofficial usage). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes a quote is just a quote eg in Hafner Rotabuggy referring to it (from one source) as "M.L. 10/42 Flying Jeep". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Trent Valley Gliding Club

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Valley Gliding Club. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Promotional blimps - and other related issues

Whiel hunting through articles without infoboxes, I found myself a quandry - airship articles where individual airframe articles are more common than the underlying models.

Holden Airship, DIRECTV blimp, Conan blimp (O'Brien not Barbarian) - advertising hoarding treatments of a standard commercial design or notable aircraft in their own right?
Spirit of Dubai, notable aircraft or just one example of the Skyship 600?
American Blimp MZ-3, another example of the American Blimp Corporation A-170 or significantly different variant?

Thoughts and/or guidance? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly seems a strange situation, where we have articles on individual aircraft but not on the type, e.g. A-170. Off the cuff, I can't think of a similar heavier-than-air case. Perhaps if we had the type article it would be easier to judge the utility of articles on individuals.TSRL (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding unused references

Resolved

I reverted some additions by User:Sp33dyphil to the reference section of some aircraft articles (before I had to deal with some real life issues). If this wasnt from a known user it would appear to be book spamming. This references are not used and my reverts have now been reverted by User:Bzuk under the grounds that may come in use one day. This is plain silly, references are for sources used in the article not for those that may help one day - in theory we could add hundreds of books just in case. Have we any comments from other project members on this speculative referencing system particularly any guidelines or policies that allow it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, I know you are right in that only the sources that appear with citations should be used, however, you have to appreciate that many times, articles change over time and that original cites sometimes disappear mysteriously. My general rule is if the article is not a substantial one, or is not reviewed to a FA/GA standard, that "parking" of reference sources for "future use" or having given the sources that were instrumental in background research, is actually a boon to the casual reader who may want to go further in research. However, Since noticing the actual barrage of refs extended past a small number of select articles, I am not so positive that the additions are useful, or will be useful in the future. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

A "Further reading" section is sometimes added to make it clear the material isn't being used as a reference. WP:FURTHER and WP:Further reading may be of help. (Hohum ^@) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree they should not be there unless used by a citation , why not just blank them out using  that would serve both sides.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As many articles are working there way up the quality ladder, it makes sense to retain as many reference sources as possible. Adding a new reference source could be a pre-cursor to adding more material or referencing a statement - though obviously if a period of time passes with no further editing that is probably not the case. If the article has matured to near GA/FA then, if it hasn't already been the case, references not used for direct citations should be considered for moving to the Further Reading section (works specifically on the article in question being preferable to more generic ones). Having had a quick look at the Vickers Valiant case perhaps the AGF solution would have been to create a Further Reading section and moved the item there or contacted User:Sp33dyphil and suggested that was something they could do. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question added the same reference to dozens of articles in a very short period of time, without using it as a source and without paying any attention to the existing reference layout. The reference in question appears to be a general reference so for many of the articles it would be of little use as "Further Reading" - which should really be adding something beyond what is already there. Such mass action is not helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply if a ref is used to cite text in the article it should stay, otherwise not. It can be parked elsewhere, but even if it might be used in the future, it just encourages spamming by less well-meaning editors if left in the article unused. Personally I keep useful refs on my user page for future use, not in articles. - Ahunt (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The barrage also requires a hefty dose of cleanup, thanks to fellows like N. I take back my original comments as being well-meaning but ultimately ill-informed. Sorry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at it a bit more, I think such a mass addition does look like overuse of the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V combo rather that a considered addition to articles. Talking generically, is there any case for adding a helpful note to the aviation article style guide re general vs specific works? and what to do with "extraneous" sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Where I have seen this work successfully is in the Battle of Britain article, but that is an exception to the standard formatting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

How about you all wait until I get stuck into it? I've got a terrific reference, and I thought of including the information to articles that lack coverage such as Shenyang J-8. With other day-long commitments, such as school, I didn't get to start immediately on citing the specifications sections of these articles. Does someone even have the patience to wait until I get back? Or even take on the task themselves? I'm here trying to add refs by myself to unsourced articles (such as AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo), and some people are strolling around reverting stuff. I know that in the past I've added the The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft book to other articles, but that was when the articles' "References" sections have no sources at all. I'm getting fed up with the level of consideration that some people are showing, or lack of. Also, what's wrong with adding unused sources to articles? It seems like the article that I worked on the most, Airbus A330, seems to be the one that has a "Further reading" in it. Others, such as F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, have unused sources mixed among used ones. The Project needs to establish a definitive agreement on this. If people don't appreciate what I'm doing, that's fine, I'll resign and get out of here, and let you guys improve the project by yourselves. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The aircraft project can not strictly advocate one way or the other as the guidelines themselves say that no particular way is right or wrong. We could however advise that a particular form is used as long as it does not bust the general WP guidelines (but various editors will still insist on doing things their own preferred way anyway), we already have a general guideline on page layout which mentions references and 'further reading' sections. There are several guidelines to tie together on the subject (WP:FURTHER and WP:CITE being two of them), the most important one to me for consistency throughout an individual article is WP:CITEVAR. The principle is that the established formatting style should be followed unless there is a very good reason to change it (the main problem here is templates vs non-templated).

On the bibliography section I personally only use books that have been used for citations in articles that I have created, I only add books to this section at the same as a citation in existing articles. I have removed books not used for citations and been reverted. At one Featured Article review the reviewers asked why there was a 'Further reading' section, they suggested I used the books for citations and dump the section, which I did. Don't lose heart, perhaps slow down a bit and take in the opinions of editors who have been here much longer than me, I reckon it took a good two years before I fully appreciated the 'bigger picture' of how things work around here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is "an unused source"? A source, or reference, is used to support text in the article. If it doesn't support text in the article then it isn't a source, but something else, like an external link, further reading or something. I am sorry by I don't accept the "I do incomplete work because I am busy" argument. We all have limited time to do work here. I would suggest you do less and do it well, rather than a lot and do it less well. If nothing else it would make for less talking about it here. We might all benefit if you just slow down a bit. - Ahunt (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Altough we have to assume good faith I am not sure moving the unused reference without adding any content helps either, it is just adding a reference for the sake of it. Perhaps Sp33dyphil you just need to not be so speedy and actually consider if you are improving the articles or making more work for the rest of use. No need to add more and more references for the sake it would be nice if new content was actually added. Perhaps we can just role back the latest ref moves and think about this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm acting a bit frenzied, and a bit stubborn and hot-headed; I'm happy to see this discussion conclude and a consensus is reached before I go on with any work regarding the Wilson book. I take back my words above and it's a challenge for me to keep cool at the moment. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you took the above comments as helpful, which is how they were intended. You are a good editor, do good work and contribute very positively to the project, so personally I am glad that you will keep on working on aircraft articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconding Ahunt's comment - and also hopeful that sp33dyphil sees this is an inclusive discussion and not a witch-hunt. (Hohum ^@) 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, to summarise this discussion, it is advised that unused sources should not be added to articles, unless the articles do not have any references themselves. If additions do precede, they must be at a moderate pace, instead of adding them en masse, or the editor would be liable to the accusation of "spamming". Am I right? BTW, thanks for Ahunt kind words – I won't let anyone down the next time around. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cornfield Bomber

I know this made DYK earlier this year, is rated B class, and some noted members of the project have worked on it. But, is it a notable incident/aircraft? Coverage is a single magazine article and a mention in a book about aircraft in museums. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It probably does needs some more/better sources to establish notability. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of aircraft sites as reliable sources

My first thoughts were that these sites which, insofar as I can tell, rely a lot upon supplied content (eg Photogapher uploads picture and tags it as "registration G-XXXX at West Midlands Airport May 2009") are not a reliable source. But my assumptions have been challenged so I thought it best to look for sage advice. What's the general opinion of these sites. Are they reliable sources? Is their scope limited - ie are there somethings they are reliable for and some things they aren't.? Are some top-notch reliable and others far-from-reliable?
Secondly, as a specialist (niche?) area, can they contribute to establishing notability of an aircraft, or have they more in common with a list of train numbers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont think that images are normally used as reliable sources as most rely on some form of original research to interpret what they mean and the image description may not be reliable. They could be used to prove an aircraft exists or was used by a certain operator if you dont have a reliable source but that would be rare not to have some print reference to an aircraft. I cant see how an image can ever establish notability. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with MB1 on this one. The photos themselves may have been altered to add or remove markings, etc and the identification of the aircraft is really WP:OR, although if a registration is visible it can be cross-checked against the national registry if that nation puts theirs on line. We've even seen aircraft photos uploaded to Commons and identified as one type when they are another type. Even more concerning we have had images of models uploaded and represented as real photos of real aircraft. It really makes it hard to guarantee verifiablity. - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your opinions. Are there any sites known which screen the uploads and link them with additional information eg registry information? Regarding notability, I think the argument is that the photogalleries of an individual airframe are coverage of that particular aircraft but if they fail the Verfiability part then that would do for that idea. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I took this up at WT:RS once, can't remember why, I think I wanted to use a photo as a cite, can't be done. The answer was (at that time at least) that photos can not be used as a means of proving or citing something. If we say that a London Bus is red, a photo of a red London Bus next to this fact cuts no mustard apparently. The model photo point is a valid one, I've uploaded some to Commons in the absence of a free photo of the real thing but only after I have confirmed that it does closely resemble the type from a reliable source (and I clearly identify them as models!) . Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a fine use of models, I have no problems with that myself. But a little while ago we had someone try to pass off a model of the apocryphal Aurora (aircraft) with clouds and everything in the background, as the real thing! It didn't prove much! - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the file still about, would like to see that! There is a plastic model of the Aurora kitted, so it must exist! On the photos I often see museum data plates being used in images (or summarised in the caption) and have also seen 'museum data plate' used as a written source in the refs section. Question I would ask is who wrote the data plate and is it correct?! To help with engine identification I usually take a picture of the museum placard (to jog my memory when I upload them), I've certainly uploaded one image under the wrong description, misled by the museum placard. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the entertainment value it got deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AuroraJet2.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1 not for being a fake, but for bad licencing. - Ahunt (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We did have a nice picture of a Comet 4 in the Comet article [5] captioned as the real thing but it was actually a rather large flying model, since deleted as a copyvio. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To me they are not in themselves reliable sources. They are fine to add to an article (in moderation), and sites with pictures of aircraft can be added as external links (also in moderation), but as stated above they should not be considered reliable sources. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In many cases a photo's "reliability" is simply a matter of res ipsa loquitur - the photo either is or is not of the object or place that it is claimed to be. If a photo is captioned "Boeing 747-400 G-ABCD at Heathrow" and the photo clearly shows a real Boeing 747-400 with "G-ABCD" painted on it and the building in the background is clearly recognisable as Heathrow Terminal 4, then casting doubt on it's reliability is quite frankly a symptom of insanity. Where the photo was published and who took it is of no consequence - the content of the photo itself is proof of what it is. Roger (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless it turns out to be a model or similar intent to deceive and is not what it appears to be, see above. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Or if, inconveniently, the big "Welcome to Heathrow" sign is not in shot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In this airliners.net photo the aircraft was identified in the caption as a Turbo Commander until I contacted them to correct the info. It was visually obvious to me that it's not, but how many people would know? YSSYguy (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fifi

Speaking of individual aircraft articles, we don't seem to have one on Fifi. Does anyone have some good sources that could be used to create an aricle about her, probably at Fifi (aircraft)? I see no problem establishing notability, as she is the last flyable B-29. See also OSHKOSH: B-29 returns to AirVenture at FlightGlobal. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone out there have a public domain photo of "FiFi"? If that can be obtained, I would make a "go" of it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

See: FIFI (aircraft). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I've moved it to FIFI (aircraft) to remove the quotes from the actual title. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Type 200

I have just created a page on the Bristol Type 200. Its the first aircraft page I have written so I would appreciate if some people could have a look at it and improve it if necessary (particularly the headings, I am not sure if "Further Development" is the right term). The Type 200 was a design that competed with the Hawker Siddeley Trident. It was one of the first trijet designs and it could have been as successful as the Boeing 727 if it had been produced. -- Spoonfrog (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hawker Siddeley Harrier - FAC Nom

Now that the A level review has just passed, a very good step for any article, I'm now considering a FAC nomination of the first-generation Harrier article. If anybody has the time to read it over and either point out flaws or improvements to be made, or wants to fix them theirselves, that's great. It would be nice to know it has had a good going over by the residents of WP:Aviation, as it is, in my opinion, a key article. Kyteto (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want just to review, I want to greatly improve it as well, like Airbus A330. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

At first read it seems to cover most aspects of the first generation Harriers reasonably well; unfortunately I don't have much time to give the article a good going over. *Thinks* why did lockheed Martin go for the complication of a separate lift engine for the XF-35? Surely the Harrier must have taught most designers the beauty of simplicity...◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 04:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I read about the 'alternative Harriers', the models that never made it off the designer's desk, one of them was to remove the back end of the Harrier completely and direct the thrust from the two rear nozzels into a swistable engine nozzel, just like the F-35. The effort of changing the engine, and the airframe, from the early prototypes seemed too great I guess. So the F-35's approach wasn't out of this world different, it was just a little odd to use a lift fan instead of syphoning off some thrust for two forward nozzels to balance the thing. One answer is, that there wouldn't have been enough thrust. The F-35 is a very heavy VTOL jet; which isn't exactly a good thing. The engine can't be made more powerful as it is practically at the limits of trachnology, and already melts the flight deck of ships! So adding complicated secondary lift fan, instead of a second engine, was taken; though the second engine would have been infinitely more useful in flight/any other time other than Vertical flight, I'm guessing that the Requirements for the F-35 would have banned a twin-engined approach, which strikes me as daft (the Harrier was always criticised for being risky as most naval aircraft had two engines, the inevitable engine failure is far nicer when you have a second engine to at least work out something with.) I just wish BAE had released more information about the Harrier III proposal in the 1990s, not sure if it had stealth considerations though. Kyteto (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Are Harrier developments covered in Buttler's British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters Since 1950? Surprisingly not a source used in the article given how Buttler is good at getting the to and fro of the Ministries and manufacturers in the development of aircraft (certainly in the 1935-1950 book). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added Butter's book to the Bibliography. Already added one ref, and done a minor overhaul of the body of the P.1154 article while I wasat it, as it mostly covers that cancelled fighter. I'll keep reading later on. UPDATE: Read in detail, no further information gleaned, the production Harrier isn't specifically covered. Kyteto (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is now nominated and active. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am in need of assistance. Is there anybody who owns the following book? Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight". 2000. Kyteto (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a copy of that at home. It has several pages on the Harrier, as I recall. The "MAC-DAC/BAe AV-8 Harrier Vectored Thrust VTOL" article title in the cite is supposed to tell where to look in the book. But the page numbers are needed anyway, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the page number range is needed, the FAC review has asked for it to be done, so I can't leave it as it is now. If you can provide the numbers, that would be great. Kyteto (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to note here that the FAC is almost finished. If anybody wants to express any last minute reflections, good or bad, feel free to add to the discussion. Kyteto (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comair Flight 444

This article describes the crash of a Piper PA-31 light aircraft with eight fatalities. The only refs cited are NTSB reports, which are done for all air accidents and incidents. The accident doesn't seem to have resulted in any changes to procedures, airworthiness, etc. It seems to fail to meet WP:AIRCRASH and is therefore non-notable. Any comments? - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it was eight fatalities on a scheduled flight it would need more coverage and references to show notability. Sadly one of many local commuter flight accidents, I dont think we need stand-alone articles on them all without other factors. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we have WP:AIRCRASH, which this falls outside of. I'll nominate it for WP:PROD and see if there are any complaints. It hasn't been edited in two years and nothing substantial added in much longer than that. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The admin reviewing the PROD declined it on the basis that it meets WP:AIRCRASH (which, as a light aircraft, it doesn't) and suggested merging it instead into Comair, which I have done. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Survivors and aircraft on display

The article Lockheed C-141 Starlifter, among others, have a big section about surviving aircraft and those on display. I think these two are becoming a problem on aircraft articles, since they serve, I dare say, no purpose and present undue weight within an article. I can't point out the specific guideline at What Wikipedia is not, but I'm don't think these kind of info is suitable on an encyclopedia. I don't mind if they're present on articles about prototypes, which only document a few aircraft. But for production versions, they clog up the article. In any case, the info cannot readily be sourced, since there are hardly any published works which document the statuses of individual aircraft. I think the Project needs to draw a fine line between articles which can include "Survivors" and "Aircraft on display", and those that cannot. Time should be spent on documenting a particular type's development, design and operational history, rather than adding unsourced – and useless! – statuses of aircraft. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If its unsourced, you can remove it. If you feel it is disproportionate you can trim by summarising citing WP:Undue GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Air/PC guideline lists "Survivors" and "Aircraft on display" as standard sections, but does not require they be filled with every possible aircraft. Tag uncited entries like in other parts of articles. Wait a month or so to allow time for citing, then start cleaning out non-notable and uncited entries... -Fnlayson (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Think there are several points here:

Nothing in the article should be unsourced: a fundamental principle. Sourcing surviving and displayed aircraft poses no more difficulties than anything else, Id say. In this particular case, since almost all if not all Starlifters are in North America, Ogden's recent book, now added to the bibliography should cover them all.
Does the list take too big a share of the article? This can easily happen and what we have done, with many aircraft, in the past is generate a separate article, linked to the home page. See eg (declaration of interest!) List of surviving Gloster Meteors. I have the same concern about space share with respect to the accidents list; maybe that should be separated off too.
Production aircraft: though an aircraft was built in large numbers, there may not be many flying or on display now (the Fw 190 comes to mind, amongst many). But anyway, if survivors go to another page then the worry about clogging up the home article is removed. We would not have such a list for aircraft still in production, we'd probably all agree.
Useless? I'd say not; there is certainly an interest in knowing if any example still flies (not sure if any Starlifter does, BTW). Looking at the page viewing figure for survivors lists, rather than the aircraft article itself, where folk may or may not be interested in the list, there seems to be steady readership. For example, the Meteors list has had about 10 a day this month (some bots included, maybe) and the Meteor is not the hottest aircraft. Presumably these visitors include people would like to see a Foo-fighter and want to know if there is one near their home or in a city they are due to visit.

So I'd not favour hard rules but just suggest that if the list gets long (double figures-ish?) then we need a separate survivors page. Fully cited, of course! TSRL (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cant see any reason why aircraft on public display are not notable with a reliable reference. The intention of having both Aircraft on Display and Survivors was to pick the one suitable for the article not necessary to have both. Aircraft still in production should really only have aircraft on display but when aircraft types have been retired from active or airline service it may be that the few survivors are not on public display but one or maybe the only one that exists would then be notable. It was not the intention to list every surviving aircraft just those available to the public to see. List of instructional airframes and wrecks are not needed unless that are rare types and non are on public display. So really editors have in the past taken a view on each type if survivors or aircraft on display is suitable. I think the guide sums it up correctly. An as TSRL says if the list gets to big it is moved to a child article and we have a few already when this has happened. I would not support the removal of these sections. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the general opinion expressed here as to the notability of surviving airframes. Rather than thought to be useless, these aircraft often are the only tangible and accessible examples of the type. After recently working on the B-17 Memphis Belle and B-29 FIFI, I have found that an individual article can often be the solution when the aircraft itself has become notable on its own. One of the concerns is that when there are numerous examples extant in playgrounds, roadside memorials and aviation schools, that an overreaching statement can be made that indicates due to the proliferation of the type, the examples given are the most significant, or that only a sample of the many survivors is offered to indicate the extent of the surviving group. When the survivors list becomes overwhelming, the other option is to create a "sub-article" or dwarf article that is keyed to the main article. There is still a case to be made, however, that a few interesting or important examples can still appear in the feature article. Nearly all the survivors in museums can be easily cited or have a reference source tweaked from the Internet. My vote is to keep the "status quo" but to encourage the formation of sub-articles when necessary and to provide the requisite citations to establish notability of the survivor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Template:WWIIGermanAF

Do we really need Template:WWIIGermanAF? It was created by a new user with few edits before or since, and apparently with no discussions about it. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to just overlap other nav boxes, like the manufacturers' type boxes. It is also pretty incomplete, too. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

OOps I raised this in June Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 31#New German template and failed to come to a conclusion and take it to WP:TFD. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on wiki-break at that time! I'll take it to TFD if someone doesn't beat me to it. (Please, someone beat me to it! ;) )- BilCat (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments welcome at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 1#Template:WWIIGermanAF MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I wouldn't have been able to get to it until this later evening/tonight anyway. - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comac/COMAC

I have the distinct memory of WTAIR having discussed those titles before, but I can't find it at the moment. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lethal Lady

The article Lethal Lady has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable every aircraft type has one aircraft that has the most hours it appears not to have done anything else of note, at the most a one liner in the F-16 article. This was PRODed in 2008, but tag was removed without a reason being specified.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DexDor (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of PROD is generally considered contesting, whether a reason is given or not. Probably better to take to direclty to AFD, as the article has been here awhile, has sources, and does assert notability. - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

EC 145 operators list

G'day all, a User has split the list of operators from the Eurocopter EC 145 article to List of Eurocopter EC 145 operators. It seems to me that it would be better to clean up the operator list in the original article, then there would be no need for the separate list. Any thoughts? YSSYguy (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the 145 has a wide variety of operators, most of whom have only one or two examples and which get bought and sold regularly, the consensus standard WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS applies: "For civil aircraft types that have a large number of operators, many of whom may have just one or two aircraft, instead of listing them all, a general statement can be made, as applicable to the role and operators of the individual aircraft type, with wording similar to: "The aircraft is popular with air charter companies and small feeder airlines, and is operated by private individuals and companies." A mention may be made of particularly large fleet operators." There is no need for a list of operators either in the article or separately. This list will always be incomplete and wrong as aircraft are bought and sold on a weekly basis and it is thus non-notable information anyway. I would suggest changing the section in the main article to a statement as per above and then redirecting the list back to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ahunt as per the instruction just a statement in main article and get rid of the list article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with Ahunt and Milborne One. It's a General Aviation type produced in large numbers with a multitude of mostly non-notable operators. I notice the current list is in any case limited to only government and air ambulance operators.Roger (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the user that created the new page. I was going off of List of Eurocopter EC 135 operators which has had its page for over two years. I didn't think it would cause a stink to be bold, but I guess it was. PG Pirate 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Apppreciated that it was created in good faith PGPirate but it does show that List of Eurocopter EC 135 operators could do with similar treatment, we cant list every operator with one or two helicopters. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that big of a deal to keep it or not? I think it keeps the main page clean, which should be the ultimate goal. PG Pirate 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually applying WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS will keep both articles very neat. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it would be beter to delete the lists altogether instead of having redirects, as the result would be directing to a statement rather than an actual list. YSSYguy (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly take that route if if would prevent repopulating them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See AgustaWestland AW109#Operators fopr som similar issues, esp. from a new user. - BilCat (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that we already have a consensus standard, WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS, on this issue and that we seem to reaffirmed support for that standard here I think we can sew this one up at this point. I have redirected the two "List of Eurocopter EC1X5 Operators" articles, but if anyone wants to nominate them for deletion instead please do so. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft photos on flickr

Hi, just drawing your attention to a set on flickr with 11 photos of historic aircraft that has a licence that is compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Just in case somebody is keen to upload those. The flickr upload bot is the most convenient tool to do this. Schwede 66 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Comac C919 orders

Is the C919 going to get enough orders for a separate article ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so. I would suggest merging back into Comac C919 and redirecting. It can be expanded again in the future if the section in the article ever gets out of hand. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the table (or a simpler version of it) into C919 and redirected the orders article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks good and the table looks better, too. The new one is more readable. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club

Please have a look at this new article. What does everyone think, notable or not? - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

After looking through twelve pages of ghits, I would say not. YSSYguy (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am kind of thinking the same thing. I'd like to gather a few more opinions from other project members before deciding which way to go on it. Most flying clubs are non-notable, although this one has a long history. Of course we have a couple of local Canadian club articles, like Ottawa Flying Club and Rockcliffe Flying Club that are about organizations that are just as old and don't seem to be any more notable as neither cites any refs. Anyone from New Zealand have any opinions on this club? - Ahunt (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Though to mind not notable of itself (and lacking independent sources), perhaps it could be rolled into Hastings Aerodrome (that they operate) which could also could use some ~~love~~ attention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. The same person who started this article in question has also been working on that one, which accounts for the lack of third party refs there too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

With no further input for the last few days I will move to WP:PROD on all three of these club articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The creator of the Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club article has removed the PROD tag, so based on our consensus here I will send it to WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club. - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Macchi/Aermacchi

I've run into a situation, and would like some input in how to address this. Macchi and Aermacchi both redirect to Alenia Aermacchi. However, that article contains almost no informtion of the preceding companies other than a product list. Further, there are two product navboxes, Template:Aermacchi aircraft and Template:Macchi aircraft, with no obvious overlap. My first thought is to merge the two templates at Template:Aermacchi aircraft. I don't know enough about the history of the companies to recommend if it would be better to expand the current article, or to create a separate article on the older firm. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

W. E. Hick

Does any one know if W. E. Hick, doctor and Cambridge Uni psychologist, was the same person as W. E. Hick of the pre-WWII Newcastle glider club and designer/builder of the Merlin glider? Dates and place of first degree suggest it is a possibility, but it's probably a common name.TSRL (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In the 1946 Sailplane & Glider [6] Hick is described as "Dr. W.E.Hick". On the other Hick this [7] list one of his papers as "Psychological aspects of control 'feel'." Paper to Stability and Control Sub-Committee of Aeronautical Res. Cnol., 1953. and it also mentions Hick and Crossman have been working on the pre-flying training of ab initio pupil pilots by means of photographs, films and special devices including one to simulate the kinematic perspective appearances during a glide approach. so the Cambridge Hick has more than a passing interest in flying. No proof but likely to be the same person. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Introductions

I see that categories like Category:1929 introductions are being added to aircraft articles. The First Flight of an aircraft doesnt appear to be an "Introduction" to me (is it American-english ?). Anyhow if we really have to have year cats should we really have one of our own instead? MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, even in North America "introduction" for an aircraft really means something like "public announcement of availability", whereas the "first flight" may be before that or after, so "first flight" cannot be taken as "introduction". - Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd take introduction as intro into service or entering service for an aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off not using that category at all, as it's too ambiguous/imprecise. - BilCat (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator position

Given my active service to WikiProject Aircraft, I'm wondering if anyone has any objections to my becoming a coordinator of this part of Wikipedia. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's changed since the last time this was proposed and what benefits would it bring? What would the co-ordinator do?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you still remember that old post. TO answer your question, coordinators close A-class reviews, devise and fine-tune a strategy to better compose articles, as well as answer new-comers and answer their queries. Alright, let me ask you back, what would a coordinator do? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you can do those things as a regular editor, on your own or by consensus building. This project has a longstanding consensus that we don't need a coordinator or leader as the project works much better without one. As I have mentioned before I have seen projects (like WikiProject Software) lose all their members when a coordinator or leader starts and usurps consensus building with directives. No need for that here when we have one of the best functioning projects on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, military aircraft articles rarely go through ACR reviews on MILHIST, even thought they are within its scope. Phil, perhaps you could run for coordinator at MILHIST, and try to help them cover more aircraft articles there. It would be good expreience, and help also help you to broaden you experience in to other types of articles, especially military history and biography, which have different styles than aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Aye aye ;) Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Similar Aircraft" category.

Is there a definition of "similar aircaft" for Wikipedia aviation articles? Having looked at, and edited an extensive list of single-engine, single seat fighters added to the P-51 article I'm wondering how to limit such a list to a few select aircraft which shared similar characteristics. For the P-51 I'm thinking single-seat, single engine fighter powered by a liquid cooled V-12 and having advanced aerodynamics, including laminar-flow wings and/or cooling systems housed in streamlined underfuselage ducts? This would mean the exclusion of the Spitfire and the incorporation of the Spiteful to the list or the omission of both, depending on POV. Any thoughts?◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, how would you define similar? The word holds different magnitude for different people, so trying to cram everyone's expectations with that word is a bit too much. Also, that role is already somewhat filled by the "See also" section under "Comparable aircraft", or whatever it is. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This does seem to be one of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions - you could for instance say that the Mustang and P-47 (or even the Yak-9D) were both contemporary single-seat long range fighters , or that the Spitfire and Mustang both used the Merifith effect in there cooling systems, etc.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no project definition of 'similar aircraft' AFAIK, we skate on thin ice with this sometimes and it's a perpetual editing battleground. We did formulate a guide for similar engines about two years ago which appears to work. The 'aircontent' template actually produces a header of 'comparable' (it used to be 'similar' which to me was more correct). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This might be a bit tight laced and contentious, but this section of articles on aircraft seems to be a bit of a hangover from the days in which expectations of referencing were more relaxed. One approach would be to limit it to the aircraft which reliable sources have stated were comparable to the aircraft covered by the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The project definition for the See also section list is at WP:AIR/PC#See also and states: "Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate." I also perfer "Similar" to "comparable", FWIW. - BilCat (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

List of fatalities and survivors

USS Shenandoah (ZR-1)#Wreck of the Shenandoah has a presumably complete list of fatalities and survivors from the wreck. Btw, the source of the info isn't clear. Should such a list be trimmed to nly those with actual WP articles? I think that is our usual practice. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, should we have a separate article for this accident? - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be trimmed to notable people with their own articles plus list numbers of casualties othewise. Too much like WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also as you quite rightly point out it is not sourced, too! - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We dont normally list victims or survivors in accident articles unless the individual is notable enough for an article of there own. MilborneOne (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to address that later today. - BilCat (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900

The Beechcraft 1900 operators list currently has many one- and two-unit operators listed, with most of them not haveing articles. I'd removed them myself, but their are in a particularly awful table, and I hate messing with tables. I'm tempted to revert to a simple list format, but if someone wants to try to work with the existing table, I'll give them a chance. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I guarentee that the current list is hopelessly out of date, so I say let's remove the table and go with the WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS simple statement instead. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner article, which I think isn't a bad way of doing it. I attempted to do the same thing with the Beech 1900 article with less success. Both articles are of course subject to the usual editing by IPs who just shove in info without bothering about the niceties of sourcing, but with both articles on my watchlist it appears to happen a lot more with the 1900 article's table than the Metro article's list. How about we just delete the table and leave the statement above it, updating it to the latest FI airliner census (either now using the 2010 census, or shortly - I expect the 2011 census to be available online soon, IIRC it has been available in August the last two years). I had set the 'major operator' threshold at five or more aircraft in the Metro article, but the bar can be set higher. It probably wouldn't hurt to do something similar with the articles for the Twotter, Do228, Bandit, L410 etc. as well. YSSYguy (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me too. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Since this has now been over a week with no further debate I think we have a consensus to proceed. I have trimmed it as per WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS, have a look Beechcraft_1900#Civilian_operators. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

list of frequent flyer programs

This list really needs a rewrite. I think the article would be better suited to be presented as a table.

Suggested fields: Airline name, Name of frequent flyer program, country (of airline), airline alliance (if it belongs to one - since often times one can get points using the same account with one airline when flying on alliance member), year started, point expiry (years after earned or inactivity). SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a question would probably be better asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, as they deal for frequently with airline-related issues than WikiProject Aircraft does, which covers airlineRs and other aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

4-engine DC-9

I'm preparing to expand the Pratt & Whitney TF30 article. Interestingly, the TF30 began as the JTF10A for the proposed 4-engine DC-9 in the late 50s, and is only hinted at in the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 article. This early DC-9 proposal would probably make an intersting article on its own, similar to the Douglas DC-8 (piston airliner) article. If anyone is interested in tackling it, the Flight archives would probably be a good source. - BilCat (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We probably need to start with adding more background text in the DC-9 jet article. I have at least one book that states Douglas studied a 4-engine DC-9 design. I think it was to be a shorter range compliment to the DC-8. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good start, but if someone is able to do the research, it might be easier to just create the new article. - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Northrop YF-23 now open

The featured article candidacy for Northrop YF-23 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Cheers! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-22

I've found a duplicate pair of articles, Ilyushin Il-22 and Ilyushin Il-22 (1947). There is a merge tag from 2009 on each article, but nothing had been done yet. I'm not that familiar with the topic, so I'd rather not attempt the merge at this time. Would someone look at these articles and see if they could perform the merge? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is which title is better. The only other Il-22 was a variant of the Il-18 transport so I'm not sure if the parenthetical year is necessary if we use the hat note on the Il-22 article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

IN terms of merging information, one of the articles is appreciably more detailed and should be used as the standard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Agreed, I'm just not sure which exact title to use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is no other article titled Ilyushin Il-22, the DABbed title is unnecessary, and the hatnote to to the Il-18 article should be sufficient. We might see if a histmerge can be performed, but if not, the we'll just have to do a cut/paste merge to Ilyushin Il-22. - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

T-1 Jayhawk

Just notice T-1 Jayhawk is not in the m-d-n format - is it because we cant agree on a company name? MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it just got missed. However, I don't know if it should be Beechcraft, Raytheon, or Hawker. Probably Raytheon. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Any would be fine, let's go with Raytheon. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! The bulk of the procurement and production does seem to have been done under the "Raytheon" name. - BilCat (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Air cycle machine

I just found the Air cycle machine article, which is quite poor and mostly unrefernced. I can't say I understand the concept much better thn before I read it! It could definitely use attention from an "expert", and could probably be added to an aircraft componet navbox also. - BilCat (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons cats

We had an issue with image cats using registrations on commons a while back and a user has now made a suggestion that the images be moved back into the type cats - refer Commons:Category talk:Aircraft by registration. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good news! - BilCat (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft links

I've created a new infobox add-in templte for use on aircraft list and variant article pages. The infobox coding is at Template:Infobox aircraft links. Please comment at WT:AIR/PC#New sub-infobox idea. This box effectively replaces Template:Thespooknav, an F-4 only box used on few pages. - BilCat (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pusher aircraft

Just noticed amongst the 737 mayhem that a user is adding Category:Pusher aircraft, dont have a problem with that but it begs the question should all the other prop aircraft not in that cat be in Category:Tractor aircraft, which doesnt seem to exist. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's found under the John Deere aircraft company article... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Determining length of Aircraft on display for Hawker Siddeley Harrier

Right now, Hawker Siddeley Harrier has a list of 17 displays, several of which are seemingly placed there simply because they can be sourced from flickr photographs. I belive the inclusion of entries in the article has now become indiscriminate, which Wikipedia is not. A previous discussion had taken place, and I thought it was agreed that a list too big is not appropriate on the page (and would have been spun off). Please take a look at the article and comment at Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier#Trimming the Aircraft on display list. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:British military aircraft since World War II

Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but is Template:British military aircraft since World War II really needed? It's so large in size and broad in content that it is probably better hanled as a list article, and probably already is. - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it really serves no purpose as it spans a long period in history. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The aircraft in that category should be associated with more specific time periods anyway, shouldn't they (i.e. British military aircraft of the 1950s)? Magus732 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirects to Sequoia Falco

Sequoia 300 and Sequoia 301, which both currently redirect to Sequoia Falco have been nominated at RfD. It has been suggested that input from someone knowledgeable about the subject would be of significant benefit to the discussion. Comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 29#Sequoia 300 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 29#Sequoia 301. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sequoia 300 Sequoia created as a better target for the redirects. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A much more elegant solution to the problem. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Messerschmitt P.xxxx designations

Two new articles have been created at Messerschmitt P.1092 and Messerschmitt P.1095. However, we have two articles on other types at Messerschmitt Me P.1101 and Messerschmitt Me P.1106. I only have one print source that mentions the aircrat, The Complete Enclyclopedia of WOrld Aircrat, and it uses "Messerschmitt P.1101" without the "Me". If my memeory is correct (it often isn't!), I've never seen the "Me" used with the P-desingations in reliable sources, though I have seen it on some fansties with the "Me". Should e move the 2 articles with "Me" to titles without it? - BilCat (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the inclusion of the Me doesnt look right as they are internal company designations rather than official government ones like Me 163. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Two books on Messerschmitt aircraft, by J Richrd Smith and by Anthony Pritchard, together with Green & Cross's Jet Aircraft of the world all agree that it is Messerschmitt P.1101 etc even when metal had been cut e.g. Messerschmitt P.1101 V1. Like BilCat, I've never seen it otherwise. Favour the move.TSRL (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur. I can move Messerschmitt Me P.1106, but Messerschmitt Me P.1101 will need an admin to make the move. - BilCat (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

P.1101 done. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. P.1106 is also done. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)