Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

"Little Eva" B-24 Liberator

Someone just added a link to this article to the B-24 Liberator article - I'm not sure that a B-24 that "Little Eva" is notable - opinions?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Having been the subject of a documentary the aircraft seems to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability#Individual_aircraft, but the article sure needs some work, including footnotes added. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've patched up a couple of issues but mostly it needs expanding with what happened to the rest of crew. Not easy to discern from a pdf of a very old piece of typewritten text. I'd say there was a problem with the article title - the aircraft is not notable, it's the post crash actions of the crew! GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to verify the crew's fate, though? If this PDF file's the only source of information, odds are you aren't going to find out what happened to them... Magus732 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories of pilots who flew this or that aircraft model

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 3, a discussion is underway regarding the possible deletion of a category: Aircraft flown by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The idea has been floated that many other similarly constructed categories could join this one, for example Category:Aircraft flown by Chuck Yeager or Category:Aircraft flown by Manfred von Richthofen. Please weigh in with your opinion. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX

Is it too early for a Boeing 737 MAX article? We did merge the early attempts on the Airbus A320neo bac to the main article. So merge the 737 Max too, or re-create the neo? (The Aibus fanboys will surely demand that the neo have an article if the MAX does!) - BilCat (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really enough info for more than a a couple of sentences in the main 737 article at the mo, suggest redirect it back to the Boeing 737. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge it or something. The article as is needs more attention. An IP editor seems to be copying and pasting text directly from Boeing and Flight Global articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article just keeps expanding. At this point, I think it can stand well enough on its own, as we will continue to get new info for the rest of the year. - BilCat (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Just to note that although we have not yet been notified Ken keisel has requested a review of the project naming convention at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, in general and in regard to the ongoing move discussion at Talk:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How about an RFC/U to ban him as a disruptive user? Seriously, this is ridiculous, and he is effectively an incompetent user. He can't even follow simple instructions to notify the involved parties! - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that Ken keisel has made a suggestion to change the naming convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)#Newest discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Caribbean Airlines Flight 523

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 again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Airlines Flight 523 (2nd nomination). - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Bernard aircraft - a naming issue

Armed with Liron's book, I've started to fill some gaps in the set of Bernard aircraft. The three aircraft companies he ran sequentially are listed in Société des Avions Bernard. There is a naming issue here, so I'm seeking consensus before getting in too deep. The first machines from company#2, SIMB, appeared in 1922 and they stopped about 1927. I've only done two of these so far, Bernard V.1 and Bernard V.2, following the simple naming style that works OK for the earlier Avions Bernard aircraft like the Bernard AB 1 and explaining the SIMB name in the text. Since then, though I have seen that the name SIMB is often included, with or without Bernard. I'm sure there is no right answer (some folks even use the SIMB nickname Ferbois, as in Bernard-Ferbois V.2) but am beginning to think Bernard SIMB might be a better description, including the manufacturing company whilst noting the aircraft as part of the Bernard line and being fairly simple. It's one of several styles used in Liron, so not my invention.

What do you think? If you are content, I'll move those first two to Bernard SIMB Vn and use similar titles for new articles (explaining the alternative names in the text). The watershed between SIMB and SAB is not quite as clear as he AB/SIMB one, but I'll follow Liron on that later.TSRL (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If Bernard SIMB is preferred, then Bernard 14 and Bernard 15 should also move. The latter was SIMB's last.TSRL (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I've done that but just redirected the Bernard SIMB 14/15 to earlier existing Bernard 14/15 pages rather than rename the latter.

Avyear template delinking

I noted this edit to the Harrier article. It is my understanding that we can link to aviation years in infoboxes using the 'avyear' template but we don't link dates anywhere else in the text by consensus. I believe 'Lightbot' is programmed to leave these links in place. In theory if all these links were removed the aviation year articles would become orphans. Strictly these are not linked dates but a link to a related list article (the Harrier does not currently appear in the 1967 list for first flights but it should be entered). I think the removal should be reverted as it is not a date formatting problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Lavochkin aircraft article names

There seems to be some contention about whether certain Lavochkin aircraft aritcles should be title Lavochkin La-xxx, Lavochkin Aircraft xxx, or Lavochkin aircraft xxx, with cross moves being made, and perhaps some dupicate articles created and/or redirected. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably go with the most "common" name and the Russian Wikipedia uses the La-XXX designation, for example, for all types. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Curious since the actual name used by the OKB was izdeliye XXX, which literally translates as item according to Yefim Gordon. Although he used Aircraft XXX in the Lavochkin chapter of his Early Soviet Jet Fighters book. Gunston, OTOH, calls them La-XXX in his Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft. Wonder what form Shavrov uses?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jane's Encyclopedia is another source that uses La-xx; it's a widely used form and in line with other Russian usage e.g. MiG-15. The average reader, looking for a Lavochkin, will probably expect this form so why not use it? As ever, we surely primarily want the reader to find the article, where any complications of nomenclature or alternative names/styles can be dealt with.TSRL (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A new effort to rename/move has been initiated. I think that common name still applies in this case. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

R4D-3 05078 (41-20124)

I'm not exactly sure what R4D-3 05078 (41-20124) is supposed to be, but it sure needs some help, and perhaps a better name. - BilCat (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume notability is conferred by it being on the National Register of Historic Places? If so, perhaps a rename to Douglas R4D BuNo 05078 or Douglas R4D N763A? YSSYguy (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's notable because of that too. What the article doesn't explin is why its the Register - there are lots of old aircraft sitting around somewhere, and most aren't official historical places. Such an explanation should be enough to flesh out the article a bit more. It might also help determine the best title if we knew wheter it was notable for its military or civilian service, if either. The atticle could also use a photo if one can be found, and the infobox career. - BilCat (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The nomination form linked in the article (100-odd pages long) boils down to it being significant because it is representative of 1930s-vintage airliners, it was built as a C-53 and there weren't many left at the time of nomination, and at the time it was one of only two DC-3/C-47/C-53 family aircraft preserved in Illinois and the only one that was flying. YSSYguy (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

From the sound of it, it's an aircraft that's notable in the State of Illinois but not for wikipedia. It's not the last of it's kind or even one of a few. The military history of the aircraft seems ordinary enough (and problably wouldn't meet Milhist notability guidelines) The sourcing isn't independent either - one being the owner/ and the other the register itself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cant be that notable to Illinois when it is now based in Florida! dont think it ticks enough boxes to be notable enough for an article, although if it is deemed to be then it should be something like Douglas DC-3A N763A or Douglas Skytrooper N763A or similar as most of our individual aircraft without names seem to use the Type-Registration format. Still can work out how an historic place can just get up and fly away! MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that befuddles me too, but I guess there isn't a "National Register of Historic PlaNes! There is aa Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, so we can chenck there to see how they handle notability, or atleast notify them if we decide to go straight to AFD. - BilCat (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion from just a few days ago at WP:NRHP#Notability on whether being on the NRHP list confers automatic notability. The short answer is "that all or nearly all listed properties are inherently notable (with disagreements only about how close to 100% "nearly all" is)." - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

From my reading of the discussion it is limited to buildings. And the discussion, like this one is by a self selecting group. How about flagging it for AfD as a test case? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD works for me, but I'm still ADF-filing-deficient. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Icon A5

Icon A5 could use some attention and major clean-up, if anyone's interested. - BilCat (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified plane

Hi, does anyone know what kind of plane this is →

—Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like maybe a Lockheed Model 10 Electra. You can see a bit of tail away from the centerline which confirms that the empennage was a dual or triple vertical rudder, not simply a single vertical rudder like the DC-3. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong front windows for an Electra? Isn't the Electra more "acute" \/, while this one is more \___/ , more forward looking friendly? As this is Chile, and they (Chilean Air Force) had Beech Expeditors and Kansans, I rather fancy the Beech approach... [1] (no, this particular one wasnt from Chile, but I liked the looks of it :) Something about those dealies between the hull and the engines, dont you think?) (another one) Paaln (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, it turned out to be in Argentina, but still ....  :) Paaln (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Beechcraft C-45H, in this photo, shows a rounded chin underneath the nose and cockpit. The photo in question has more of a flattened chin underneath. Binksternet (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW it appears to be at -49.998823,-68.949972 using google maps (possibly Comandante Luis Piedrabuena Airport). MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Which leads us to it being C-45H serial number 0532 coded 4-G-18 of the Argentine Navy. Which makes it msn AF-618 former USAF 52-10688 MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

C-45H 52-10688 in background

Sorry about the rambling but all this leads us back to an image of the aircraft in the same place showing the naval markings http://www.fuerzasnavales.com/ref_images_preserv_c45g18.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the broken left wingtip is good confirmation, and so is the elevated mounting of the aircraft on blocks. Beechcraft C-45H. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I got -49.998797,-68.94993 (-49° 59' 55.67", -68° 56' 59.75") for the Google Maps coordinates. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Links to naviagtion boxes

Just to note that User:MatthewStevens is adding link to the USAF Transport nav box from the first occurence of the C- word in an article, I have reverted a few and left him a note to stop and discuss. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Stopped as you requested; and I apologize for not having brought it up here beforehand. I also reverted the links that you hadn't already gotten to.  :-)

My rationale is to make clear the meaning of prefixes for users who aren't familiar with the various U.S. military designation systems, past and present. If you grow up in the United States, or in countries with similar designation systems, then you kind of absorb the major categories. However, folks from anywhere else might have trouble with them. Moreover, obscure modern (e.g. VC-xx) and differing historical prefixes (e.g. P-xx) easily can baffle casually-interested natives. And even nerds like me have problems with the pre-1962 Navy system; a USAF character in James Mitchner's "Space" is made to say: "J____ C_____, you need to be an engineer to understand the name of your own airplane."

The designations nav boxes hold this information, in addition to many useful links. However, being at the bottom of the page, they're easy to overlook. A wikilink in the body of the article, at the first occurrence of the designation, surfaces this information.

So...what do you folks think?

--Matt Stevens (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Poking my head back in

Hi folks. Finally back after an extended absence, just checking in to say yes, I'm still alive and I'll be getting back into the swing of editing forwith. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

:) - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing on HAL Dhruv

During the GA review of the article, I discovered close to half a dozen individual events that may have put the HAL Dhruv helicopter in a bad light were completely unmentioned. It appears now that these efforts to evade negativity are deliberate, note the following paragraph switch:

However, in October 2009, media reports emerged that Ecuador was considering sending their six helicopters back to HAL as they had found the helicopter to be unfit for service; this would be a considerable blow as Ecuador is the Dhruv's biggest export customer. In July 2011, Ecaudor expressed its disatisfation with the Dhruv, stating reasons such as: "poor after sales service, expensive spares and... over-invoicing".

Erased and replaced with:

Ecuadorian Air Force told the media that the performance of the Dhruv helicopter is very good and is deployed along the northern borders to support the troops and community. Dhruv is involved in missions like rescue, airlifting, aeromedical evacuations in those areas. EAF plans to place orders for more Dhruv helicopters.

While the good aspects of the project should not be left out, I don't see a valid reason for oblitorating accounts that customers have been experiencing a less than perfect situation. I fear that this situation may be an institution of the article, and will be extremely hard to combat. Kyteto (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That specific change was made today per this diff by User:Touchtheskywithglory, who seems to be a pro-Indian fanboy, as his user name suggests to me. It would be good to check all of his edits to the Dhruv page to see if he's responsible for most of the POV problems of late. it's probably better to deal with this incident directly, and warn the user. If this user continues such edits, both on Dhruv and elsewhere, then we can take him to the approriate venue. - BilCat (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Although you also need to consider the reliability of the claims, anything that has However media reports claims that the choppers .... could be returned to its manufacturer as it was considered as unfit for service. as a bit iffy and if added back could do with better sourcing. The article should be balanced and not 100% pro or anti but needs to consider WP:WEIGHT. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, though the user's actions in simply removing the bad info and replaceing it with good info with no explanation or discussion is something that they shouldn't be doing, no matter how we eventually decide to handle the competing sources or their reliability. - BilCat (talk)

Agreed simply removing information particularly by those who may not have a neutral point of view is not acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Further, there seems to be some tag-team ediing with User:Flyingalbatross on both the Dhruv and Ecuadorian Air Force articles. It's probably worth watching both of them, and possibly User:Hammetttt also. - BilCat (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that same odd tagteam, one following very closely behind the other into multiple articles. I've added an extra source and quote from a government offical, as well as retoning the language a bit, for the reinserted peice. Kyteto (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The user has awoken to his edits being challenged, I've moved his objections onto the article's talkpage, where he appears to be engaging in discussion. It is hard to get him to understand his opinion, however highly he may think of it, is not worth as much as sources and evidence to his 'corrections', but it is an improvement. Kyteto (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"you want to keep it for the sake of negativity" The user is now apparently arguing that statements on the Dhruv that are negative should not be kept in the article; a quite worrying sentiment. Kyteto (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I have questioned the reliability of the sources used it is clear that the helicopters has come in for some criticism from customers and this should be presented in balanced way. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still having to deal with very tenacious editing from Touchtheskywithglory; who has since accused me of bias editing, proceeded to introduce instances of WP:Synth to whack further levels of 'negativity neutralising' into the article, and is insistant that 'sources are unnecessary' for his point of view on one issue. It is getting close to ridiculous, and I am very suspitious that this is the only article he seems to be editing. Kyteto (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sources are unnecessary"? - sounds like cluebat time to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sources are just as 'unnecessary' as the article. Maybe time to add POV tag(s), then quit watching the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft i/d

I was looking through some photos (taken in Derbyshire last year) and came across one of what is a Piper Super Cub or close relative, with the serial N498H. Part of the serial is in shadow but I think that's right. Nothing on Google, not on FAA reg ... Anyone know it?TSRL (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly N49BH an Aviat Husky based at Shenstone Hall Farm in Staffordshire. Looking at http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=N49BH&u=reg it is blue with a white top. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the fellow! Thanks very much.TSRL (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Helibras HM-1 Pantera

Just ran across Helibras HM-1 Pantera. Does this really warrant an articvle separate from Eurocopter AS565 Panther? - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. It'd be like setting up a seperate article for each F-16 production line, and even that would be more justified as considerably more aircraft were made on them. The information can be covered in a few paragraphs on the main Panther article, as you identified. Kyteto (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 767 A-Class review

The A-class review for Boeing 767 is now open at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 767. Thanks in advance for any input! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We'll probably need to uninvolved regular to do the closing out of this review. User:Trevor MacInnis did this in the past when he was active with this project. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:SukhoiT-50.jpg

This looks like antoher copyvio image, but I've had trouble finding a internet source giving the copyright. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Only upload of user, no other edits no metadata, rings all the bells but cant find a source! Might be worth asking User:Russavia for his opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the same image (pixel dimensions, file size) - http://www.flyinthesky.it/aerei/SukhoiT-50.htm. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have given it a shove at [[2]] to see if the uploader responds. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• And it was deleted a few days later. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Template airtd

Template:Airtd seems to have a problem with the colours used. In, for instance, Category:Experimental aircraft 1980-1989 the headers appear as blue text on black background - ie almost invisible. Just me or something that can be fixed for everyone else. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks dark blue/black (unselected/selected) text on lightish blue here (Firefox)TSRL (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Using IE8 on Win 7, it looks like Blue text on black background. barely readable. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So is it a IE8 problem? I'm on Firefox 6/Win 7.TSRL (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My combo is IE8 and XP. It's dark blue text on light blue background on Safari on an iPhone. I did a brief experiment in preview on the template and managed to get a light grey background for the first box only. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Blue text on black background using IE, horribly unreadable. In Chrome it is dark blue text (same) with a light blue background instead, which is readable. Kyteto (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomating the Galloping Ghost as a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft

I would like to nominate the article The Galloping Ghost airplane as a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. To support this, I have looked though several guidelines and policies and I believe that it seems to be notable enough for this to occur. To start with, this article is about an aircraft that crashed recently and was destroyed in the resulting impact. While not a policy, according to WikiProject Aviation section Aircraft accidents and incidents to be included, "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" The pilot, Jimmy Leeward, was killed in the accident. In addition to him having been killed in the accident, he is also notable for having been an actor in several films. This means that the criteria for inclusion has been successfully proven.

In addition, the following section says that an article "may be notible enough for a stand-alone article" should it meet several other criteria. To start with the General notability guideline, the only criteria that it potentially not meet would be "Significant coverage" as the article is still a work-in-progress, like most articles, and I do not completely know if the criteria has been fulfilled. The criteria of "Reliable" and "Sources" seems to be fulfilled. The criteria for "Independent of the subject" seems to have been passed, with only using it as a reference to help support another reference and the notability of the article. While I do believe that the criteria of "Presumed" has been fulilled, though if someone could I would like someone else to make sure that it does pass this if the can.

For the guideline of Notability (Event), I would like to point out that the aircraft was involved with an accident that has killed one person and has recieved considerable attention in the media to warrant a page to be created about that accident, was flown by a person who has a biography page currently on Wikipedia, an aircraft that was the last of its type to be publicly sold, an aircraft that had prototype modifications made to it before the accident, and has broken a record in the past; 1947 - breaking the record for fastest closed-course speed.

Finally, for the guideline of the section Wikipedia is not a newspaper on what Wikipedia is not, I would like to mention that the article in question was created because of the crash. However, the article has since been improved to provide a partial history of the aircraft in question with sources that make it have a historical significance that is pointed out in the notabilities of the aircraft. The same goes for news reports in that the article was created for that and has been improved to show that it is notable. As for the third criteria, the person is notable enough for several different reasons and adheres to the core policies on content from what I see.

I would like to add that I am not familar with some of this projects policies and guidelines, so please correct me if I have made an error. In addition, I know that the article lacks a good deal of information and that it need inprovement in more than one section. However, I believe that it currently has meet the criteria to be made a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. 204.106.252.64 (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You've a good grasp of the policies - but it's not the aircraft that's notable but the crash. Article name would need to change though. Ah, see that someone has already addressed that. And merge discussion on aircrash and aircraft articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Graeme, the plane is not notable as the primary subject but the crash is. It would be best to develop the article in the style of other air accident articles. Kyteto (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was hoping that it would be enough to be nominated, but it looks like it will not be enough. In any case, thanks again for your replies. 204.106.252.125 (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominated? For what, may I ask? Kyteto (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First line says "I would like to nominate the article The Galloping Ghost airplane as a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft", but the latter statements seem to be geared more towards a justification of the article's existence. In any event, the comments Graeme made are spot-on. MSJapan (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dewoitine D.26

Dewoitine D.26 states that the last example was withdrawn from use in 1970, and was then put into a museum. However, the photo that I have just uploaded to the article is from Duxford in 1975. Would someone like to research that, and see if the 1970 date is in fact correct. Thanks, --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The date probably refers to the retirement of HB-RAG from use by the Swiss Aero Club which went to a museum in Dubendorf. The machine at Duxford which had been HB-RAA was registered as G-BBMI in the UK in 1973 and was sold to Kermit Weeks in May 1984 as N282DW and is still shown on the FAA database with valid airworthiness certificate http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=282DW MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RAH-66 Comanche GA review help

I could use some help with Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche in regards to this Good Article nomination review. The GA reviewer asked for info on the program's problems be added. I have added more info on this. But have found nothing of real substance on who or what was to blame, etc. Try to help if you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to read into the reasons for its cancellation. Kyteto (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've given it a quick once-over, let me know if this is insufficient/something else is demanded. Kyteto (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• You're added much good info, thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging/deleting Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor cockpit into Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

After a preliminary discussion, I've decided that it should be appropriate to suggest the removal of this redundant sub-article. It isn't typical to give aircraft's cockpits their own articles on their own, and it was in a shabby state of affairs, using non-RS refs and main details in excess of nominal levels on other articles. When put down to size (I have already sent the content to the Raptor page) it added less than 3kb to the main article; while the main is now approaching 120kb, I do have a suggestion for this problem as well. If necessary, a future of the F-22 article (rough name only) for all the procurement interest, continued upgrades and a possible export/bomber variant ect could be put together to act as a much more succulent and trafficked/useful spinoff; as opposed to the minor cockpit article that doesn't reduce the main article at all. Two seperate issues, but would people now see it as justified to initiate a move to delete the remnants of the Cockpit article now (or merge, although all useful content is already now intergrated into the main). Kyteto (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion would be against policy, as that would remove the attribution/contribution history of the material. You should include a link in the page history at Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor to Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor cockpit to maintain that (it's kinda required, actually); as for the cockpit article itself, given that you've already merged it, I'll go ahead and make it a redirect. Cheers! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

C-class

I noticed that the WPAVIATION template auto-fills in for C-class if B3, B4, and B5 are all filled in with 'yes', regardless of the state of B1 and B2. The Milhist project recently adopted C-class (after long being a holdout), but has the requirement of B3+B4+B5 and either B1 or B2 being met for an article to be rated as C-class. I was wondering if perhaps we might want to change our C-class standards to that as well? As it seems to be a better standard, IMHO (an article failing both B1 and B2 should, really, stick at Start until one or the other is met...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

B2 is more to do with content than the others so it is perhaps that bit that makes it a B, but I dont have a problem with aligning with mil-hist. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• With how the WP:Aviation banner does it now, the difference from Start to C is fuzzy. Having B1 or B2 as yes would greatly clear up the distinction. I support this proposed change. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• As a note, apparently "any three" B=yes triggers "auto-C", since the TR-3 page nixed B2 and B5 but it insists on C. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Gulfstream IV

A new editor has created MJET an austrian biz jet operator, dont have a problem with that but they are adding MJET to the biz jet articles like Gulfstream IV, I have removed it twice so really needs somebody else to look at it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Look like standard COI/SPA/free advertising work to me (assuming good faith of course!). The logo was uploaded by the article creator to Commons with a half completed licensing template. The references in the article are fairly useless. Agree with delinking from other articles until this one is in a better state. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tangientally related AfD

It might interest some here that List of launch vehicle plans is currently at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories at CfD

• Category:STOL is up for deletion discussion at CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Category:Spacecraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution and Category:Aircraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution are also at CfD.

Not Notable banner Tom Poberezny

This seems a little harsh. FlugKerl (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the PROD as totally unjustified - the article does need a lot of work though. Roger (talk)

It's not actually, although I'll let it be f you are going to fix it. You've got an article subject who was the former president of an organization of unknown size, who was apparently notable (maybe) for aerobatics (and I'm not sure what that falls under, guideline-wise), but that is unclear because there was nothing regarding the competitions other than he won them.

Moreover, at least as far as the article goes, it seems he inherited his position from his father, and started a bunch of things that don't assert their own notability in his article. Whether they are notable or not is the key, because as it stands, he does not inherit notability as the head of a notable organization (remmeber, he is not a company CEO, which is different), and absolutely nothing he did himself for EAA is elaborated upon to the point where it is shown to be notable. So, a non-notable guy who does non-notable things for an organization is non-notable.

The assumption has been made that because enthusiasts/"those in the know" know who he is, that that is acceptable in the eyes of an audience who does not know, which is who you are writing for in the first place. If he "sure as hell is notable", then you need to show it and not attack other editors because required assertions were not made. MSJapan (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"the former president of an organization of unknown size" ...I nearly ruined my keyboard with a spit-take upon reading that. The EAA is the second-largest aviation organisation in the US (second only to AOPA), and any discussion of aviation in America will inevitably include them before very long. Contending that a past EAA president isn't notable is equivilant to contending that a past president of the New York Stock Exchange isn't. Yes, the article needs work, but deleted? No way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the EAA is a global organisation with chapters in many countries. Roger (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention needed

I noticed that for some reason, there is no consistent naming of Piper aircraft. For example, the article names read Piper PA-31 Navajo, Piper Cherokee (nothing about PA-28 here) and just Piper PA-23 (without a name, though here it could be either Aztec or Arrow - on the other hand, the Navajo might also be called Chieftain). Don't you think that a consistent naming is desirable? --AdAstra reloaded (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure some older Piper aircraft had only their PA- numbers, while others had multiple types under the same model designation (i.e. Piper PA-46). That said, they should all fall under the standard WP:AIR naming standard, namely "m-d-n" - manufacturer, designation, name. So "Piper PA-31 Navajo" is correct, while "Piper Cherokee" is not, and should be at "Piper PA-28 Cherokee". (With the PA-46 Malibu/Mirage/Meridian likely being a case of WP:IAR and just m-d, or as "...Malibu" since the successors are, officially, the "Malibu Mirage" and "Malibu Meridian".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree the PA-28 should be moved, the PA-23 article didnt get a name probably because it was called both Apache and Aztec and nobody could decide which was the most common. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Although now that I look at it more, the PA-28 was also known as Archer and Arrow...probably should just be PA-28! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Originally they were called the Cherokee Arrow and Cherokee Archer only much later did they loose the Cherokee bit. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

...right. Embarassing thing is I'd have remembered that 10 years ago! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the Piper designations and names can be confusing. This is definitley an area where the titling is on a case by case basis. Also, the m-d-n style isn't mandatory for all types, just those which clearly have both a common name and designation. SOme types have more than one name for the same designation, while others have more than one designation for the same name. In some cases, variant articles can be created if there are enough diferences between models of the same type, using the differing name or designation, as the case may be. One example is the Beechcraft Bonanza article, which covers several designations and names. We had planned to separate it into 3 daughter articles, Beechcraft 33 Debonair, Beechcraft 35 Bonanza, and Beechcraft 36 Bonanza, but other than creating sandboxes on my userspace, nothing was ever done, as all the articles needed further expansion to be more than stubs. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2008 Guam B-52 crash

After much pondering, I came to the conclusion that 2008 Guam B-52 crash doesn't seem to meet the standards for inclusion, and have prodded it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I've endorsed the prod. The aeroplane crashed and that's about it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

PROD contested, now at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Category dashes

A user has requested a speedy rename of all the aircraft catgories to change the dash, this has been raised before and declined but keeps getting raised see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy MilborneOne (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I anybody can find a link to the last discussion then appreciate it adding to the rename objection, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done that, I think - shall you check to see the link is presented as required?TSRL (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidently There's no excuse for the aircraft categories to diverge from the MOS so they can be changed without discussion, although it is only a guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to my complaint the renaming of aircraft categories has been raised a CfD for further discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 20#Hyphenated aircraft categories, although it appears that we dont have any valid reasons as a project to ignore the power of the em-dash lobby. Any comment either for or against welcome at the CfD. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to the fact that everybody except me thought that the onward march of the funny dashes was a goog thing, or not really important, you will be pleased that all our articles will be changed shortly by bot. Might be worth using the hide bots thing on your watchlist for a few days. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know my sense of the passing of time is going but I thought there was recent discussion on the same matter prior to this one that quashed. (Or am I getting confused with the dash-hyphen war spilling over into ship class article naming). Oh well - adopt the crash position and brace for impact? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "hide bots" hint. I also wasn't aware that this rename issue had been resolved in favour of the change - (that's a hyphen, since I can't remember (and don't want to be bothered with remembering) how to produce n-/m-dashes on my Windows PC keyboard) was this actually decided upon or just done anyway, over the (considerable) opposition of several editors (like me) who saw no advantage for WP and its users in the whole exercise? --TraceyR (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was raised again despite the early non consensus, I got slated for even contending the requested change and was told There's no excuse for the aircraft categories to diverge from the MOS, but despite it being a guideline I was a lone voice against the latest request, the language was pretty condescending that we even dare suggest that this project should be different. Obviously we are ignorant of the typographical truth. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly...I would have spoken up against it, but this has gotten to the point where I just threw up my hands. Continual resistiance would be futile as the Hyphen (oooh, wait, or is it Dash?) Mafia would just keep pushing and pushing until they got their way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's still deletion review in which to prove a point. Don't know if you can get a judicial stay of execution while the DR is running though. Outcome might be vindication, but with a hefty sense of fait accompli. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, this means tons and tons and TONS of templates are going to have to be edited... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in arguing about it because MOS is the one part of Wikipedia where only the chosen few are allowed an opinion, and anyone who questions it or argues will get ignored or attacked. Editors who contribute to articles are beneath their contempt.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Or we could just ditch the lot and categorise by type like Category:French fighter aircraft and then first flight Category:First flown in 1966, or is that to radical. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Too radical, I'd think - the by-decade categories work well. It'll just be a major pain to fix the navigation templates on them... of course, perhaps somebody could code a bot to do it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The supported option I thought was to leave redirects - the templates would continue to work until fixed - but it doesn't look like redirects been left in place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but the bot that is doing the moves is doing cut and paste moves, losing the history and screwing up the licensing - I would suggest blocking it, restoring the changes and if necessary moving them properly.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The redirects aren't in place (this is what you get if you enter an 'old' category name: "You may create the page "Category:British bomber aircraft 1910-1919", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered".), although this was one of the arguments in favour of the rename exercise. It all seems very high-handed indeed; the change has just been bulldozered through on false pretences. What's the point of having a debate if dogma wins whatever the consensus? --TraceyR (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now apparently AWB is enabling changing the cats to dashes, when the pages haven't been updated yet, per this diff. I hate MOS-cabals! I'm still looking for that dash key on my keyboard! - BilCat (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be MOSoS-Cabals? Ministry of Style over Substance. --TraceyR (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation is now a right mess, the funny dash brigade only changed a few hundred cats but it has messed up all the templates and parent cats, others with good faith are changing them in articles and not a redirect in sight. Some of the empty normal cats are now at risk of being deleted as empty. Dont see any evidence of the funny dash team tidying anything up and we were clearly misled in previous discussions. Sigh MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Geez, a big mess indeed. Why don't we create the cats and categorise them and add articles to them before we delete the old ones? Or have I missed something? Treat the messed up ones as if they're not there. I brought this topic up a few months ago but the old cats were kept, until now. Anyway, I'll be happy adding cats to new MoS-following cats during the next few days if decisions were to be made right now about whether to implement it or not.Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we do have to weigh in and create the necessary new cats. At least we (should) know what we are doing. Have the navboxes been fixed? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Aircraft article on main page today

Hey, Northrop YF-23 is on the main page today. Try to help keep a eye on it and revert vandalism and unhelpful edits where needed. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help there. It did not get hit too bad. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Another aircrash at AfD

AeroUnion Flight 302 has been nominated for deletion. Question: should the project set up a deletion-sorting page a la WP:DELSORT/MIL et al? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, a lot appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation but it doesnt catch all that interests the project. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also at AfD: United Express Flight 2415. DexDor (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation has now been created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alternate Mission Equipment

FYI. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Jacobson Flare

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/Jacobson Flare. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This article's deletion is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 27. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The review determined that the article should be re-listed for deletion and so this may now be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare (2nd nomination). - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming query regarding Chinese aircraft

I noticed that the articles on the Chengdu J-10 and Chengdu J-20 include, in the first line of the lede, translations of the "J" designation (i.e., "literally "Annihilator-Twenty") on the J-20's page). While this is in fact the direct translation of J-20...is this really necessary to be on the pages? Frankly it sounds fanboy-ish, and - aside from these two types (which, it could be argued, attract rather more of that type of editor) none of the other Chinese fightes translate the "J" designation. Nor do the Q- aircraft, or the H-...or the Y-, even though the Y-8's page spells out the "Yunshuji-8" designation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

bec de sécurité

Any French speakers know what this aircraft feature is, added to a little Bernard tourer in the 1930s? On a Bunsen burner it seems to be a shield around the outlet.TSRL (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Ah! It means leading edge slat according to http://www.granddictionnaire.com.TSRL (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed on an article

For some reason Gossamer Condor has become a persistant target for vandals; more eyes on the article wouldn't hurt. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do! - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang glider (commerce)

Upon reading article this all I could say was Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot. I can't tell what the point of this article, is unless it is to spam the two mostly non-related links. Some second opinions on what do do with this article would be most useful. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't make heads or tails of it myself, aside from it being a trojan horse article for the spam links; I've tagged it G11 accordingly, we'll see if that's agreed with. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow that was a very expeditious second opinion! It has already been deleted as spam. I am not complaining though, it made no sense to me at all and I read it through carefully three times. Oddly enough the page creator is an editor with some 3500 edits. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The same editor also turned the redirect at Hang glider into a similar style of "article" which totally duplicates Hang gliding, only the latter is much better written, comprehensible and has refs. I reverted it to the redirect. A watch on the redirect page might be a good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

He asked me to userify the page in question for him, so I did. Not sure what he wants to do with it though... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw that and I have it watched. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And he created another "article" that's now at AfD: Paragliding fatalities and injurious incidents. Honestly, despite his seeming long Wiki career, I'm starting to wonder... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. Thanks for the notification! - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Category by user

A while a go we nuked some of the active aircraft of foo cats but I have noticed some of them creeping back in. Just sent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7#Category:Fleet Air Arm aircraft and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7#Category:Modern aircraft of the Australian Army to CfD. Noticed a few more around and have been removing some from articles but is it worth listing them all and do a joined-up CfD to have a big bonfire. Anybody who thinks they are a good idea are welcome to add the 70+ cats that the C-130 would need to categorise by user (probably hundreds for the C-47!), any thoughts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a big problem, especially at some non-aviation articles. See AIM-120 AMRAAM for an example of a Thirty Cat Pileup! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang gliding fatalities involving hang gliders with TCF

This article has been nominated for speedy deletion as A1 "no context". It could have been G1, too. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

TCF? MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue and his linking to TCF don't help anyway as that is a disambiguation page and none there seem to fit. That is why I nominated it as CSD A1 - it makes no sense at all. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Triangle Control Frame fwiw. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It has context now, but this is something that falls under the area of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I think... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Did Otto Lilienthal's fatal crash involve a TCF?GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see none of his gliders had triangle things to hold on to. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Gibbs-Smith, he stalled when the wind dropped, perhaps confused by the new head operated elevator control he was trying out - head back for nose down ... No TCF. Let's not mention Pilcher!TSRL (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No as far as I can tell none of them did. This article is quickly deteriorating, but I am not sure what to do with it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidently Triangle control frame was written by the same editor in 2008 and has been tagged as WP:CRAP since then. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah reading though that article it is mostly an incomprehensible mess as well. It needs a severe clean-up and then see what is left behind. I am not sure that it should be more than a short section in Hang gliding. May be it should just be redirected? - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was just declined. No point in a WP:PROD. Anyone for AfD? - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hang gliding fatalities involving hang gliders with TCF MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Triangle control frame

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/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination). - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned vs Cancelled

After the discussion here about whether or not to include unflown aircraft in the nation/type ("Fooian foofighters 1492-1776") categories, I decided to split "unflown" and "flown" abandoned/cancelled projects into seperate cateories, with "unflown" under "abandoned" and "flown" under "cancelled". It was pointed out to me that this might need discussion though, so I wondered what the project's opinion on this was? IMHO "abandoned" for everything is a bit nebulous, since some projects weren't truly "abandoned" but simply had their development stopped (then there were those that simply lost fly-offs, but that would definitly be WP:OC!). (I might also note that, outside of the Category:Abandoned military projects tree, "cancelled" is apparently the preferred term vs "abandonded" period for the WP:CFD people.) IMHO unflown types shouldn't be lumped in with those that were flown but didn't make the cut, but what do y'all think? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would run both words through a thesaurus and see what the definitions are as a start. This might throw up alternatives and a better single term for both choices. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

if no distinct is made between paper projects and ones where metal is cut, I would use "Cancelled" for all. If a distinction is being made "abandoned" implies they just screwed up the paper and threw it in the bin. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned doesn't seem to make the same sense as cancelled. It describes leaving something and continuing on, even giving a hint at a gradual departure. It is more a reflective description about a company's actions, while the end of most projects seems to be much more direct, final and complete. --Born2flie (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd abandon this and return to "flown" and "unflown". These terms have a clear meaning and in almost all cases an aircraft falls into either one category or the other. In a very few cases - mostly in the early days - one might have tried to fly but would not, but these are the special cases that make bad cats. There is a respectable case for dividing unflown into built and not built (paper, no metal cut); many are designed but few are started. Aircraft are abandoned, production cancelled at all stages of a design's life for all sorts of reasons; but they either flew or they didn't.TSRL (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The catch is "flown" and "unflown", while making perfect logical sense, won't fit the category trees... "Abandoned military projects of Foo", for instance. Category:Flown abandoned military aircraft projects of Foo? Looks...awkward. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. Rather than trying to subcategorize the present, already rather detailed Category:Flown abandoned military aircraft projects of Foo, might it be more useful to have some separate cats such as Category:unflown aircraft with a sub cat Category:unbuilt unflown aircraft, with countries and or dates if we must? These could be used for any aircraft, not just military projects. I find it often takes some time reading a page to discover that the FooDoo was only a paper aircraft or the FooHoo remained only part finished before the credit crunch wrecked it. I don't think the reader would guess that abandoned mean unflown; after all, abandoned babies are not unborn.TSRL (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds somewhat promising...not sure about the subcat (do mockups count as unbuilt?) but "unflown aircraft" vs. Abandoned would be good, with Cancelled meaning cancelled...any other thoughts from the walnut gallery? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, the unbuilt cat is probably overkill. I guess unflown will include aircraft that have yet to get off the the paper, though they probably wiil.TSRL (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Clue for the CLT?

The CLT seems to be the big thing in small bombs.

Link dumped over at Talk:Small_Tactical_Munition, but still looking for details, such as say diameter. Hcobb (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons

For more madness at commons the A380 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Airbus%20A380 can now be categorised by airline or location or registration, would not be so bad but is still difficult to find images particularly with the registration categories. It has been discussed but nobody appears to listen. Any idea what http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lufthansa_Passage is ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We have argued this problem before over there. For almost any purposes aircraft type photos are much easier to find if they are in one cat by type alone. Fling them under registration would only be useful if we had articles on each individual aircraft be registration, then they would be easy to find. The same goes for a lot of other over-categorizing on commons, like free software screenshots, for that matter. It seems some particular nationalities are more obsessive about cats within cats within cats than others there, but, to the point, what can be done? - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that if you had a lot of pictures of one aircraft then subcats make life easier but when there's a lot of duplication of the type of image (eg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:D-AIMA_(aircraft) ) you think a bit of quality control in selecting images in the first place would also be the solution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A category question

While WikiGnoming about, I had a few ideas, but I think these should be run by y'all WP:BOLD notwitstanding. To wit, they are as follows:

• Should Category:Seaplanes and flying boats be subcategorised as Category:Single-float seaplanes, Category:Twin-float seaplanes and Category:Flying boats?
• Should there be a Category:Aircraft with above-wing jet engines (i.e. HondaJet, Hansa Jet, C-14, An-72) (better name desired)?

Thoughts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with subcats for the seaplanes, but if you have above-wing does that mean you really need below wing and at the far end of the fuselage and hidden somewhere in the middle categories ? MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds overly fiddly - what is the purpose of subdividing? what does it achieve? Is it worth the bother. Where to end "Category:aircraft with single nosewheel undercarriage"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the case of the seaplanes, it's an instantly recognisable characteristic of the type (and there's a very big difference between a floatplane and a flying boat!). I wasn't as sure about the overwing jets for the reasons M1 mentions - it is a rare and distinctive characteristic, but could lead to creep I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Think the distinction between floatplanes and flying boats is well worth making, but the rest is too detailed. After a discussion a few years ago, I'd avoid "seaplanes" which in the UK, mid 20th century, tended to be associated with floatplanes, not flying boats, rather than being an inclusive term.TSRL (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So, Category:Floatplanes and Category:Flying boats, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless they are Category:Amphibious aircraft ! MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the feeling we're herding cats! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree which why perhaps we need to stop and think through the whole cat system logically as in some areas it gets a bit to detailed in the classifications used, what is actually important in helping readers find or compare stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Breaking up the jets one is problematic - I could see Category:Jets with Podded Engines vs Category:Jets with Buried Engines before worrying about overwing installations (especially when the BaE Nimrod/DH Comet will confuse such a breakdown anyway). Generally there should be no confusion as to what category an item should go under, and the categories should be designed so that any single type needs to go under the fewest number of catgeories possible - if there is confusion/argument then the categories need to be rethought. There should also be as few types left behind as possible when there are sub-categories.NiD.29 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of pusher aircraft by configuration

Please have a look at this new article. Do we need this? - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tricky - on the one hand we have an existing category, on the other this is attempting to improve by giving other pertinent info. However as its stands, the article is trying to limit itself with an arbitrary start at 1930 and incomplete. I suggest either move to list of pusher aircraft and be totally inclusive and not attempt to separate by complex configurations (just number of engines?), or get rid. We should also attend to the Pusher configuration article, which is in need of attention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of pusher aircraft types, I think a complete version of this list would probably have about 5000 entries. Does this serve any purpose that Category:Pusher aircraft doesn't fill? - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is another example of a well-meaning new editor who's done yeoman's work...but it's an article that (a) duplicates the existing category and (b) if/when fully expanded will be a rather indiscriminate list. Sad to say, I think it should be prodded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it read like a spotter's guide, something we currently don't have for other aircraft types. For that, though, the list would need to become complete and hence enormous. It might also spawn many similar, huge lists. There would also be disputes/problems over categorization. Aircraft with tandem engines or other push-pull combos would likewise need attention. The list currently only focuses on the pusher contribution; it's a list of aircraft with at least one pusher engine. Hard to get enthusiastic but I'm not sure how to argue for deletion. Perhaps a clear declaration of purpose would help; what reader group(s) would find it useful? Looked briefly at the MoS/Lists; this does not mention the need for a target readership but lists like "List of surviving Foo-fighters" have several easily defined purposes and target readerships, though they're not spelled out.TSRL (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The initial title was "Pusher aircraft configurations" (about 30 to 50 classes following level of detail), and not "List of pusher aircraft by configuration", a complete list being about 5000 entries following Ahunt.Plxd (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar lists have been nuked at AfD under the rationaile of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK then, if there are strong precedents, prod.TSRL (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Prodded. (Some of the aircraft included are somewhat questionable as well - the RFB Fantrainer, for instance..) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that jets are "pushers" as well! I seconded your PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd steer well clear of jets in this. After all, props and jets all work by speeding up the air and sending it rearwards; the tractor/pusher distinction is really only clear where there is a propshaft respectively in tension or compression. Jet engines with a combination of tractor (fan) and pusher (compressor) just muddy the water!TSRL (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it is very muddy! - Ahunt (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The ProD has been contested. Next stop AfD? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say so! - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• The RFB Fantrainer is "questionable", i.e. not a pusher ? please explain.Plxd (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a ducted fan. And even if it didn't have the ducting, it'd be an odd type with the propeller at mid-fuselage, not a pusher.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Following your rationale, a "pusher" prop must be at the rear of the fuselage, clear of any structural part ? in this case, we have to remove a lot of aircrafts from 'pusher configuration' : all the wing trailing edge props (amphibians and UL for example), all the twin boomers. The aft part of RFB Fantrainer is not a fuselage (a faired volume enclosing crew and engine), but a structural aft extension towards the tail, like twin booms or axial upper boom (Mini-IMP, american eaglet) or lower boom (amphibians).

2. ok with TSRL, no question of jet propulsion. If the RFB is neither a pusher nor a tractor, what is it ? A ducted fan is not a jet, just a smaller prop fitted into a duct. This comply with the very basic definition of a pusher : a propeller behind the engine. I just think of the Ligeti Stratos (ducted fan) too : there is not a pusher ? Plxd (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What about autogyros, or the Fairey Gyrodyne, these are surely "pushers". And what about compound helicopters such as Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne and Piasecki 16H? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A ducted fan is neither a pusher or a tractor. It's a ducted fan, period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, ducted fans are pushers. As Aircraft includes rotor craft, do that means that we have to include rotorcrafts in "Pusher aircraft configurations" ?Plxd (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Pusher Definition by Jan Roskam in Aiplane Design, Volume 2, page 132 :"As a general rule, when the propeller or inlet plane is forward of the c.g., the installation is referred to as a tractor installation. When the propeller or inlet plane is located behind the c.g. the installation is referred to as a pusher installation". This definition includes a ducted fan either tractor or pusher.Plxd (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because a ducted fan is not a propeller. It contains a propeller, but a ducted-fan-powered aircraft is not a propeller-driven aircraft, it is a ducted-fan-driven aircraft. I've never seen a ducted fan referred to as a prop plane, or a tractor, or a pusher. It's always just ducted fan. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Following references are ducted fan driven aircraft referred to as a pushers :

1. "The prototype was powered by a four-cylinder two-stroke radial engine, mounted beneath the main plane and driving directly a three-blade or six-blade ground adjustable pusher ducted fan." in http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/BankaBob/9901.htm

2. "The Gem (N74M) was Jim Miller's first pusher racer design". (ducted fan) in http://aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?t=7733&page=23

3."DESIGN: UniCopter ~ Pusher Prop - Type : Shrouded Propeller" and "DESIGN: UniCopter ~ Pusher Prop - Type : Ducted Fan" in http://www.unicopter.com/UniCopter_PusherProp.html

4. "an aircraft having a tail-mounted, shrouded pusher-type propeller" in http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/3968944.html

5. "This consideration... dictates that the ducted propeller be arranged in a pusher configuration.". and "Here the ducted propeller is used as a pusher", in "The Ducted Propeller for STOL Airplanes", http://faa-engineers.com/~mjgundry/ductedfan/raspet.pdf

6. "It was fitted with a Lycoming piston engine driving a shrouded pusher propeller" RFB X-114, Lippisch design, in http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/LIPPISCHE%20AERODYNE%20RESEARCH.htm

7. "light twin-boom general-aviation airplane with free or shrouded-pusher propellers" in http://www.mendeley.com/research/aeroacoustic-windtunnel-tests-of-a-light-twinboom-generalaviation-airplane-with-free-or-shroudedpusher-propellers/

8."Unmanned aerial vehicle with counter-rotating ducted rotors and shrouded pusher-prop" in http://www.google.fr/#q=pusher+shrouded+propeller&hl=fr&rlz=1R2ADFA_frFR424&prmd=imvns&ei=HXedTpmhGOXc4QSugJXEDQ&start=20&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1a0fb77b845db1bb&biw=1045&bih=857

9. "ERC's new Lynxjet is a FAST yet stable ducted fan electric powered pusher." in http://www.eastrc.org/estorelynxjet.htm

10. "What's the difference between a tractor and pusher ducted fan setup?" in http://www.jethangar.com/Ducted%20Fans/df.html

11. "The engine... driving a small-diameter, many-blade, ducted pusher prop" in http://www.wolf-aviation.org/aircraft_noise.htm

12. "The full scale flight results of shrouded propeller as a pusher type aircraft" in http://www.stormingmedia.us/78/7818/0781806.html

13. The shrouded propeller will be particularly suitable for propulsion by pusher propeller in Naca TM 1202 http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1949/naca-tm-1202.pdf

So, a lot of people consider a ducted fan as a thrust device they can fit in a pusher layout, making no difference with a propeller.

And yes, a ducted fan may be considered as just a special propeller, taylored for high static thrust.

1. WP "propeller definition : "Aircraft propellers convert rotary motion from piston engines or turboprops to provide propulsive force... these propellers are also used for helicopters, and other vehicles such as hovercraft, airboats". Hovercraft and airboats use ducted fans.

2. In "The design of the aeroplane", Stinton gives two chapters, one is "Reciprocating engines", with propellers AND ducted fans, the other is "Turbine engines".

3. Hoerner (Fluid Dynalic Lift)in Propulsion Lift chapter, explains props and ducted fans effects TOGETHER, figures and text : "Ducted-Fan Propellers. The ducted fan OR propeller is effective for etc..." page 12-6. If we focus on the main characteristic of any thrust device, the disk loading (T/S-psf), we get 3 main classes, clearly apart, helicopter rotor (5 to 15), conventional prop and ducted fan (40 to 150) and turbines (1200-1700) - Hoerner, page 12-1.

The external shroud modify the external look (it seems that is your personal classification criterion), but does not modify the physics. Plxd (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft are categorised and grouped like so: Propeller, jet, ducted fan/motorjet, helicopters. An autogyro would be classed as tractor/pusher. A helicopter, even a compound helicopter, is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So, it would be a group "ducted fan/motorjet". In WP Motorjet, a ducted fan is included in "shaft engines" (engine, shaft, ducted fan) as well as a propeller. A motorjet is included in "reaction engines". Your categorization does not work.Plxd (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pusher aircraft are just one of a two main configurations for propulsion nothing that links the different types other than which way the propeller is bolted on which is why an article is just really nonsense. A bit like a List of tricycle landing gear aircraft by configuration or List of blue aircraft by configuration none are defining groups for this sort of article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely agreed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Pusher aircraft are just one of a two main configurations for propulsion" : ok. Tractor configurations are quite the same, prop(s) and engine(s) in front of the fuselage or the wing. In contrast, there is a lot of pusher configurations, because of the many possibilities you have to solve the engine propeller link and the propeller/tail conflict. To illustrate all those design configurations is the purpose of this article, a long way from pink or blue aircraft considerations... Plxd (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How are they different than the multitude of tractor configurations? And how can they be compared "pro/con" without WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Tractor configurations escape the aft propeller/tail conflict. Anyway, both layouts are better described by design configurations rather than by alphabetic listing.Plxd (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Pusher configuration is the ideal place to discuss such design problems. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Pusher configuration : place to definition, history, pro/cons. And List of : another place to sort, detail and describe the numerous pusher configurations.Plxd (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about definitions - if a Britten-Norman Trislander had the two wing engines drop off would it be a pusher because the remaining engine is rear of the wing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If the pusher definition is : a propeller behind the engine, a Britten-Norman Trislander is a tractor. The classification is more difficult when there is no direct mechanical link between engine and propeller, for example the first P300 Equator model (1971), engine into the fuselage, propeller in front of the T-tail intersection. In this case, as the drive shaft is backwards, one can consider it as a tractor.Plxd (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For information the article has been kept with no consensus to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where the confusion seems to be coming from when defining a pusher - the definition is extremely clear and can only become muddled when one starts bringing in nobodies from the dawn of aviation when the mass of the engine represented the single largest item the aircraft would carry, thus limiting it to being near the CG. Only after horsepower rating shot up in the 1930's did the useful load finally exceeded the weight of the engine by enough of a margin that the designers had other options such as having tractor installations near the tail, or pushers mounted ahead of the wings. To use a definition that eliminates 90% of the history of aviation is foolish. If the propeller is mounted so it is pushing into its mounting or its engine, it is a pusher. Period. It does not matter in the slightest if it is mounted near the nose, the tail or on the wingtips - it is still a pusher. Likewise a tractor configuration is any installation where the propeller is pulling forward out of its mounting, even if it is mounted on the rudder. Likewise a ducted fan may replace a propeller in any location - a Brittan Norman Islander was fitted with ducted fans for a while - that does change it into something else. Autogyros aren't even in this category either - they are not fixed wing airplanes (even when they use stub wings). There should be a seperate section for push-pull installations.NiD.29 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Help requested at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111004

A few more bodies could be used at the above Contributor copyright investigation dealing with user:Ken keisel's major contributions, some of which appears to involve rather too close paraphrasing of the sources claimed. Many of the editor's largest contributions come from book sources, so it could really do with someone with access to the sources claimed to have a look at the articles. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

May be hard to prove copyright issues as Ken was not one for providing references or sources for his edits. MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

rename Kyushu to remove diacritical marks

I would like to rename Kyūshū Hikōki K.K. and all associated aviation pages to Kyushu Hikoki K.K. to better reflect common usage. Standard English usage and nearly every reference I have ever seen in English language publications is without the diacritical marks and most searches will end up being redirected, especially when such marks are a special character.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Naming_conventions WP:AVINAME In general, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. in this case WikiProject members would be considered specialists.

The non-standard use of diacritical marks fails this test.NiD.29 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, most English speaking people can't type that in to search for it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Reader-friendly searches trump precise naming, which can come within the article.TSRL (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally disagree: the article should be at the actual name, with a redirect from the non-diacritical name. But I suppose I'm just weird that way... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Designer/builder nav boxes?

Is there a precedent for nav boxes for designers and designer/builders rather than manufacturers? Thought I might have seen one somewhere. I've just been working through some of Bill Manuel's aircraft, mostly gliders; there are about 8 of them. Must be a lot of folk who have worked in a similar way.TSRL (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! I have created quite a number of them, like Template:Frank R. Gross aircraft, Template:Demetrius F. Farrar aircraft or Template:Irv Culver aircraft. In many cases where a designer has drawn aircraft that have been produced by a myriad of companies or builders it makes sense to group the designs by designer name rather than manufacturer, although a second box for the manufacture could make sense in addition. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put one together after a quick look at your examples.TSRL (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to pick one and copy the coding - that makes for quick navboxes! - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done.TSRL (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. I just made one small link tweak. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Paragliding (police work)

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/Paragliding (police work). - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft-related discussion at AN/I.

There is currently a discussion underway at AN/I that might be of interest to members of the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

unusual Short aircraft of 1911 - existing article or not

I was wondering if we have an existing article, or a redlink, for the Short "Double-Engined Biplane". Two engines, and three propellers (or in the language of the day - one propeller and two tractor airscrews). I guess it was a way of doubling the power and thrust without having a whirling blade in front of the pilot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like the S.39 "Triple Twin" - there is as yet no article to my knowledge, something for the winter evenings perhaps. --TraceyR (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, a search for "Triple Twin" brings up the same picture. An early push-pull configuration, I guess. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(Ed conflict):: The picture at "Double-Engined Biplane" certainly shows S.39 in its earliest form, with equal span wings and two, rather than four, fuel tanks. It seems to have led to the Tandem Twin conversion of S.27, so they were not whirling blade averse!TSRL (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

S.39 first flew 22 November 1911 and the converted S.27 on the 2 December 1911, do we explain anywhere that these are individual aircraft constructors numbers rather than type numbers! MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just been watching a TV programme about superluminal neutrinos and cause and effect, time reversal! We certainly should (and may) do this somewhere, though I seem to recall the distinction was often blurred, even at the time. TraceyR is the expert.TSRL (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

TSRL: Please don't confuse access to "Shorts Aircraft Since 1900" with any sort of in-depth expertise. There are certainly real experts here but I don't think that I qualify! --TraceyR (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not helped by the Short S.27 article which has completly confused the different aircraft and numbering systems!! It appers to take a lot of time and effort describing the wrong aircraft!!! MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

But what about The Wrong Trousers? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Kite balloon" and "kytoon"

I was looking for more referencing for the kytoon page and I found this 1920 article in Flight on "kite balloon"s. However the latter appears to be a form of non-rigid airship and less of a kite/balloon combination that the kytoon seems to be. Anyone able to elucidate the situation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD for World Paragliding Association

Please note that World Paragliding Association has been created by a user with a conflict of interest and has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Paragliding Association, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II now open

The featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II 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! Thanks! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is doing OK in the review, but more copyeditting is needed. Try to help where you can. Thanks in advance. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well so much for that. :( I suggest do some more work on it and go through the A-class review again, i.e. take a step back. Maybe go back to FAC in a few months. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably opening a can of worms here but I am thinking perhaps the following pages could be merged?

Hawker Siddeley P.1127

Harrier Jump Jet

Hawker Siddeley Harrier

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

The 2 and 3 are pure duplication, and the development of the latter is so tied in with the first three they should all be together. Just a thought since there is so much duplication across all 4 pages. At least AV-16 forwards to AV-8B though.

On a related note, I am slightly surprised from the proposal discussion that the AV-8C preceding the AV-8B is a source for confusion - it sometimes happens that after a major development program is underway, a minor development is approved as an interim measure since the main program will take so long, and the minor program naturally gets completed first. I think one of the Air International editorials even discussed it once. The North American F-86D Sabredog (NA-190) has a higher model number than the F-100 (NA-180) (referring to the lowest model number associated with the type). NiD.29 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• There's no solid reason to merge all these. The Jump Jet article serves as an overview for the Harrier family. The others are all significantly different models. The FAC issue with AV-8C was just making it clear it came before the AV-8B. No big deal. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd argue that Harrier Jump Jet is a page that should be renamed, but I fully agree that all the others are necessary - they're distinct developmetns in the series. The P.1127 and Kestrel were considereably different prototypes from the rest, while the AV-8B is an entirely new aircraft that just happens to share a silhouette - note that it was originally considered to call it AV-16... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a hidieously ugly, and in my opinion completely inproper, result if the first generation Harrier by Hawker Siddeley was squished together with the second-generation McDonnell Douglas-led AV-8B. The two are similar in name more than anything else; it was a ground up rebuild using little more than the basic sound principles of the first aircraft to create a newer and more effective product. In controls and the cockpits alone, there's more similarity between an F-16 and an F-18 than there is between the two generations of Harrier. I'm not opposed to merging in minor pages, Harrier Jump Jet has served as the 'family' hub for the six seperate aircraft that could be lumped under the 'Harrier' name - The Kestrel prototype, the supersonic design that was cancelled, the first generation ground attack Harrier, the Navy's famous Sea Harrier fighter derivative, the American grand redesign AV-8B, and the British adoption of the American redesigned Harrier. If nothing else, if the HS Harrier and AV-8B were one big article, they would be so huge, Wikipedia policy would be demanding the page be split as the combination would be FAR bigger than the informal 100 KB upper limit. And that's without throwing in the four other articles ontop, which'd more than likely force it past 200 KB! That much merging makes no sense to me; to me it seems certain that the HS Harrier, Sea Harrier, and AV-8B Harrier are all well developed articles worthy to the point of standing on their own legs. Kyteto (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine that somebody has actually proposed the merge of all four articles, which is absolutely outrageous! Harrier Jump Jet should be kep separate and be made a GA so we can have a first -- an aviation Good Topic with Harrier Jump Jet as the lead article, under which goes Hawker Siddeley P.1127, Hawker Siddeley P.1154, Hawker Siddeley Harrier, British Aerospace Sea Harrier and McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Something like this

Harrier Jump Jet

articles

Hawker Siddeley P.1127

Hawker Siddeley P.1154

Hawker Siddeley Harrier

British Aerospace Sea Harrier

British Aerospace Harrier II

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Landing flare

Just for info new article Landing flare has been proded, nothing that cant or is already in the Landing article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, seconded. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree.TSRL (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the prod yet, but this is not a useful prod.  The landing article doesn't explain this, it is exactly the type of topic that makes an encyclopedia useful, and the article is the result of discussion at a DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the point, that this should be added to the Landing article. We aren't going to have separate articles on flare, hold-off, float, touch down and landing roll. It all belongs in one place. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. the landing article needs expansion, not separate stubs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO, there is a not-often-enough-acknowledged difference between a short article and a stub.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Prod was declined article has now been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landing flare. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The article AfD was just closed as speedy keep, but the vast majority of participants indicated that they agree that the article should be merged and redirected to Landing, so I have started a discussion on this at Talk:Landing flare. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"vast majority"?  54.5% of the 11 !votes mentioned "merge", and if we count Milowent as an implied speedy close or speedy change of forum, it is only 50.0%.  AfD's are not votes, and the arguments to merge petered out as the discussion progressed.  They petered out because (1) no one has been willing to do the work to move material from the one article to the other, and (2) it became more clear over the course of the discussion that Landing flare is a large topic that does not fit well in its entirety into Landing.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am more than willing to do the merger work, so you are not correct in that regard. All I need is a clear consensus to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Napier

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/Air Napier. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look notable. It must have been written by the company itself - 2 notes are pointless - one is a list of licensed NZ air carriers, with partial addresses, and another a company listing on a site that notes the details and existence of corporations. The third source mentions them once at the very end, in a sentence that isn't even completely about them, indicating they started a rival service in a Navajo. The lengths some folks will go for advertising.NiD.29 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox changes

An IP editor is making significant changes to {{Infobox aircraft occurrence‎}}. Has this been discussed somewhere? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes as undiscussed. Perhaps we can ask another admin about a semi-p to force discussion if he continues with these undiscussed changes. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected as a highly visible template particularly due its use on articles like the Polish presidential crash and the 9/11 flights etc. MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Help requested at Tupolev Tu-134

Some more eyes are needed at Tupolev Tu-134 - one or several IP editor(s) keeps re-adding some POV statements about the aircraft being extremely dangerous (and that Russian pilots were sub-standard), and the rather bizarre and completely unsourced claim that the RAF and British Airways were operators. Some sort of protection may be needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Watched! Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Semid (is that a real word?) MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Flyaway OR

Can we stop determining costs through division please? That's what gets to $16 muffins.

If we haven't been given something labeled a "fly away cost", then we shouldn't just say...

http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/280-washington/113885-boeings-super-hornet-competes-for-sales-in-congress-and-abroad House budget request of about $2.3 billion for 28 Super Hornets and $1 billion for 12 Growlers

Okay that's a flyaway cost of $82 million for the first one and $83 million for the second one.

That doesn't work as there are additional support costs included with these numbers and they exclude parts bought in previous years for these aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Fly-away costs are not program costs divided by the number of aircraft. Fly-away costs need refs that show that they are actually fly-away costs. - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is an extremely important detirmination to make. A year ago, I had the same arguement over at the CH-47 Chinook article; the price per unit had been doubled by the use of a recent Canadian deal, but that Canadian deal was for far more than just a number of aircraft, it involved an entire international maintanence depot and long term Canadian jobs in that depot maintaining Chinooks from all over the world, work that normally had been done by Boeing in the US; for the priveledge of relinquishing so much work 'abroad' so to speak, there had been a very high additional premium; more typical deals from the year before were almost 50% lower in price, and were more representative of a straight unit-purchase agreement. Aircraft costs are very open to manipulation by selective sourcing, it is necessary to take a strong look at where some prices may to being shoved around by auxillary elements and if the price given by one source is comparable to that of other sources: A one-off deal could have all sorts of hidden off-sets or penalties, or even compensatory-costing; or more famously, some purchase prices are ridiculously under-estimated to bait the buyer, then once they're on the hook the price flies up (See the Indians and their 'cheap' purchase of a 30 year old at-the-end-of-its-rope aircraft carrier that just keeps on ballooning, past the cost of a brand new carrier!). A simple fact can be so easily twisted, unintentionally or otherwise. Kyteto (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Three-view airliner drawings

A user has been adding three-view drawings to airliner articles, like File:B707-300v1.0.png to the Boeing 707 article. In my opinion they do not really add much to the article, ten were added to the 737 article which were feint and hard to see. Also concerned as being self-created that they may be considered original research! if they have been faithfully copied from somewhere then they could be derivative of somebody elses work. Just looking for a sanity check, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they are a bit hard to see in the article, the copyright issues not withstanding. It is instructive to see how this is handled in the French Wikipedia article where it is integrated into the info box. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

These drawings I think might be useful for the Design aspect of the article, so I don't think removing them is the right thing to do. Rather, can the drawings be clarified? --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that a hand-drawn sketch was seriously considered for the Chengdu J-20 article at one point, I don't think OR would be a major concern... (as a note, the free-use pictures that we were assured would be promptly available still haven't almost a year later...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Seem to be two/three issues here: utility, quality and qualification under WP rules. Perhaps it's how you were brought up, but I've always felt a good 3-way or silhouette (interchangable) was essential to a complete aircraft article, in a book or elsewhere. It tells you so much that would escape a verbal description, even where decent and usable images exist. This one is a bit faint and small and buried deep in the article but lines can always be thickened etc. I recall arguing, soon after starting editing, that 3-ways should be near the top, not down in the specs just because this offered some blank space. So I'm with the French (707) style here, ideally. Don't know about the derivative issue: if we can copy an author's numbers into specs, why not diagrams that have been altered, e.g. a line diagram produced by edge detection from a silhouette? Maybe this is a legal issue?TSRL (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that, for instance, making a silhouette drawing based on a photograph is not barred by the photograph's copyright, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Work needed on British Airways main article

Several weeks ago, the British Airways article was listed for Reassessment; it is feared that its quality is no longer up to scratch after significant changes made since the last GA review. In particular, the article has become agressively slanted towards recent events, something to be discouraged; mundane information has piled up such as over the top detailing of the cabins. I've got my work cut out for me if I want to help it; but I will do my best to respond to the criticisms listed at: Talk:British Airways/GA3. If any editors can help me in this undertaking, it would be appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

British Airways looks similar to A-class in July 2010. But the comments at the review bring up possible deeper issues. I am watching the article now, and will try to help. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Help identify this UK aircraft

This will not be easy, but can anyone help me identify the aircraft in this image? The basic layout of the internals above the bomb aimer appear to suggest it is a larger aircraft, but the contour of the bombsight window seems very odd. Also note that the bombsight and it's mounting rails on the right side of the engine extend below the line of the fuselage, which either suggests this is an atypical installation for training purposes only, or the aircraft in question would normally have some sort of bubbled-out window in this location. Even then, I cannot see any obvious signs of a place where such a window would be attached, although I may not know what to look for. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

An interesting puzzle! The image caption gives some clues. It would most likely be a WWII bomber trainer and looking though images I would hazard that the Avro Anson is the most likely type, since it did not have a perspex bomb-aimer's window, but perhaps others have some better ideas. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The RAF Mark IXa, introduced in 1938, was used on Canadian and British aircraft in the Second World War: in particular: Lancaster, Wellington, Beaufort and Stirling bombers, and Mosquito and Beaufighter fighter-bombers. Although I agree with A, the photo looks like a training aid type and likely then could be in an Anson or even a Lockheed Hudson. A museum that has a similar type in their collection has identified their example as a Canadian version, while the one on display at 1 CAD in Winnipeg is from a Lancaster bomber. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

Ok, of those two I think I favour the Hudson. The Anson and Hudson both had window plates in the same position on the bottom of the aircraft, but the Hudson is much deeper -- I just can't get my head around there's enough room in the Anson for all that equipment space you can see. But then both share a problem as well, the "bottom windows" in both appear to be squarish, not the tear-drop shape in the picture. But then what do you think, could this be it? Any other trainers I might want to consider?

Actually I realize now that I was assuming the location had to be under the nose of the aircraft. Certainly if the bomb window is located amidships, then even the Anson would have room. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is actually quite true, if it is a trainer then they may have had a cut out in the main part of the fuselage, not the nose, so the instructor could fit in there as well. That does complicate identifying it! In looking at your original photo again this seems likely, as the structure seen above the bomb aimer looks to not be the sort of thing you would see in any aircraft nose. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a Fairey Battle - the opening (on the underside of the fuselage) is the same shape, and the curved coaming over the bomb aimer is the same. The SAM Pub "Aviation Guide - Fairey Battle" by Ian Huntley has the same photo (albeit in poorer condition and more closely cropped), along with a second shot from further out that collaborates this. The caption does not say which version it is however.NiD.29 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you nailed it NiD. I found some images on the 'net of the bomb aimer position, this is definitely a Battle. I never would have got that on my own! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And now you know. But is knowing half the Battle? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Booo! :-)

Does anyone have a copy of...

Air Publication AP1730A? The RAF Museum will copy it for me, but it's 188 pounds plus postage, and I simply can't afford that right now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, is it that heavy? LOL? Bzuk (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC).

Operation Sigma

This post-war UK sailplane was designed by Operation Sigma Ltd and the flying version was known as the Operation Sigma Type C. We have an article on this aircraft (though the types are not mentioned) under Sigma (sailplane), which seems hard to find and non-standard. Is there support for a name change to Operation Sigma? Ellison, in British Gliders and Sailplanes, calls it that. I can hear that it sounds like an SAS op, but that was the company name.

Flight 1971 list of sailplanes has Operation Sigma Ltd wth the aircraft listed as "Sigma I" which might technically make it the Operation Sigma Sigma I, but "Operation Sigma Type x" or "operation Sigma x" will do fine. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Operation Sigma Sigma would be best, as the Types A & B were only distinguished by "minor differences of construction" (Ellison) and the Type C by more serious structural revisions; they were all aerodynamically similar so arguably variants of a single type in the standard usage of type.TSRL (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Move made.TSRL (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Aircrashes needing a broom?

I noticed the 2011 aircrash navbox is getting...large. I doubt a lot of those incidents are notable; I've started the cleanup by prodding Majuba Aviation crash. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

...which has already been AfD'd with no consensus. Nominating again, then! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft type

Just reverted a change to Template:Infobox aircraft type by User:White Star Line Fan, it was to add a new field Aicraft family (no not a typo!) and change Built by to Builder. Has this been discussed anywhere? Just a thought but should we protect this template like the others due to the widespread use in aircraft articles and potential damage. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes! With a note to gain consensus here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Protect. The infobox may not be perfect but it's core and any change needs discussion and support.TSRL (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

HVT protected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Hawke's Bay

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/Air Hawke's Bay. - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is notification that article's deletion has been appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_6#Air_Hawke.27s_Bay - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Aviation books

These two English Electric/BAC Lightning (book)/English Electric Canberra (book) books have just come to my notice again, I had proded them a while back as non-notable. They appear to be promotional and just like hundreds of others on our bookshelfs. Before I go to AfD anybody explain why these Bruce Barrymore Halpenny books are any more notable than the hundreds of others? MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In looking at the third party refs in both articles they do seem to make WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

However, the notability guide on Books says meeting the criteria is "not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book". Has the book had an influence? Can the article grow beyond a stub? Are we just repeating book reviews rather than finding critical evaluation of the book's significance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated them both for AfD - I don't see the notability here. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There's Bruce Barrymore Halpenny bibliography which has a number of titles bluelinked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Eject Eject

Canadian Air Forces Ejections!! MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Robert Calvert's work: There's only one course of action left..to take...I'd better make it straight into Ejection AFD ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't they mean Canadian Air Forces erections? Buildings, and such, of course ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

Prodded for bailout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This one looks like it has made a reappearance under a new name Canadian Air Force Crash/Ejection History. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Now at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Air Force Crash/Ejection History. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of intent: upcoming GAR of Republic F-105 Thunderchief

I recently examined some of the project's older standing GA-quality articles, and came across this particular entry. While there is nothing radically lacking in terms of content, citation style is considerably poor. Books, rather than specific pages of books, are given in citations; and there are paragraphs completely lacking evidence. There's a handful of non-RS refs, but considering how few there are in numbers overall they make up a notable minority in terms of proportion. As I feel that the article isn't up to scratch, I firstly have placed a message here on this article's condition, hoping that some of the involved editors can help refit it to the higher standards of today; and secondly of a longer-term intention to list the article for a Reassessment of its quality if time passes with major issues remaining outstanding. It strikes me that in the long term, either the article should be overhauled, or it should not hold the status it currently has been designated. Kyteto (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the higher priority should be on replacing the non-WP:RS references. This article made GA in 2007, and was reasssesed in 2008. I'll see what I can do about the current tags in the article. If anyone sees non-RS references in the article or other issues, please tag them so other editors can find them and hopefully fix things. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked for tagging the non-RS sources to help in finding replacements. But, whatever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Much of what's cited to Knaack doesn't actually appear to be backed up by the reference - the article will ned a lot of work to keep GA (or even B-class).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good work, Nigel. It is progressing well, I think. I am trying to add some text on the later variants to the Development section, since there were barely mentioned there. I have the Richardson and Peter Davies books that I'm trying to use. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is in much better shape. But there are several tags remaining. About 4 cite needed and 4 page number needed tags. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice re: Ryan kirkpatrick

This discussion at AN/I may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on an article...

Keeping an eye on Dream Chaser might be a good idea - a clearly COI/promotional account tried to turn it into a spammy puff piece. The account has now been blocked but they could always try again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

F-35C and Nimitz class

A discussion at Talk:Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier#Features may be of interest to project members. If the editor is correct that the Nimitz can't launch F-35Cs, that would certainly be relevant to the F-35 article. - BilCat (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no credible source avaliable that states the Nimitz class won't be able to fully operate F-35Cs. We appear to have a tenditious editor hung up on a minor point, so while we can't remove the offending content from that page, there's nothing to add to the F-35 article. Moving on! - BilCat (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, there's every chance he'll be proven right in the end and no F-35C will ever operate from a Nimitz class carrier - it might well get cancelled! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but then it couldn't operate from a G. Ford class either, but he has sources that say is can! ;) For some odd reason, he's hung up up the Fords having EMALS as an indication that the F-35C aren't capable of using steam catapults at all. All USN carrier aircraft undergo catapult trials, but he's taking the trials as an indication that the F-35C was never capable of using steam catapults! Talk about Synthesis! What's he going to say when he finds out they have to do cataupult trials with the EMALS for all the carrier aricraft, including the F-35C?? Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering that F-35s are being launched from steam catapults right now at Pax River, too... Facepalm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if the F-35C was not capable of being launched by steam catapults from the Nimitz class, "period", Hcobb would have found umpteen sources from the Congressional record and POGO, and posted them on the F-35 page long ago. :) So I wasn't too worried. - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems beyond question that the aircraft can use steam catapults, the US Navy is hardly going to phase out 11 carrier's worth of F/A-18 Hornets, replace them with F-35Cs, but only able to operate them from one/none of them. Why the plane would care about the means of propulsion of the catapult being derived from is not quite in the realms of my imagination; the steam catapults produce more airframe stresses but that's about it. Then again, the electomagnetic disturbances caused by the intense close range electromagnetic field of an electro-catapult could feasibly disrupt or even damage avionics that weren't intentionally shielded with this purpose in mind; in effect preventing some aircraft or aircraft equipment from being used at all. Incompatibility with electro-catapults seems more feasible to me than a 'manual labour' style steam-powered one. Kyteto (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Avro Duigan 1911

There's an editing squabble here over the role of S V Setty in Avro design. A third party, perhaps an early aviation expert, might provide moderation. There are declared family interests involved.TSRL (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A Tradition of Excellence

I have started a discussion on the use of this reference, which is used extensively in a number of aircraft articles, over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_Tradition_of_Excellence. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bell D-188 bonanza

Those with more writing time than I have lately might be able to make a lot of hay out of this Retro Mechanix stuff from the National Archives! [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! There is all kinds of stuff on that site! I didn't know it existed. It's a treasure trove of many types of aircraft and design studies, most of it from the manufacturers themselves. Is there any info on the copyright status of the images on this site? - BilCat (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the D-188 images at least are all National Archives and Records Administration stuff (Records Group 72). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Images

While I applaud the efforts of Russavia to gain permission for new images to be uploaded to images and a some of them fill gaps in the coverage which is a good thing. But I am seeing a lot of image stuffing in articles that do not need more images and particulary worrying (and I have reverted some of them) is the replacement of perfectly good images with these newer images for no particularly good reason. Sorry just a moan. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The complaint is justified. I have removed a couple myself, particularly when they replaced better photos and drew attention to WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES. Not sure the message is getting through, though. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Something's wrong here...

Hi guys, at Karhumäki brothers there is an image dated from 1927, showing the two in front of an aircraft, according to the caption the Karhu 2. Follow the link, and you will be redirected to Karhumäki Karhu 48B (the same with Karhu 1, and Karhu 3), which the article states had its first flight only in the 1950s. Where's the error here? --AdAstra reloaded (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

All the redirects assume (wrongly) that any mention of Karhumäki Karhu relate to the 1950s 48B as we dont have any articles on the older types. Perhaps we need an article on the older Karhu types. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed on an article please

We have a well-meaning but starting to get slightly tendentious editor who keeps insisting on adding "The" to the infobox name= parameter on AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird, off and on over a period of months. Additional eyes to catch that and to caution them that that's not how the parameter is used would be appreciated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Watched! - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucky Lady II

While adding a infobox to Lucky Lady II I had a look at the image (it is also used in the B-50 article) labelled as an image of Lucky Lady II. Fairly certain it is NOT Luck Lady II which was an early B-50A 46-010, cant read the serial but looks like 8056 or similar so it could be 48-056 a B-50D with underwing tanks, I dont think the B-50A had these tanks but I dont know if Luck Lady II was modified for her around the world flight, certainly expect it to have 6010 or similar on the tail. Perhaps a bit of re-captioning required? MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems so. Incidentally, the Air Force museum's fact sheet for Lucky Lady II has a completely different photo which appears to show the correct aircraft, judging by the tail number. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lifting Vehicle

Just created PAM 100B Individual Lifting Vehicle - do we have an article on lifting vehicles, a platform with co-axial rotors at the bottom! or is it just an upside down helicopter? MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that most sources classify these as helicopters. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

These things were common prototypes in the1950s. The Lackner DH-4 Aerocycle appears in JAWA 1956/7 and is described as a "single place helicopter". Its builder was de Lackner Helicopters Inc. Its counter rotating rotors were completely exposed, not ducted as on the Hiller "Flying Platform". Perhaps significantly, Jane's does not use the H word about the latter, calling it a "research vehicle" operating on the "ducted fan principle". Naked blades a helicopter makes? Certainly can't think of a ducted "right-way-up" H!TSRL (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just reading Damien Burke's book on the TSR2: in it he mentions a design proposal by Shorts for a PD.17 Lifting Platform powered by 56 fixed, lift-jet RB 108s and twelve tilting RB 108s. The idea was that this would lift an English Electric P.17A (design fore-runner to the TSR2) vertically and fly forward fast enough to enable the P.17A to take off without needing a runway Once the aircraft had completed its mission it would be able to land on the platform in mid air, which would then land vertically. Impressive...but barmy! ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lockheed Constellation production list

• Lockheed Constellation production list (L-049)
• Lockheed Constellation production list (L-749)
• Lockheed Constellation production list (L-1049)
• Lockheed Constellation production list (L-1649)

A user has added a load of production lists as above, I have added proposed deletion tags as not encyclopedic or notable, normally best to leave production lists to enthusiast websites. I also removed similar lists in Lockheed L-649 Constellation and Lockheed L-1249 Super Constellation MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is trivia and also runs afoul of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations too. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the lists on a seperate enthusiasts website. Sorry if I ran afoul of Wikipedia. If you wish to remove the lists, then I support that notion. 707 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you left the parent page intact (Lockheed Constellation production list). I have just Prodded it.Petebutt (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sleeping Tiger.- Aircraft Design Process

I'm fazed by the lack of activity in the article Aircraft design process! The article is missing some really essential headings, such as the actual design process. The article at present just revolves about the factors, constraints, design considerations and the sort, whereas the design process remains vague in its details. I understand after the AfD, there has been a lot of hesitation in its expansion and a dispute over the actual content and what not. But that's no reason to almost abandon an article that is most significant to Wikiproject aircraft Does anyone have any suitable RSs on the topic? If anyone has any material or experience in the topic, please do come forward and add atleast two, referenced, exact lines. I've got it till C class from a stub of two lines, with only 2 against B class. But leave classes, nothing gained there.
Topics like Aircraft structure, I feel, has a potential to be an entirely new article on WP, so its best to mention a bit and leave a link to the main article. Materials, Non-conventional designs - see http://www.unrealaircraft.com (yeah, not so 'reliable', but you get my point), modern CAD methods, famous prototypes, history and advancement of the design process through the ages *catches breath*, etc. Its simply ain't right for just 3-4 people actually watching and doing minor edits to an article of this significance. Forget the Afd, I don't want a kid stumped when he looks up ADP on Wikipedia for his homework and finds just two lines, trust me I've been there once. Let's do this. Écrivain (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanding this all hinges of finding some good refs. I haven't located any. Perhaps some engineers here have textbooks on their shelves on the subject? - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

One quite good one would be John Anderson's "Aircraft performance and design" (McGraw Hill) it's not, I think, his best, lacking the insights of his aerodynamics books but it would make a decent core ref. He say his book "is not a handbook for airplane design" but rather " a presentation of aircraft design, with an emphasis on the ... methodology of design. Part 3 takes the reader through an overview of the design process in general, followed by two design studies, one following the design of a prop driven aircraft than likewise for a jet.TSRL (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Got the book, thanks! Ahunt, will be mailing you the same. :) Écrivain (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

P-8 merge discussion

I've proposed merging the newish Boeing P-8 AGS article into Boeing P-8 Poseidon at here. After more a week only 1 user has commented. Interested editors are invited to comment there. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ted W. Lawson

WikiProject Aircraft,

Article: Ted W. Lawson.

In the above article, if you go to edit the contents of the article, you will see at the top two lines concerning your WikiProject Aircraft with "WikiProject Aircraft/content page". I would appreciate someone would be able to look at this and explain why it's there so I don't accidentally start something. Once again it would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I removed it as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content layout is for aircraft type pages, so it isn't applicable to biographies. Not sure what it was doing there! - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm more than willing to help this WikiProject. Thanks for taking the time to investigate it. Adamdaley (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, thanks for bringing the question here! Happy editing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"See Also" sections

See also: WP:ALSO

Just a heads-up that a well-meaning admin is tagging some aircraft articles' "See Also" sections as either Original Research or with {{cn}} tags. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Seriously? Sound's like it's getting near time for me to take a another 2-month wiki-break. - BilCat (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if an admin who is familiar with WikiProject Aircraft could have a word with him or her. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where? I have only seen the cite needed tags added on the AV-8B FAC page. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, I'm not an admin (which is irrelevant); second, I am "familiar with WikiProject Aircraft" and its long history of articles that breach WP:LAYOUT; third, apparently Bushranger recognized I was right. Now, please read our layout guidelines on "See also" sections, as well as WP:AIR's guideline which includes the exact wording as the general guideline on "See also" sections. Anyone who wants to wander by and add an article to the "See also" section as "comparable" to an aircraft does so-- what are the inclusion criteria, if the "comparable" aircraft is worth mentioning, why isn't it discussed and cited in the article so the reader can understand on what basis it is deemed comparable and by whom (source), and we have categories for similarly grouped articles to aid the reader. "See also" is intended to be minimal in well developed articles, should certainly be minimal in FAs, and most things worth inclusion in "See also" are clearly related (as one can see by clicking on the articles), which is not in the case for these "comparable" aircraft, which are often wrong and almost never have any indication of who considers them related and why, whether in the original article or the linked article. If a comparable aircraft is worth mentioning in an article, it should be discussed and sourced in the text; otherwise, we're engaging in original research. Bushranger claims that "See also" doesn't need to be cited, and is only a "tool for the reader". For that, we have categories; the relationship of the original and linked articles in "See also" should be clear, and should meet our LAYOUT guidelines. Article text needs to be cited, who claims these are related and why, there is a good deal of original research and flat out mistakes in these "See also"s (see the Zero article), and we don't serve our reader by providing them useless info that breaches guidelines. The "Comparable aircraft" section breaches both LAYOUT and WP:AIR's layout guidelines; please read them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, let's look at two examples:

1. Mitsubishi A6M Zero, tagged by me, partially corrected by Bushranger [13] after a revert. [14] The aircraft I tagged have liquid cooled engines-- why were they included here to begin with, and based on what? What are the inclusion criteria for deciding when aircraft are comparable? If they must be added to undeveloped articles, they should not be in fully developed articles, we do not repeat links in "See also" that are discussed in text, they should be discussed in text, and the reasons for considering them comparable should be cited. In this case, neither by reading the Zero article or reading the "comparable" articles is it apparent why or by whom they were considered comparable and on what basis.
2. Boeing 707, an aircraft most lay and professional readers will acknowledge is comparable to the Douglas DC-8. The DC-8 is frequently mentioned and cited in the text, and the reader understands on what bases these aircraft are comparable. We don't add links to "See also" that are discussed and linked in text-- the link to DC-8 as comparable on 707 doesn't belong there either, even though it is.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for misidentifying your status, Sandy - I'd assumed you were an admin based on your ubiquitousness around Wikipedia. :) We certainly have our differences, but given the high quality of your work and devotion to the Wiki, I'm honestly surprised you aren't one yet.

Anyway, in the case of the Zero, I'm presuming that the "see also" criterion used there was "aircraft primarily battled by the Zero" and "small, light, single-radial-engine fighters". The clear criteron there was "early 1940s carrier-based aircraft and light radial fighters from the SE Asia theater of operations", which I trimmed it to. Now, while we (again) disagree on what should be in "See Also" in aircraft articles, I fully agree that a good number of them have gotten badly crufted and need trimming. I think I'm going to make that one of my WikiGnoming tasks - going through batches of them and cleaning out the cruft so that they're useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested on this page before that we get rid of the comparable aircraft section not only for the reasons that SandyGeorge mentions but they have also been an area for fan boy wars in the past, on some articles we actually have a local consensus not to include them. Perhaps it is time to ditch the comparable aircraft section (not the first time I have suggested it!). MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally like them, but I have see a few of the edit wars over them in the past. I wouldn't oppose a move to remove them overall by the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps this is the time to revisit this once again and see if we can come up with a clear consensus to keep or remove all the "similar aircraft" lists. In which case the discussion should be here and not piecemeal in individual articles. Personally, while I do admit that they tend to suffer from vague inclusion criteria and rabid fan-boy shotgunning, they do serve a useful purpose in that they provide the readers with a list of aircraft that are actually similar, like the DC-8 to B-707, Grumman Tiger to Piper Cherokee, etc. The list also prevents a lot of "orphan tags" from being dropping into articles as, in many cases, this is the only means to get wikilinks to an article. If Wikipedia didn't seem so paranoid about "orphaned" articles (i.e. those with no links to them) then I would say get rid of the "similar aircraft" section, but as long as "orphaning" is an issue I think it ought to be kept and left to editor's discretion to add or remove aircraft from the list. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty much what WP:SEEALSO says (re. editor's discretion). They do need to be strictly policed by us WikiGnomes though! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger, I never wanted to be an admin for a number of reasons, anyway, I see now that you all are discussing this, so I can safely unwatch :) As long as FAs don't breach MOS, I don't have time to keep up, and I'm sure y'all can reason something useful up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia: I am rather disappointed that you would bring a subject up here and then unwatch the discussion. Without your input I don't see any reason why we wouldn't just decide to keep things as they are. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

On the whole, the "see also" comparable aircraft sections work fairly well and most of them include aircraft that are similar in some way or the other. Edit wars happen on wikipedia all the time over all sorts of matters, and are resolved in the usual way - so that's no particular reason for eliminating them. As regarding content - the devil may also quote scripture:

"links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one".

"links already [in] the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section.

"Links included ...may be useful for readers...including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question"

My emphasis with italics. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the "similar types" as a possible help when identifying obscure aircraft. They may not be particularly notable, but by having a listing means that the reader can quickly look for an aircraft they know about that is similar, and find a link to the aircraft they are looking for but don't have a name to search with (something search engines are really bad at). It is also useful for making comparisons between different types - without having to dig through the entire body of text to find them, and acts as a reminder of some of the more obscure types that might otherwise be forgotten. Some limits always necessary - they should be of the same era if they share a role, or be of sufficiently similar configuration that confusion is possible. I have encountered overzealous weeding of the similar section too many times and it might be helpful if the norm was to include some text explaining why the link was there.NiD.29 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of this doesn't need citations and the tags can be removed if it's something that's not likely to be challenged. For example, claiming that the 737 and the A320 are comparable is patently obvious looking at the two articles (similar era, designs, performance, markets, etc...). We shouldn't have anything in the "comparable aircraft" section that's not sufficiently obvious that it doesn't require a cite. Honestly, I think we could change all of our "comparable" lists into narrative. If nothing else, it would avoid crufty additions since it's more than just typing a link and would force an explanation as to why the aircraft are comparable. SDY (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous example of what I'm suggesting is here at the 737. SDY (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice but it wouldn't work unless a reliable source has made the comparisons. There is a good guideline working for the aero engine articles and the edit warring problems are virtually non-existent. Comparison articles get deleted on sight and comparison text in articles is almost always removed as original research. Various editors have commented in the past on why we don't compare types, the reply has been that it is not our job to do that but we should/can provide links to allow the reader to do it themselves. The 'See also' section is the only place where this can be done and is really only a short version of the category that the type appears in (with the most obvious compared types listed).

Working comparable types into the text is not always possible, during improvement of the Rolls-Royce R article I noticed that the Mikulin AM-38 was remarkably similar, there is no relation between the two engine types AFAIK (apart from it might have been copied!) but I felt the need to include it in the 'see also' section. Most readers would regard that as thoughtful/clever to link to such a similar type, wiki editors seem to think this is a bad thing which I don't understand at all. I agree completely with trimming the crufty lists seen in popular articles like the F-16 or whatever, just needs the guideline tightening up a lot to avoid FAC delegates visiting here with reasonable observations. Experienced editors should be allowed to use editorial judgement (per WP:SEEALSO), inexperienced editor entries there should be examined in detail! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that we can make a useful distinction between experienced and inexperienced editors without running into problems of WP:OWN. In my opinion, we should probably follow the aero engine lead and strongly discourage uncited comparisons (there may be exceptions, but they shouldn't be common). In short, I'd propose that we remove the "comparable aircraft" section from the template entirely. If it's similar enough, it'll be listed under normal "See also" criteria. SDY (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I think you misread what Nimbus was saying about comparisons. Comparison articles/sections of articles are discouraged, "similar engines" in See Also are not, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, exactly right except now the carefully selected entries in the 'See also' sections are being questioned. Ownership does not come in to the equation. Historically, inexperienced editors have added 'rubbish' to the section, experienced editors have removed it (more than once) and so the game goes on. A good example of how editors are given credit/allowed to maintain the standard of articles is at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Featured articles and is often overlooked, something similar should be applied to the more popular articles that are still not stable after seven years or more, they light up my watchlist daily with crufty changes and it is very tedious to be honest. The ownership thing is pushed too far and stops editors being bold, I have been accused of it many times, thus I am no longer bold or even bother to create articles and templates that might improve the project! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from on this, but it's hard to codify "experienced" in a guideline for editors. We need something in a guideline that's useful in both goose-and-gander situations, as it were. SDY (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The engine 'see also' lists are not cited (never been a requirement for that) but the selection of links is based on fairly tight criteria. I also read the WP:SEEALSO guideline as allowing repeated links that have appeared in the text, some readers go straight to that section from the table of contents and miss the text out completely. Another example is that I am a reader who wants to know what aeroplanes are similar to the C-130, one answer is the Transall C-160, absolutely belongs there but does not appear in the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I take the argument to WT:V? Core content policy is less of a mess than review standards or guidelines, and my personal belief is that we're talking about core content policy here, in some cases. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the specific concern is the "comparable aircraft" section, not see alsos in general (which are always flaky and pure editorial discretion). By saying that it's comparable, we're saying that it's similar, and that's something subject to WP:V. We have a special variant on the "see also" and that's the issue. Linkcruft in see also sections is certainly not unique to this project, but if I'm understanding Sandy's specific concern, the issue is that it's more than just cruft, there's a claim that's likely to be challenged. That said, a little bit of input as to what threshold we should use for "likely to be challenged" couldn't hurt, so you might ask. SDY (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree that see also and comparable aircraft sections are in the "flaky" and dependent on "pure editorial discretion" arena. Ever since I stumbled upon the Wiki aircraft articles, these sections were part of a special style guide that was in use for the WP:Aviation Group. The issue of making generalized lists of comparable aircraft is likely to have originated in an effort by editors to establish a category of aircraft that the particular type represented. That there are probably no established guidelines as to the submissions is an oversight, but at various times, I have seen editors attempt to make the distinction of what is comparable, for example, the same era, same mission, and so on. I would suggest that rather than the removal of these sections, that a clearly enunciated policy/guideline be added to the WP:Aircraft Manual of Style for articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

There is little point in arguing - the people who run FAC have made it quite clear that they do not accept these sections. I expect no articles to pass FA until this is sorted. It is also clear that anything that we say here or eslewhere is irrelavent - the opinions of the Wikiproject is irrelavent.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, of course, I'm not looking for mass removals of the sections ... a lot of high-quality work has gone into them, and I don't think the first step is to throw all that away. My interest here is that it seems clear that something more, some additional attention, is needed if we're ever going to get these articles through FAC ... and of course, no one is saying they have to arrive at FAC, but from time to time, they probably will. Sandy is making an argument above per the guidelines, which I won't argue, but I do have two arguments. The first is that I think there's occasionally going to be a core content policy violation here. Per WP:V, I can challenge anything uncited in an article, and the challenge stands a good chance of succeeding unless the material gets cited, or you convince people that the fact is so obvious or trivial that it doesn't need citing. Or ... in some cases, like this one ... you win if someone is challenging a link, and there's a citation on the other side of the link that supports the inclusion of that link. That's generally what protects See also links against the citation challenge ... the proof that the link is appropriate for the See also section is just a click away. So, Northrop YF-23 has a Comparable aircraft section that has just Lockheed YF-22 ... and both of those articles have citations that support that the two aircraft are comparable ... and you don't have to do any hunting around or scratching your head to figure out how they're comparable, it's clear as a bell just from reading the leads, and the information is cited. But if aircraft X says that aircraft Y is comparable, and aircraft Y says that aircraft X is comparable, and if it's not clear which citations precisely back up the connection, or if it's hard to locate those citations, then there's a policy problem. Second, the question of what does and doesn't get included in a list in any Featured Article or Featured List isn't in general a trivial question ... "oh, it's about the same size, so let's include it, why not". Browse the arguments over at WP:FLC. There's no one question to answer or one standard for citations, but the standards are generally tougher than the standards that seem to be going into constructing Comparable aircraft lists.

TLDR: Guidelines may be helpful, and make sure that readers can actually find the supporting citations in either the article or the linked article. And if you're headed to FAC or FLC, these lists of comparable aircraft may need different formatting, may need to be more rigorously argued, and may in some cases need more explicit citations than they've got now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Which, specifically, were objected to as "non-obvious" comparable aircraft for the AV-8B? Did it ever get to that level of detail? Honestly, the FAC people are arbitrary and capricious at times, and some of this may come back to what Dank and I've brought up: just because a reviewer challenges it doesn't mean it requires a citation. Honestly, the 737 article has a lot of comparablecruft in the list (e.g. the Tu-154, which is in the same ballpark but not within the diamond). SDY (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Nigel, a few upticks back on the "string", as well as the points that Dank and SDY have just made, the review and promotion of aircraft-themed articles to FA and GA status has not been hampered by the addition of a "see also" or "comparable" section, at least not in any of the articles in which I have contributed. The clear understanding that aviation articles like film articles adhere to a particular style guide, was developed under the "exception to the rule" dictum. If more elaboration and rationale to the WP:Aviation MOS is necessary, perhaps a working group can look at the issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

Well since the latest demand is that anything in See also sections should either be so obvious that it shouldn't be there because it already has been linked or cited, then iit is clear that See also sections appear to no longer be allowed, although whether this just applies to Aircraft articles, or all articles (and if so someone should really be discussing this at MOS or the appropriate Villiage Pumps) is not clear.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, see what happens when you stay away for a few days ... (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

Just as a random question: was there a general objection to the "see also" or was it specific to the "comparable aircraft" subset there? I assume "related development" might also be called into question, though that's usually more straightforward. SDY (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Only the comparable list was brought up at AV-8B FAC page as an issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The same arguments apply, however, to everything else in the See also section (and to infoboxes and categories for that matter - so if the comparible aircraft section is objected to then it wont be long before everything else has to go as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is that "comparable" could be read as implying "equal value" which is an apparent value judgment. The La-15 and Pulqui II are comparable, and I don't think that value judgment is likely to be challenged, but saying that the AV-8B and the Yak-141 are similar is a bit harder to gloss over. SDY (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Same fighter mission, each optimized for VTOL or S/VTOL operation, both falling within the same development cycle/era? However, the issue still remains as to why there is a comparable aircraft section? Should it remain, it may have to be rationalized by having an "invisible" statement in the body of the text to support the use of the section, a link to the appropriate rationale in the WP-Aviation MOS or perhaps a link to another sub-article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

In my opinion this is part of an evil plan by WP to make readers enter the wikipedia loop of eternity....as soon as you reach the end of a page you see that link you've never read before, and you click it...and you're hooked.--:) nah I've had lots of fun with this. --MoRsE (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"I've had lots of fun with this" is IMO the best reason to keep any feature ... if it pulls people in, if it makes them want to investigate, then it's a good thing. Would it be possible to put some of these links in (different) navboxes? - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the first. With regard to navboxes, not sure that would work... Also, regarding the statement earlier that "There is little point in arguing - the people who run FAC have made it quite clear that they do not accept these sections. I expect no articles to pass FA until this is sorted." - Sandy commented on the FAC for the YF-23 two months ago, and didn't make a peep about that article's See Also section. I repeatedly asked her on the AV-8B page what had changed, and she never answered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I like Bzuk's idea of requesting a justification, though I don't see why it has to be invisible. The "comparable" at the P-38 Lightning article hints at a way we could do this. SDY (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That could work - it doesn't clutter, but makes it explict why they're comparable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly made a change to {{Aircontent}} to make comparable hopefully a little clearer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary IMO, it implies that readers don't know what 'comparable' means and clutters a fairly simple template. I believe the complaint wasn't about the clarity of the header in any case but the uncited entries under it or the process of how they get there. Can't help thinking we're building a mountain out of a mole hill. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the comments at the AV-8B FAC, 'not knowing what Comparable means' was, in fact, the secondary vein of attack (So you want our readers to know how to search out an obscure guideline to understand why some Wikipedia editor considers...one aircraft comparable to another?). But if you think it's too much, no hard feelings on reverting. And 100% agree on the excavation comparision!- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the FAC nomination there were numerous other problems and 'support' votes with one line rationales always get discounted, if the 'problem' with the 'See also' section was the only problem it could not reasonably have been barred from promotion. FAC nominators sometimes feel obliged to change things that don't need changing, if not changing something stops an article from being promoted then so be it, there are other fish to fry. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The real problem, in my opinion, is that the FAC process, has little to do with improving the article - we have reviewers who demand that editors commit copyvio by sending copies of all references to them to prove that there is no close paraphrasing (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell XF-85 Goblin/archive1. Many of the so called "improvements" from "copyeditors" as part of ther review process to little but remove and dumb down content and in other circumstances would be rejected, but since everybody is obsessed with pandering to every single demand so they can get the gold star. We have a choice - either we can try and produce the best articles that we can, or we can produce dumed-down, bland and information-free articles that satify FAC drones.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That was me ... that was an experiment that I've tried exactly once in 4 years. I get that so-called spotchecks are useful, but currently, that requirement is the bottleneck at FAC, and we need to find some kind of fix for that. On the general point: some people believe that FAC is the place where all the cool kids hang out, where bad articles are exposed for what they are and Wikipedia aspires to something higher. I agree that there are a lot of smart people who work at FAC, but neither I nor anyone else at Milhist AFAICT thinks of FAC as the magical place where all the problems get solved. (A-class, on the other hand, feels slightly magical to me; it works much better than it should.) Milhist uses FAC for the benefits we get from it: our articles routinely show up in the weekly Signpost, we get access to more reviewers (and we don't ourselves have all the reviewers we need to get everything done that everyone has agreed needs doing), and it forces writers to think about how readers not familiar with military history are thinking about our articles. But there are minefields at FAC, and if articles seem to blow up at FAC, then I totally agree that it's best to stay away. Nigel, what you're saying is very similar to what WP:SHIPS editors tended to say two years ago. I don't know of anyone from SHIPS who feels the same way today. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

[Copied from my talk page] Dank, you may want to clarify what you meant by "But there are minefields at FAC, and if articles seem to blow up at FAC, then I totally agree that it's best to stay away." Is that aimed at individual editors, articles or the project in general?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If an editor or editors are running into frequent, persistent disagreements at FAC, then I don't recommend taking articles to FAC ... there's a long list of potential negative effects from arguing and not getting anywhere. For some writers of aviation articles, FAC is a walk in the park ... for others, it's a pain in the ass. Fortunately, you've got some of the best reviewers in Wikipedia willing to look at many of WT:Air's articles over at Milhist's A-class review ... that might be a better choice for some. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have never liked these sections; a little bit of list cruft, and a little bit of someone's own opinion, don't make for good articles. Get rid of them, and replace them with referenced comparison in article text, which shouldn't be too difficult. --John (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know what GAN reviewers are saying about lists these days; they used to be pretty tough on lists. WP:EMBED is one of the few style guidelines in the Good Article criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Navbox proposal

What if we just moved the whole related and similar fields from the See also section to a navbox in with the other avitation navboxes that we use? I was looking at Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series, and even questioned its usefulness on the talk page. But then I thought, why not create a generic navbox/infobox where we can add in the links on each article? Is this idea worth pursuing? - BilCat (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something like Template:lone designation, where fields could be filled in? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth looking at, although in theory "related" types should already be in the manufacturers type navbox so it is only the similar types then would need some thought. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably so. That template could be copied or renamed to use a more general name. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tube-and-fabric construction

A number of articles mention this construction method, but I found no article to link to. I thought Fuselage might be a good place, but it's not really covered there (no pun intended), and the method might (for all I know) be applicable to the wings and empennage as well. This seems like a nice short project for a knowledgeable editor. I'll be glad to help with links and hyphens afterwards. Chris the speller ^yack 15:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

They are actually two different subjects, depending if you are referring to aluminum tubing or welded 4130 steel tubing, both can be covered with doped aircraft fabric covering. Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That helps somewhat. I think a short article could describe the two types of tubing and then link to aircraft fabric covering. I'll wait a day or two for other comments, or to see if anyone is more motivated, before I plunge in. Chris the speller ^yack 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You may find a wealth of info on tube construction methods in Flight up to 1930. ( eg this from 1918 Unsurprisingly the period when wooden frames become less popular and before the monocoque takes over. Boulton Paul, despite starting off as carpenters were big on tube construction (eg Boulton Paul Bodmin). GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to start earlier than the 1930's though - Breguet was building steel tube aircraft before WW1, and Fokker during WW1 and they did have articles on them in Flight. There was a problem with welding the tubes initially. Aluminium was delayed pending stronger alloys.

Maybe break it up as: wooden frame construction -> bolted steel tubes (Breguet/REP ~1912) -> welded steel tubes with wire bracing (Fokker 1915) -> unbraced welded steel tubes (Fokker 1918) -> bolted aluminium tubes (Hawker late 1920s/early 1930s) -> welded aluminium tubes (1940s/50s?). No idea if composite frames were ever tried - probably was by someone.

Related to that is the type of truss used - Pratt trusses were the most common until bracing wires were dispensed with, then warren trusses became common. The Fokker Super Universal used Warren truss for the forward fuselage, and a Pratt truss for the rear fuselage.NiD.29 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, though much of the info is a little out of my depth. I created a stub for Tube-and-fabric construction, though the reference I tried to use is blacklisted for spam. A good source or two would help. I didn't get into history. It's almost airworthy. Have at it! Chris the speller ^yack 19:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Citing activity

Even when an aircraft has a valid permit to fly etc it may have ceased to be active. Informally, I'd try to determine activity by finding a reliably dated photo of it in the air, possibly one carefully logged as by AirBritain. Would this be acceptable as a cite on "the X-plane G-WAAH was still active as late as dd Month yyyy", do you think? Dating might alternatively come from the EXIF data, if available.TSRL (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes can be seen as original research! If it has a valid permit it could be active at any time! I suspect that if it is that notable then if it has been retired or has been seen out and about then it will be reported by some sources somewhere without resorting to referencing images. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been down this road at WT:RS, the answer was that we can not use a photo in lieu of a citation. A way round the problem would be to add the date to a photograph caption, don't think there are any guidelines against that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The reason for making AB pics the example was that they are easily found and their place, date and aircraft i/d are likely to to be right. Photo and info are clearly associated but the real interest is in the caption info. It's true that someone, AB News for example, will probably record the aircraft's presence somewhere but as far as I know it's not possible to search ABN 2001-2011 electronically. Is there a searchable equivalent (OK, Flight till 2005 but that still leaves a big gap)? You two will probably know this answer to this related question: what happens to the PtF if you break the aircraft? Does the permit remain valid whilst you fix, or try to fix, the damage? CAA permit, for example.TSRL (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a UK certificate of airworthiness remains valid until its expiry date even after a write off accident, there are plenty of other rules that discourage you flying a damaged aircraft or one that has overrun a servicing. The C of A is essentially revalidated within its running period by carrying out scheduled servicings or repairs, these will have a 'Certificate of Release to Service' (CRS) issued for each service/repair with the exception of a 50 hour/six monthly check and minor repairs/replacements which owner pilots can sign off using their flying license number (for non-commercial use). Not sure how the LAA Permit system works, don't think a CRS is used. The entries at G-INFO are pretty well up to date, the C of A validity period for non-EASA aircraft (known as Annex II) is three years, it is possible to be grounded through accident damage/technical problem and have a valid C of A showing there but it should be no more than three years out of date. In the case of a write off the registration gets cancelled and can not be re-used (unlike the FAA system).

The photo thing may want looking at again but one point I remember being made is that photos can be doctored, which is very true. The reason that I went to WT:RS was that I wanted to use a photo of an aero engine at a museum from the museum's own website to show that it was indeed there and to confirm its serial number (shown on the placard with the engine), this was disallowed at WP:FAC. We have some strange rules on WP that mostly work against good faith editors (but I digress!). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove thrust to weight please

Thrust to weight is a number that changes every minute in flight and depends greatly on the mission the aircraft is to perform. Interested readers can simply take the max weight, combat weight, max weight minus half fuel or whatever and compare this against the listed thrust. Combat radius is also strongly mission related and should only be noted when we have a well referenced mission profile for the radius. And even in such a case the aircraft will generally be noted as having met or exceeded a requirement. Really, enough OR please. Hcobb (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Errrrrr...no, both "Thrust to weight ratio" and "Combat radius" are well-calculated and often-publised values in military aircraft publications. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust to weight ratio?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm In thrust we trust! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as long as we are using published values for both these parameters and not calculating them then there is no reason not to include these. The numbers generally come from manufacturer's data and also includes the conditions under which the numbers are correct (i.e. weapons load, fuel, etc.) - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So anywhere I find these numbers calculated rather than cited I can delete? Hcobb (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Any uncited text can be removed at any time. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I can cite the defined thrust loading (sea level, clean of stores, full internal fuel, take-off condition) of at least 40 well known jet aircraft types including the Century series, MiG 15 to 23, EE Lightning and Harrier if required. If the single cite that usually covers specification sections is checked and the figure is not given then ping me on my talk page and I will check and provide an additional cite (normal practice when different sources cover different specification parameters). Ferry and combat ranges are much easier to cite as they are given in publications as lowly as the 'Observer's book of aircraft' series, it's not up to us to question how those figures were derived as they are verifiable from reliable sources. The 'Observer's' series usually qualifies combat range with a simple profile (eg hi-lo-hi) and ferry range is obviously done at high altitude and sub-sonic speeds for economy with all external tanks fitted, they don't bother to mention it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll drop cn tags then? Hcobb (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

More on Template:Aircraft specs

I've often wondered why I could not enter a note about a prop at |prop note=, e.g. say "fixed pitch, wooden". I used the get-around of adding the comment to the prop name. Having finally taken a look at the code, it's clear why prop note does nothing: it's not in the code. What is in the code is prop dia note and if you add prop dia note= fixed pitch, wooden, the comment appears after the word diameter. I'm minded to change the variable name, ie. del |prop note= and add |prop dia note= in the template, leaving its code untouched, if no-one can see a problem.

Whilst chasing this issue via the code and testing the template, I came up with another oddity: if you add a comment at |more power=, this adds to the end of prop diameter. It looks rather as if the code fragment that deals with more power has got split away from its natural position at the end of eng3, perhaps when the prop section was added. I'll check the history. If right, and if no-one can see trouble from this I'll experiment. I've not edited code here before but there's only one way to learn!TSRL (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Made this first change now.TSRL (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Use template:Aircraft specifications instead, that works well enough. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Used to use it but I prefer Aircraft specs, not least because it removes conversion effort and errors. The richness e.g multiple spans for multiplanes, for biplanes particularly, or some of the glider specs, are useful. Each to his or her own, I'd say; I find Aircraft specs good but needing a tweak or two.TSRL (talk)

Proposed change to AIRCRASH

This is a notice that at Talk:AIRCRASH I have proposed a change to simplify the inclusion standard for accidents in aircraft type articles. Please add comments over on that talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

KAI T-50 Golden Eagle

A user has been using images (and blogs) as referencing (for example to count the number of T-50 aircraft in use), they have been told it is original research etc I have had a bit of a tidy up but the article has loads of refs, some for the same thing so any help with a look at the article might help, perhaps one of our article improvement guys can have a look. One source of referencing is the use of images of display boards used by the company and then photographed, they have textual information on them but I am not sure if they are reliable refs? MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier/more possible to do if any edits by anybody weren't simply reverted/ignored over, and over, and over again. It is discouraging me to take the time to peice the citation's finer detail back together if it is only trampled on by an editor who refuses anything but their way. Kyteto (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and I understand the user does appear to get it at all and rather edit war and ignore the comments on the talk page. Latest idea is to go and video the aircraft to prove they have ten flying! As I have edited the page I am really involved now so cant do much other than keep stressing the point but at the moment the article is a bit of a mess. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's actually crossed 3RR, just file a 3RR report. That should take care of him for the short term, shouldn't it? Also, I don't recall the acronym, but doesn't WP have a page to deal with RS issues also? I've been watching the conversations,a nd he definitely is one of those editors who thinks the importance of the info itself outweighs WP policies and guidelines, and that can be dealt with at the community level, as the talk page level isn't working at all. - BilCat (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, one of the MILHIST admins may be open to reviewing his actions and/or protecting the article. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to think some admin lurkers were already watching the situation. I have raised the use of information taken from exhibition display boards at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Images of display boards MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on an article...

Vought XF5U bears watching - a new editor is adding images (including one copyvio) and spurious "related aircraft" entries (apparently the Flying Flapjack is related to the Harrier and V-22 Osprey, who knew!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged two images from the article for deletion at commons, the infobox image was claimed as a possible publicity image and public domain by the air force! and a chance-vought technical drawing as public-domain of the Navy. If the infobox image gets deleted it can be uploaded here with a non-free rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was willing to AGF on the technical drawing, but as for the lead image... Facepalm That's why people should double-check before transferring images to Commons! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think people really check when I was looking at deleting duplicate images en/commons I found so many copyvio and other issues I give up. On another note it appears the official name was the Vought XF5U-1 Skimmer although that is not mentioned in the article, anybody have a reliable source on Skimmer as an official name?, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC "Skimmer" was the nicknamne of the V-173, aka "Zimmer's Skimmer". AFAIK neither the V-173 or XF5U ever had an official name, the former was called "Flying Pancake" and the latter "Flying Flapjack" most often. That said, the lead image on the XF5U page actually does appear to be a PD image per the San Diego Air & Space Museum Archive so I'll update that! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that and the PD saves having to write a rationale! MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

B-25 article

Just found this article B-25 Mitchell aircraft in Catch-22 (film) an interesting subject but appears to have fallen into the fanboy universe! MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

KB-29

User:Petebutt has copy and pasted the Boeing KB-29 article into the Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants at the same time as making a move request which I have reverted. I dont have a problem with discussing these moves but it looks like a big mess is being created. With move request tags everywhere and no actual discussion. You cant really merge a type article and a variant article without some work as to what is relevant, and you cant copy and paste without some attribution, can project members keep an eye on the B-29 articles, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• He got Boeing XB-44 Superfortress into Boeing B-50 Superfortress too, while that had had a consensus to merge he forgot to attribute it on the B-50 page...sigh! - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

Boeing YB-9

I point out a discussion I started here about Boeing YB-9 article. I suggest the name should be changed. Thank you. --Leo Pasini (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections I supporting the movement to Y1B-9.--Threecharlie (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Douglas DC-4 operators

I created a list of Douglas DC-4 operators to tie in with the Douglas DC-4 article, user User:Petebutt has renamed it List of Douglas DC-4 variant operators and added in stuff to do with C-54 and the Canadair variants. The intention of the article was as a child article of DC-4 and it was not to cover the C-54, so the article been renamed to a title that really doesnt make sense and a bit of a mess. It really needs a clean up possibly to move the article back to a sensible name and clean up the mess of navboxes and stuff in the article. Should we have combined operator articles when the type has multiple variant articles? appreciate if somebody can have a look at the article please because I have not got time to create stuff and then have it messed up, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons Aviation Wikiproject

Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Overhauled Panavia Tornado - finishing citation work needed

Hello WikiProject Aircraft. I've been putting the finishing touches on a significant overhaul of the Panavia Tornado article. While it is now larger, signficantly better cited and has a far superior Design section; not all of the long term issues have been completely resolved. Specifically, German and Italian operational history is pretty skant compared with the RAF's large section, it would be nice to recieve help expanding these. There are citation tags in the Design Overview section, the Design Upgrades section, German operational history, and the entire Operators section has had a huge banner demanding citation for years now. If anybody can help lessen or absolve these weaknesses, it would be greatly appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note my intention that, if what few issues remain are resolved (and there isn't much work left) are resolved, the article is a suitable candidate for a Good Article nomination. At this point - the only thing truely barring the way is the Operators section. Kyteto (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the Operators section would be better with the more normal bulleted format instead of the table(s). I can cite the totals in service with each operator, but not the wings and squadrons. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement, I do not like the non-standard table. It is creating a great deal more work to attibute, and it looks unattractive anyway. If you would like to remove it, you have my support. Kyteto (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the bulleted list as used in SEPECAT Jaguar - it makes it easier to add more information when available without having to cram it into the table.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Conversion has been made, it is now a normal bulleted list. Kyteto (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not split the operators/operational history off? Article looks pretty big to me. The auto wing sweep was never approved for service use AFAIK, the cite date is 1988, the RAF inhibited the system in all aircraft. The wing sweep is infinitely variable between 25 and 67 degrees, it does not have three positions, what happens beyond 45 degrees is that the wing spoilers lock shut, manoeuvring slats retract and roll control transfers solely to the tailplane and rudder. There is a system description missing, NSAS (Nosewheel Steering Augmentation System), the rudder doesn't work with reverse thrust blown over it so there is an automatic gyro/FBW system to keep it straight on the runway. Perhaps put the article up for peer review, a WP tool that seems to be falling into disuse lately. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have implimented the Design detail changes, I had no knowledge of these details before you pointed them out to me: despite a huge amount of reading in this major redrafting of the article, there is always information to add and improve on. On splitting the article up, I would prefer to wait and perform that action when further growth necessitates it - right now it is below the 100kb filesize, when it gets noticably beyond this borderland region, I would seek some portions to be spun off, probably the extensive Operational History. Thank you for your thoughts, I'll examine what's going on at the Peer Review devision. Kyteto (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you found cites for those OR snippets, in reality the airframe is only covered by three paragraphs, the FBW flight control system doesn't seem to be covered at all. Peer review is not very active, I believe it is because reviewers who point out shortcomings in articles get roasted by the nominator and they run away swiftly, it's been my experience unfortunately. I could add some thoughts to the article talk page if you like. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts are a welcome addition, they are the basis for action, and a worthy contribution in their own right - without effective criticism, a Wikipedia article is less likely to best meet the needs and desires of its readers. I recently moved the Fly-by-wire system details into the Avionics section, so that it can have a paragraph to itself without being overboard in the general section. Kyteto (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article for the capture of a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel UAV by Iran?

An editor has recently split the material on the recent Iranian capture of a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel from the article on the UAV to create the new United states unmanned aerial vehicle seizure by Iran article. I've restored this material to the UAV article, but left the new article alone and started a discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel#Separate article for the Iranian incident?. All comments on this would be great. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Boeing 767 now open

The featured article candidacy for Boeing 767 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! Thanks! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yak-141

This article's a FA over at ru.wiki now - perhaps some cross-pollination back our way could be done by those who know the language? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} [posted 13 Dec. 2011]

Piaggio P.180 Avanti‎

An editor has now several time removed cited text and quotes criticizing the noise output of this aircraft and replaced it with uncited and previously challenged text. There is now a discussion on this at Talk:Piaggio_P.180_Avanti#Noise_signature_and_objective_measurement_of_disturbance_created. I would appreciate the input of other editors from this project on the issue. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD discussion--Boeing 797

Users might be interested in the deletion discussion for Boeing 797. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed and redirected. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Multirole combat aircraft

Could some other editors look at this article. Looks like to me a lot of biased/pro-Rafale text was added over the past week. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's crap, reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon

Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

1974 Dan-Air Luton incident

Thia article is currently under AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1974 Dan-Air Luton incident (2nd nomination), does anybody else have any input?Petebutt (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

A discussion at AN/I that may interest the project is located here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

article assessment

Am I the only editor assessing aircraft / aviation articles. Very few of the articles I have created have been elevated above start, even though a high proportion of them qualify for at least C-class. There was also a huge backlog of completely un-assessed articles until I whittled it down, so who isn't pulling their weight and why aren't authors self classifying up to start class?Petebutt (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us think that assessing articles we created should be left to someone more objective! Also, like categories, there is no indication that readers pay any attention to assessments, and so most of us would rather spend our time writing new articles and improving existing ones than doing assessments. If you want to do them please feel free, but it will probably be a lonely job! - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Over on WP:MILHIST, we have a pretty active B-class assessment board. The general consensus (which I agree with) is that self-assessing as Start or C class (or Stub, of course) is perfectly fine, but that another editor(s) should make the call at B class and up. As for assessing, the remote and near-abandoned state of the WPAviation assessment-request board means I just tweak 'em as I see 'em. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem, as i see it, is that the day may come when the projects are assessed themselves to see if they run reasonably well. If we can't be bothered to even self-assess our articles, we may end up being wound up or merged , unable to function as a sub-project anymore. We have to ensure that the mechanism for elevating articles above B-class remains healthy.Petebutt (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well let's address the basic issue then - how does adding assessments make the articles better? Why are they worth the time to do them? - Ahunt (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

USAF template

For information the Current weapons of the United States Air Force navbox (actually called USAF weapons) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 27#Template:USAF weapons. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft stub by decade proposed for deletion

The Category:2010s aircraft stubs template has been proposed for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commercial airplanes

An editor just created this cat and is populating it. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Every article I've seen that added already has an airliners category. So the Commercial airplanes category should be redundant. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking that this could be added to every aircraft, as even ultralights can be "commercial aircraft". It takes "indiscriminate" to new levels. CFD anyone? - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong in that the category cannot be added to every aircraft. F-16s, for example, are not commercial and have never been, the F-16 is a military aircraft, and so are the F-14, mosquitoes, and whatnot. On the other hand, if an ultralight has been used by an airline, and only if it has, then indeed it is, or was, an aircraft with commercial use, i.e. a commercial aircraft. -Antonio Malvado Martin (Antonio) 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fnlayson:Perhaps we can merge the categories? -Antonio ajusticiador Martin (cry here} 22:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sent to CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. (Incidentally the deHavilland Mosquito has been used commercially for aerial mapping.) - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

...and deleted today. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Davegnz

User:Davegnz has left behind a lot (47) of draft psuedo-articles in user space about survivors and such like, those with a long memory will remember that the format he used was never really accepted by the project so he created his own little wiki in userspace. Anybody agree they are not really needed and if so what is the best way of dealing with them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps try WP:MFD, can't see any benefit in keeping them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Nimbus227, no retained value at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

MfD is the way to go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:Davegnz subpages created. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also known as

Is there a convention for also known as names to raise a re-direct at the time of writing an article. If not, I propose that it be introduced into an appropriate guideline. Unless there is a separate article for the alternative name it makes sense to allow enquirers to get straight to the relevant article, when searching for the alternative.Petebutt (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Whenever I start a new aircraft article I always create redirects to all possible alternative names, so that readers can find it more easily and also to prevent someone else starting an article on the same aircraft type under a different name. Perhaps other editors starting articles aren't doing that? - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know most of us create re-directs from alternate names per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) which says Whatever format is agreed or used for an article then consideration should be given to create redirects from other variations of the name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been going through my magazine library filling in a lot of obscure aircraft. Most of the pre-WWI aircraft like (John Doe's and his buddy who helped build a curtiss-like pusher), depression era one-off's (Mason Greater Meteor), racers (the hometown special aka the name of the next owner special aka the name of the next sponsor special), Some heavily passed around models like the (ERCO,FORNEY,MOONEY-ECCOUPE/AIRCOUPE), and postwar homebuilts (John Doe's X and Y special) have several names and sometimes random model numbers assigned in registrations. I know I have had a dozen or more articles I have started that I find better names for after putting in most of the info. I'm guilty of not putting in every name in redirects, because some minor variations would total half a dozen or more and the articles are easily found in a wikipedia search. (ARUP vs. Arup comes to mind). I don't mind adding redirects for all of them, I did not read that deep into the naming conventions. It would be handy if there was a script in the Aviation template, but Wikipedia does not lend itself well to that option. The question is, does having a large amount of redirects for a single article attract attention from BOTs as spamming? What would be the reasonable threshold?FlugKerl (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no convention that I know of that requires an editor to create multiple redirects at the time of article creation, there are editors who specialise in doing this and I wouldn't like to take their fun away. We are all volunteers, as with article assessment there is no compulsion to do either, nor should there be. Redirects occur naturally when redlinks get filled, creating unlikely mispelling or full variant designation redirects is clogging the system IMO. Is a reader really going to type in Grumman XF6F-6 Hellcat (an orphan) to find the Grumman Hellcat or even Hellcat? Most likely not. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't make it a "hard policy" to create redirects from all possible names and designations, but it should be encouraged for the two reasons I gave above. It also seems to reduce the incidence of "orphan" tags being sprinkled around. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Project de-tagging

User:Petebutt for some reason has been removing the aircraft project tag from within the aviation project headers on talk pages. Articles like Airbus Military for example are clearly in scope of the project. He has been asked to stop and explain. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am curious to hear this one too. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just an idea, perhaps it might be worth looking at the scope on the project page to make it clearer and give editors a clear remit of what is or is not part of the project. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Shame that it is felt that this is needed to be put in black and white, are we going to debate each article's worthiness for the project? Would have thought that any article with 'aircraft' in the title would qualify for a start? Sorry but I was completely mystified by this evening's events and had to do something. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Pete has a history of...let's call it "creativeness". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)