User talk:Nick-D/Drafts3

Article development

Hi mate, was thinking we could collaborate on this one given its potential size, your familiarity with similar articles, and the research from expanding the 86 Wing article still fresh in my mind. How would you feel about me dumping here what I know well and have available from Stephens and other sources to provide a skeleton, which you could flesh out with Wilson (I could probably get the book from the Mitchell but if it's just as easy for you to do it, feel free...) As well as providing more detail on acquisition, I'd expect Wilson to neatly fill the gap in the Herc's service between 1964 and 1987 when 86 Wing was disbanded, and from the '90s onwards we've got McPhedran, APDR, Australian Aviation, Air Force News, etc, etc. If we want to go into squadron-level stuff I think you've got Eather and I can get hold of the transport volume of Units of the RAAF from the Mitchell, likewise the official histories of Australia in the South East Asian wars if we need them. I also have my own copy of Air Base Richmond which was a mine of info for 86 Wing from the time the Herc entered service until the book was published in 1991 (almost the same as Wilson!) The other thing to consider is whether we'd want to produce a medium-density article to get to B/GA level in the short term, and then consider expanding to A/FA (for which I'm sure it has the potential) or go for broke at the outset -- perhaps that's something to decide after perusing Wilson... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, That all sounds great. I've got the transport edition of the Units of the RAAF series, but will need to visit the NLA to access Wilson's book. I'm going to be busy next weekend, but can get cracking after that - I favour shooting for A-class, and then seeing how things go given that sourcing might be a bit tricky if there aren't any comprehensive post-1990/91 accounts available. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Dumped first-draft material as discussed. Actually could be a bit better than first draft, I think the formatting and references are in good shape and even without Wilson the level of detail might be sufficient for B/GA (still needs the infobox and perhaps an extra line or two in the lead). A fair bit of the operational service section is lifted from other articles I've done but polished into a Hercules-centric narrative with additional tidbits; the acquisition stuff is pretty much all new. We're also fortunate to have decent images of all four models -- I've picked ones that stand out for me (like the one you chose for the lead, too). Anyway, see what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That all looks really good. I've just added some material on the acquisition of the other variants and the retirement of the C-130Hs. In the longer run there's probably a fair bit more to be said about the C-130Js - the RAAF was the lead customer for this variant, and apparently had to put a lot of effort into fixing their many problems. I think that this could 'go live' pretty soon - I'll add the infobox tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate, the material from Military Aircraft of Australia helped a lot; although I tended to agree about going for A-Class with Wilson's Dakota, Hercules and Caribou material, and the suggested additions re. the J model, I think we definitely have a B/GA article here right now, once the infobox comes, and may as well go for that in the short term. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Was there anything more to do on 86 Wing? I thought I'd nom for ACR once the GAN is closed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's good to go. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

• As I've said, I like the one you've chosen as a lead.
• The A model one, aside from being a nice shot in itself, is I believe the only PD one at AWM. P00448.137 would be useful for the acquisition section but is currently AWM copyright; I've already sent them a note querying if it might not be RAAF or US Government, and thus PD, so we'll see.
• The E model one, aside from being a nice rendering of that particular Herc livery, is I think the only PD C-130E one we have. P02320.015 is a nice leftwards-facing shot in Vietnam, but is marked "copyright status to be assessed"; I've also queried that with the AWM.
• The next shot down is just one I liked from the MEAO but not wed to it; it's obviously an H model but not I think marked as such.
• I also like the J one taking off but perhaps it'd be worth using a leftwards-facing J shot and having two on the left and then two on the right to keep the "inwards-facing" concept but also have some balance. Just thinking out loud as we should finalise things soon... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I really like the E model photo which does a good job of illustrating this colour scheme and showing the aircraft at work. For the H model, File:RAAF C-130 Iraq 2008.JPG might be a better choice, but there's a lot to be said for the current photo given that it shows some of the ground crew needed to support these aircraft. File:RAAF C-130H landing March 2011.JPG is a nice photo, but has no particular historical value. None of the J model photos really grabs me, but the current one is the best of the lot IMO (File:RAAF Hercules CBR Gilbert-3.jpg is OK, but seems to have a barrier in the foreground (note the magpie viewed only from the shoulders up) - if this was taken from where I think it was taken, it would be part of the wall on the roof of a multi-story carpark). To cut a long story short, I'm happy with the current photos. Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • For the H model, how about File:Australian C-130 H being unloaded at Tallil Air Base in April 2003.jpeg - I just found and uploaded this photo, and while it's not great technically, its a fairly dramatic photo of the aircraft at a forward air base during the Iraq War (note that the aircraft is being unloaded with its propellers still running). Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Had a go with 2 left, 2 right, including the Gilbert one (not sure what you meant about that one, looked all good to me, or perhaps I missed something). I quite like that last one you mentioned as well but it is a bit dirty. Even if we don't end up using it in this article I might give it a clean up some time and upload again... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments

I think that this is ready to be moved into article-space (via copy-and-paste rather than a move given that this page's history also contains the development of other articles). However, I also have a comment about the current text, and ideas for further development

• "The Australian Government haggled with the RAAF over the price" - this is a bit confusing. The usual procedure is that the RAAF provides a submission to their Minister and/or Cabinet seeking agreement to a purchase, and for the Minister/Cabinet to respond to this (after taking advice from other relevant government departments, and especially Treasury). I presume that what happened is that the Minister/Cabinet queried the RAAF's submission (with Treasury probably being the source of the 'three is enough' argument) and suggested purchasing a smaller number of aircraft, but the RAAF managed to prove its case.
  • Yeah, Stephens doesn't go into that much detail. I think about all we could do is substitute "expressed concern" for "haggled with the RAAF" (which I admit was a bit cheeky!)
• In regards to further development, the article should cover the use of C-130s in the maritime search and rescue role (including, from memory, tracking the North Korean vessel involved in the Pong Su incident), any significant accidents, and (if possible) an explanation for why the RAAF has such a good safety record with this type.
  • Re. SAR, I reckon I can find something; re. the safety record, we mention "accident-free flying hours" a few times but not sure I've seen a specific explanation for it...
• The material on the acquisition of the various types could be fleshed out in the longer run, and any significant upgrades could be noted (I'll try to find material on these topics). Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Re-jigged a bit more, partly in response to your suggestions above. Unless you can spot something I've stuffed up, I think we move into article space and ask for B assessment (and then GAN?) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ian, what does Roylance say about the evacuation from the Gulf in 1990-91? David Horner's official history volume says that C-130s were placed on alert for this task (with two being held at Cocos Island and later Singapore in January 1991), but that they were never needed. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Royalnce stated that C-130s and 707s deployed to evacuate people, and that a team from No. 3 RAAF Hospital accompanied them but "happily they were not needed". I read this as the aircraft performing the evacuation but the medical team not being required; looks like he might have meant that the aircraft weren't required either... Do you want to re-word or just drop it? Not too fussed either way... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll tweak it to what the official history says: the aircraft were deployed, they just never made it to the Middle East which is presumably what he was getting at. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done - though hopefully it's not too long winded. Did you want to do the honours by moving this into article-space? (which seems fair given that you wrote the bulk of it). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see it as very much a joint effort... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)