Talk:Aero L-39 Albatros/Archive 1

Archive 1

lithuanian air force...

there's a strange inconsistency in the list of users... the lithuanian air force is mentioned twice with two different sets of aircraft... i suppose the latter one is correct but this is just a hunch... - Blueshade 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

specification format question

I wanted to make some changes, but I have noticed that most pages about airplanes have a certain format (giving only certain information) so I wonder if that is part of some project or..? (I am quite new on wikipedia). Data I wanted to add/change is:

Dimensiones

• Length overall: 12.13 m (39 ft 9½ in)
• Height overall: 4.77 m (15 ft 7¾ in)
• Wingspan: 9.46 m (31 ft 0½ in)
• Wing chord (mean): 2.15 m (7 ft 0½ in)
• Tilplane span: 4.40 m (14 ft 5 in)

Areas

• Wings (gross): 18.80 m² (202.36 ft²)
• Ailerons (total): 1.23 m² (13.26 ft²)
• Airbrakes (total): 0.50 m² (5.38 ft²)
• Vertical tail surfaces: 3.51 m² (37.78 ft²)
• Tailplane: 3.93 m² (42.30 ft²)

Weights and Loadings

• Weight empty, equipped:
  • C 3,459 kg (7,625 lb)
  • ZO 3,488 kg (7,690 lb)
  • ZA 3,656 kg (8,060 lb)
• Maximum take-off weight:
  • C 4,700 kg (10,362 lb)
  • ZO and ZA 5,600 kg (12,346 lb)
• Fuel load:
  • fuselage tanks 824 kg (1,816 lb)
  • wingtip tanks 156 kg (344 lb)
• Maximum wing loading:
  • C 250.0 kg/m² (51.23 lb/ft²)
  • ZO and ZA 297.9 kg/m² (61.01 lb/ft²)

and some more - Icemaja 13:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

All aircraft articles are under Wikiproject Aircraft. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content for recommended layout. WP:Air is currently using a template to generate specifications. However, you can add specifications beyond what is in the template -- the template page explains how to do it. The specifications in the template are the result of a consensus among project members. A question to ask of yourself is whether the extra specifications you want to add will significantly contribute to helping the reader understand the aircraft. Wikipedia is not a flight manual and including every tiny parameter may be excessive. If you wish to use unconventional parameters C, ZO, and ZA parameters (whatever they are), you must explain to the readers what they mean and why they are significant by making them wikilinks and writing wikipages about them. Thanks for contributing! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a prompt answer. I just read the article and I see that rules are still quite loose, but I also prefere articles to be standardised to a certain degree. However I must say that I do prefere the old table standard to this, mostly 'cause it is more informative and easyer to view. Also I would like to have more information than this format supposes. I believe that people visiting these pages are truley interested in airplanes. On the other side I am an aircraft engineer so for me every information is valuable, but I must say that what I wrote above is a standard piece of information about any aircraft.

p.s. The C, ZO, and ZA are aircraft versions mentioned earlier in the text. - Icemaja 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The table vs in-line specs has been discussed back and forth. The problem with the table is that it takes up a large amount of space even at high screen resolutions. Regardless, we are in the process of converting all specs to a template so the layout can be quickly changed across all pages if it comes to that. As far as C, ZO, and ZA, as you've read, the consensus is to present one most representative version. Differences between versions can be elucidated in the Variants section of the article.

The issue with too many specs is that 99% of the aircraft will not have things like tailplane span and aileron area available. Hence, it's easier to write them in manually than to include them in the template which most of the time would simply generate an unnecessary load on the servers. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I scrolled hrough the text last night so I didn't even opet the airtemp page. Ups! So thanks for converting it and I'll be sure to use the template from now on. One thing though, it would be better to use another way to mark new lines (those not in the template) other than with (*) since now it looks like those lines are connected to the line above them... - Icemaja 11:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The way to work around the template indentation issue is to end your alt line with )</li> and start a new, fully-formatted line with <li>.

This page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content has instructions on how to quickly insert the template or even create an entire new pre-filled page for aircraft. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Advertising ?

Does external link to "Pride Aircraft" meet "Advertising and conflicts of interest" [[1]] policy requirements ?

In my opinion, yes. --Woodp5 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer's full name

The L-39 Albatros is manufactured by Aero Vodochody. I'm curious to know why the Vodochody part has been left out of the title and entire article? (And yes, Albatros is spelled with a single "S".) --Woodp5 20:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That confused me, too. Aero Vodochody says the company is "commonly referred to as Aero; Vodochody is a location" and all the planes are listed as "Aero Modelname." The company's (L-39 brochure) even says "The AERO L-39 ALBATROS is...." Seeing as the infobox spells out the whole name, I think it's fine to use the common name in the article. P₁h₃r₁e₃d₁₃ 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidents

Apparently, reference number 8 and reference number 9 refer to the same crash: a Gadsden-to-Muskegon flight. Note that reference number 9 dates the crash "on monday", not July 2. Aldo L 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC quotes Garry Kupalba, whom they identify as "the deputy defence minister of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia" as claiming that an "L-39 aircraft of the Abkhaz Air Force" shot down a Georgian "Israeli-made Hermes 450" over Abkhazia, whereas the pictures of the attacker seem to show a Russian MiG-29. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7358761.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like pretty much all of these incidents are not very "notable" (except the alleged incident mentioned in the last comment) 98.207.51.106 (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable incidents

Im pretty sure there are some REAL NOTABLE INCIDENTS in which this aircraft has been involved and im not now talking of shit thats already listed, like some random Americans suiciding in these planes, which i would hardly count as "notable" at any rate..

I can arrange a ride for you pal. What do you think of that? Al from the USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.43.224 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

This article states: "The first legally registered L-39 private aircraft was successfully flown on a cross country ferry flight in the US on December 9, 1992 with Pilot D. McCue and observer J. Yurick." This is historically significant? Like, who flew the first L39 flight from Cairo IL to Little Rock AR? As there is no reference, looks like original research in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of YouTube references

One editor has repeatedly added text supported by references from YouTube. There is no prohibition on using YouTube references as long as they do not violate WP:COPYLINK and come from reliable sources. The reason I have removed these ones is that they fail verification. None of the three refs cited mention the use of the L-39 and in fact one specifically calls the shot down aircraft "a MiG", right or wrong. Despite claims made in edit summaries, Wikipedia article content is not based on the truth, but on verifiability which means for these claims to be kept proper references from reliable sources need to be found that indicate that L-39s were used in these incidents. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have an edit war going on with IPs constantly inserting YouTube refs that do not support the text. Interpreting videos of aircraft to identify aircraft when the news broadcast cited does not identify the aircraft type is WP:OR and is not permitted. These items require proper refs or they will be deleted as per policy. If these incidents clearly involved L-39s then other media will have reported it, all you have to do is find that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User Mt hg: Please stop removing "Failed verification" templates from this article - the refs that are tagged do not support the text. The templates are there to let people find alternate refs and then these non-compliant refs can be removed. You can note that you have also been warned on your talk page about a personal attack in this edit summary. - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:AIRCRASH we don't list every shoot down of military aircraft in combat in a type article. One editor keeps adding every incidence of these being shot down in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. As per WikiProject Aircraft consensus, I propose that these incidents be removed and replaced with a general statement that the type was used in the conflict, as supported by the refs. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support that.TSRL (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Me too. But this must be highly emotional for some editors, and I'd like to help find a better home for these reports. Does anybody know of such a web site? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be a consensus then, with no dissenting discussion here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual engagements

Following up a comment made by User:Mt hg (Talk) in this edit that, "This approach is not shared with all the other military fighters.". That was in reply to my earlier comment that "This is not a news channel" when I deleted accounts of two (unverified) engagements here.

So I asked for examples of the opposite approach on their Talk page.

Since then I just checked a couple of other pages:

• Aero L-29 Delfín (another Aero type that saw military action) mentions specific wars but does not go into individual engagements.

• Bell P-39 Airacobra (chosen pretty much at random) again sticks to generalities - and for a type that saw action in WWII, that comes as no surprise.

But maybe one of you knows different? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The other issue here is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which essentially means that just because other articles have problems doesn't justify this article having the same issues. We can fix this article without having to also fix all 4M other English Wikipedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image

I have replaced the lead image, a wonderful shot that was not captioned correctly with a new photo, at a higher res, with a new photo that is captioned properly and provides a better depiction of the aircraft. I have a LOT of new photos from Reno last Sunday and this may not be the best image that I can contribute, so this may change as I continue to review my work. I invite others to review the few images already loaded and LMK your thoughts. talk→ WPPilot  13:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) L-29 in military markings at Reno

The infobox photo has been changed a couple of times in the last day. As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES this should be discussed prior to any change in image. Personally while the Reno air racing images are fine shots, since the predominant use of the aircraft type has been military service, I think the lead image should show it in military markings. I thought the previous lead image (right) of it in military markings at Reno was a good compromise in role illustration. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(2) L-39C in Czech Air Force service

In many ways the image at right is a really good one as it shows the L-39 in flight and in its original Czech military service markings. I would really prefer not to see the lead image of a Reno air racer in civil markings, just because that is a such a niche role for the aircraft and just not representative of its main employment as the leading military jet trainer in the world. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, every photo on the page is of a civil use aircraft that has raced, at Reno. While it was once a plane that was popular in Military use, the overwhelming number of already accepted images, of the racing aircraft in Reno makes the paint job immaterial. The red plane has wonderful contrast and detail but as I edit I will see if one of the Military paint job planes might fit your bill, and still provide that same dramatic effect that this new shot provides. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  13:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, I do not think that the image you just posted is as detailed and encyclopedic as the one that I posted. These planes are all over the place, in that these things are sitting around airports all over the world. talk→ WPPilot  13:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It does seem like there is only one military image in the article right now. That is a problem as the predominate use in the past and today is as a military jet trainer, not an air racer, which only accounts for a handful of aircraft. Commons has lots of military images available so it isn't due to an availability issue that we have such a non-representive set of photos. Okay let's find some good images and post them here and hopefully some other editors will join in the discussion so we can find a good consensus on the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK that's fine but just from a professional perspective, I think that a Image that is 172 KB, such as the second suggestion you offer here taken in 2007 would not be as desirable as a 4,552 × 2,744 (5.39 MB) professional pic, taken a few days ago, based upon the standards for lead image. talk→ WPPilot  14:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is a history of the type I don't see how when the image was taken is relevant. Also since it is a thumbnail in the info box the image size isn't all that important either. I think it is more critical to have a lead image that is representative of the main employment of the aircraft in service. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Its more about the technology of digital photography. A higher res photo has a lot more desirability from a reuse perspective, then on that tiny 8 year old photo. I have a lot of media to review so lets let this ride for a bit, and I invite you to assist in updating the Reno Air Race with me, its really bad and does not provide a adequate representation of the event. We can come back to this in a few days, after others chime in. Is there a Aviation admin group that we can reach out to? talk→ WPPilot  14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is great to have high-quality photos available for re-use, but that is why we have Commons. They don't have to be used in the article if they are non-representative, for instance. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to get some wider input on this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that File:Aero L-39C Albatros, Czech Republic - Air Force AN1705130.jpg image 2 on the right is more representative of the type and clearly shows the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne: this image best shows the form of the type, especially the tail plane. I have not considered image resolution, it is utterly irrelevant for a thumbnail here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur that File:Aero L-39C Albatros, Czech Republic - Air Force AN1705130.jpg should be the lead image; as a military type one in military service should hold pride of place; it is an in-flight image to boot. Resolution is, as mentioned, utterly irrelevant at page size. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Czech air force image has better contrast, is more represetative, and the size is irrelevant so long as it is clear in the thumbnail.NiD.29 (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it has been a week without further comment I think we have a clear consensus here to use the Czech air force image for the lead.  Done - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose the merge as the subject is just a variant of the L-39--Petebutt (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - It seems sufficiently different to support a separate article for this variant. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The L-39NG is an upgrade of engine and avionics. That makes it a variant easy to include in a single article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Seems like a modernized variant to me, and there's too little content to justify a separate article at this point - if this substantially changes, I'll be happy to revise that position accordingly Kyteto (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Just a variant FOX 52 (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this item can be closed and the two merged. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - While the first phase of the L-39NG program is really just an upgrade, the final version will be basically an entirely new aircraft. It is similar to Aero L-39 Albatros and Aero L-39MS (export designation Aero L-59 Super Albatros): "Compared to its predecessor, it (L-39MS) featured a strengthened fuselage, longer nose, a vastly updated cockpit, advanced avionics (including head-up display), and a more powerful engine." In my opinion, this is the same example. Finally, there are S-211 and M-311: "(M-311) is based on the earlier S-211, with the addition of both structural and equipment improvements. The airframe has been strengthened, and a glass cockpit and modern avionics have been added."--CS92 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose 50 years is enough of a difference to sustain two articles. "Merge all variants" is clearly not a principal that is followed on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Closing - I think this now can be closed, after 10 months as "no consensus" - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

needs corrected

The second paragraph contains "Since the 1990s, it has also become popular along [sic] civilian operators" Shouldn't that read "...popular among civilian operators"? Xapie128 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that!  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)