 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newbie question edit
When was this site created? How can i find pictures of some/all instruments discussed in this site?
You can find information about Wikipedia on Wikipedia:About. You can ask general questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk. DJ Clayworth 20:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The "short" in STOVL edit
How short is the "short" in STOVL? How short does the required runway need to be before the aircraft is designated STO? How long a runway is required for aircraft which take off in the typical fashion? -- 199.244.214.30 17:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- According to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=12049&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400 , during prototype testing the F-35 took off in STO mode in 500 feet. How does this compare to other STO aircraft? How does it compare to CTO fighter aircraft? --199.244.214.30 17:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Quote: "A Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing aircraft (aéronef à décollage court et atterrissage vertical)" Is it really necessary to quote the foreign language ? If so why?
Improving this page edit
I've located the source of the NATO definition of STOVL that was stated but not cited within this article I've added the verification of this quote which is on page 2-S-5 on this pdf http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/other_pubs/aap_6v.pdf hope that's ok --Yak-38M 23:13, 6 November 2008 (GMT)
gyroplanes edit
Don't gyroplanes qualify as STOVL? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- They probably would, if the official definition didn't specify fixed-wing. 50.188.129.46 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)