Fnlayson

Hello Fnlayson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help Where to ask a question Help Desk Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Archives

Archive page 1

B-1 article

Wow, I didn't realize I hadn't posted in my refs, my apologies. I'm surprised no one pointed it out to me earlier.

The good news is that they're fairly easy for me to find again. The descriptions of the background AMSA is a much shorter version of information found in this and Joe's. I basically reduced the entire series to "After a prolonged development period", I didn't think the long series of previous studies was too germane. The comment about the progress of aviation was ad-lib, but I think safely non-contentious. The turbulence reduction system, SMCS IIRC, is mentioned in both articles, and the comment about using it for airliners comes from a late-70's issue of Popular Mechanics (maybe 80?). I can find it again, but that one might take me a while. Actually there's a lot of interesting information in [1] that I think should be mentioned (the tie-in to the ATB for instance, and the changes before the first B-1A's were actually built), but I was afraid it might be took long already. The two paragraphs about the need for the B-1 (in the middle) in terms of penetration and the whole debate within the AF and gov over the need for a new penetration bomber is discussed a little here, [2] (2nd page of above), but nothing that "direct" (see below, I'll discuss this). The addition of new electronics between A and B is also documented there, although the reason is not (also see below). That Carter questioned the expense of such a system in face of the B-52/ALCM is contained in the references above, and that the B-1A was cancelled for the ALCM as well.

I then noticed there are several cite tags in the article, so I'm assuming that's what you're most curious about? The comments state "para needs a ref" but given the information it's a little difficult to know for sure what the issue is because they are all drawn from multiple sources. For instance, the comment about the survivability of the SLBM force and the need for a strategic bomber is a subset of the Triad debate, and I think is essentially non-contentious. It is ad-hoc, but I felt the article needed it as background for the debate that was taking place, and it's all covered in documents like this, when the generals were called on to defend the concept. Note that references to defending the concept are always written by the USAF :-) That it was a debate at all is more difficult to ref of course, but one can see mentions in the few policy documents from that era one can find like here (just an abstract) and the GAO report which questioned the entire concept in light of inflated claims. Modern arguments are almost always based on keeping the bombers for the conventional side, and I've even seen a call to eliminate ICBMs in order to keep the bombers. I believe that covers every statement up to "Flight tests of the four B-1A models...", which is the B-1A section.

In the B-1B section I see two tags. One is about the introduction of look-down systems. This was known by the defection of Viktor Belenko, who described the "super MiG-25" as having look-down capability in order to attack cruise missiles. The MiG-31 article talks about this. That new the ECM was actually added is referenced earlier (and in practically every B-1 article). The second tag is the mention about the spreading of the defense contracts was already there, my addition in that area was to mention the greatly increased price and the debate it sparked. I think that's it for the B-1B section.

However, it was while looking for the comparative weights for the comments about the B-1_A_ carrying less load than the B-52 that I got a little confused. All I can find now is 60,000 lbs for the B-52, and a single mention of the _increase_ between the A and B models here. However this leads me to believe the B-1A was in fact much larger too, so I've removed this claim even though I was led to believe it by a B-52 pilot (ahh, politics). I'm also a little suspect of the language I used in the "unkillable" comment, and I'd like your thoughts on that.

BTW I'm looking over the edit list to try to figure it all out and I see you've really done a lot of work beating it into shape. Kudos. If I have missed anything above, let me know!

Maury 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maury. I know almost nothing about the background and early politics of the B-1. -Fnlayson 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading it all I also decided it simply rambled. I think the expansion into the background is justified, so I've dramatically lengthened this section. I hope you'll agree that the whole Triad debate now reads better, although it is a little worrying that the length is so long. Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think. Maury 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Italian KC-767

While out doing errands this morning, I happened to be driving by Air Force Plant 42 and saw the Italian KC-767 sitting on the ramp of Boeing's Space Shuttle facility...strange it would be there! Made my morning, though...kinda cool to see a plane I've written on WP about in person. Akradecki 20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Palmdale area huh. That is pretty cool. -Fnlayson 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Palmdale? Heavens no (with a shudder!). The north side of the plant is bordered by the grand metropolis of Lancaster.... Akradecki 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You got me there. I definitely don't know the area. I'm almost 2000 miles away. I know my way around the Huntington Beach area from work, but that's it. -Fnlayson 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aussie Rhinos

What is it with these guys? THey are so giddy about the RAAF getting Super Hornets, they aren't paying much attetion to what they're doing! You removed a redundant section, then I remove another one. Oh, I the guy who added the info into the existing section also added it on the legacy Hornet page. What's next, the YF-17 page?? :) - BillCJ 07:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, they seem to running a race who can get that info added first. To heck with accuracy and reduncancy. :) -Fnlayson 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance request

You seem to know your way around spec tables pretty good, so I was wonderiring if you could help me out on the Airwolf (helicopter) page. I'd like to do a side-by-side chart of the Bell 222 (original model) and Airwolf to give a good comparision of what the real aircraft could do, and what the fictional version could do. I really don't care what it looks like, as long as it looks good. If this is not a project you want to work on, it's OK. One of the editors on the Airwolf page wanted to have a page on the helicopter, and I'm just trying to make sure it stays grounded in reality! - BillCJ 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like you or someone copied the Bell specs to the Airwolf page. What catagories do you want to list? Size, weight, engines, speed, range & celing maybe. I used to watch that show every week when it was on the air. That and Bluethunder. -Fnlayson 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I used to watch both shows also. Oh, I added the two specs charts; didn't expect them to overlay like that tho, might be useful somewhere else. Basically keep most of the Airwolf specs, and match up what you can of the 222. I guess we should take the weapons out, and list them elsewhere. Just use your best judgment; if I think it needs tweaking, I'll let you know. THanks for the help. - BillCJ 03:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. THanks. However, maybe this is just my browser or comp setup, but I cant see the writing on the header; it's just all black. I'm running IE6 on Win XP, 850 Mhz, 800x600 on 32-bit color. - BillCJ 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Humm, I used the same dark gray as one of the other tables there. I'll look at it. -Fnlayson 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

MD-11 weights

I have seen that you've changed the MTOW for four versions. Although the numbers shown right now aren't wrong, they represents the standard weight of the aircraft. And over the years many operators has ordered aircraft with higher MTOW, or modified their fleets to higher standards.

For instance, KLM MD-11s have a MTOW of 280,320 kg: http://www.newfoundland.nl/cgi-bin/rld_search_uk.cgi?langPH-KCA

Martinair MD-11CF and MD-11F have a MTOW of 285,990kg, like the MD-11ER. http://www.newfoundland.nl/cgi-bin/rld_search_uk.cgi?langPH-MCT

On this site, you can see on the manufacturer documents that the MD-11C has a MTOW of 625,451lbs or even higher as an option. http://md-eleven.net/Specs-Technical-Details

I remember that Swissair's MD-11 were considered as MD-11AH (Advanced Heavy) because they had the higher MTOW without the extra tank for more range.

All this to say that it could be better to show the higher MTOW or both. --EuroSprinter 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I listed the numbers from the airport planning report (last rev'ed 1998). I guess that is not up to date or totally accurate. You could add extra columns for the AH and whatever else is needed. -Fnlayson 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• The heavy/ER type weight seems to be an option. That's what the MD-11 brochure says. I listed the standard weights except for the ER column. I could add an extra line for the 630 klb weights. -Fnlayson 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not adding a new column for the MD-11AH because these are just pax MD-11 incorporating almost all the PIP (Performances Improvement Programme) and the higher MTOW. Swissair's fleet was always designated as MD-11s. Finnair seven aircraft are MD-11s with the ER/higher MTOW, but without the range.
• I remember, when I bought it, that in the JP airlines fleet book published every year, each aircraft had the MTOW numbers shown. This could be a good way to see which operators are still having MD-11s with the standard/original weight, mainly for US airlines as I can't get access to that information yet.
• Adding an extra line to show optional/higher could be good thing. On UPS site, I haven't been able to get a figure of their aircraft weight. So unless we can find it on the web, the book I mentioned would be the best way to know.

--EuroSprinter 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that MD-11AH is a designation used only by Swissair for its PIP modified MD-11s having the heaviest MTOW too. --EuroSprinter 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh OK. Glad you mentioned PIP before. I looked that up and added some info on it. -Fnlayson 22:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found some details regarding the fleets of Saudi Arabian, Transmile and Varig Log.

• Saudia MTOW 632,500lb / 286,848kg, but I0m wondering if these aren't the numbers for the max. taxi weights.
• Transmile MTOW 630,500 / 285,990 or 625,500 / 283,722. All four aircraft are ex. Swissair, but two were bought second hands from German charter LTU, which didn't need the same capability as Swissair which used them essentially from GVA/ZRH to JFK.
• Varig Log MTOW 280,320kg. These are two aircraft previously owned by Korean Air. Two others went to World Airways.

This gives us a better view of all the differences out there. Lufthansa Cargo and Alitalia designate MD-11SF all their aircraft converted from pax/combi, five for each airlines. But FedEx and UPS don't seem to do the same. --EuroSprinter 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

MD-11 References

I've just added a new reference (book), and I'm wondering if we shouldn't simplify all the sources and references. Under "Specification" there are some links, including another book I've used, and under "References" and "External Links" there are many other references (some already used under Specification), including my latest. I wonder if all these "sources" in three places won't confuse other users of the article. --EuroSprinter 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I made that change. I prefer the sources under the table to see where values came from. -Fnlayson 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was more a questioning than an affirmative and indeed I prefer some sources under the table too. I've checked the page about the DC-10 where I've also edited and added book's references. On that page, the books were left on the references, and Boeing links put under the table. Just an idea, you're more experienced than me with Wiki. --EuroSprinter 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, well those books should be listed as references. You used them in the article, I believe. I might list them both under the spec table and in the references section since the weights aren't the same in all sources. I really appreaciate your work on this article, btw. -Fnlayson 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the differences depending the source. I'm actually trying to determine how all these different options have evolved. When you that Swissair aircraft were delivered with 605,000lb, then upgraded to 618,000 before going to 630,500. And I'm not sure if I don't forget one or two modifications.... You really appreciate my work, I have to say I appreciate your help. --EuroSprinter 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AH-64 Apache

You made an edit here (diff) to differentiate between the manufacturers. The way you currently have it worded makes it sound like Hughes and MD developed it together or that MD took over from Hughes in developing the Apache. As I understand it, Hughes was solely responsible for the YAH-64 and AH-64A development and MD purchased Hughes and continued production and developed the AH-64D Longbow. How do you see it with your references? --Born2flie 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• MDC did the Longbow design work in the early to mid-1990s. That should be worded better it seems. I'll see what I can do. -Fnlayson 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is better than how it was. --Born2flie 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Change it to something better if you want.. -Fnlayson 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to talk it over with you, since you made the initial change to include all manufacturers. I think this newest change is the best one. Great job! --Born2flie 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

757

Cna you check out my commetns on winglets on the Talk:Boeing 757 page? An IP user has been adding LOTS of material on winglets to the article, but with absolutely NO sources. His material mentions a company called Aviation partners that does the refits, and it alsomt seems liek the user may work for them, as he has lots of facts and fugures. I've deleted the TWO separate sections on winglets, as both are unsourced. Maybe I'm over-reacting, so I'd like you to look at the diffs, and see what you think. Feel free to put back in any info you can verify, or feel is credible. YOu do a good job witht he other airline articles, so I won't quibble with anything you do on this. Thanks. - BillCJ 08:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I reordered the sections. Moved Special customers and Winglets after Variants. The -200WL and Winglets sections were redundant so I combined them. Sourcing is another matter. I'll see what I can find. Aviation Patners should have press releases on a lot of that. -Fnlayson 14:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. You seem very good at this kind of think, and I appreciate you takling it here. Thanks again. - BillCJ 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon

Sorry, I changed it back, then read the reference. You are quite right that it states the F-22 is an option. However, it is a matter of fact (and our article confirms it) that the F-22 is not currently cleared for export. I think we should seek more input, but I wanted to apologise for reversing your change so quickly. --Guinnog 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's understandable. Mixing in what the Turkish AF was after made it confusing. The other options could be removed from that sentence and it would be OK. -Fnlayson 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good solution. --Guinnog 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Start of 777 production

Jeff, Do you think 1993 would be correct for production date? Would produced from not mean since it entered airline service? thanks/ marcus --Bangabalunga 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Manufacturing started in 1993. The 777's first flight was the next year. If you prefer to use full scale production, that'd be alright as long as it is explained like in a hidden comment. -Fnlayson 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rotorcraft task force

Jeff, just wanted to welcome you to the Task Force. I was about to invite you, but kept procrastinating writing the post, and you beat me to it! The task force is still small, so we definitely need more concerned editors. Glad to have you aboard, and look forward to continuing working with you. - BillCJ 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Bill. I figured I was already on board. Just made it official by putting my name on the project page. -Fnlayson 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

USS Alabama

Thanks for fixing the Alabama image. I'll be more alert to those things in the future. JodyB 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Thanks for adding that. Do you know if that's a recent picture? I couldn't find a date on it. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18 E/F RCS

Hey Jeff. Hope the point I'm making isn't too problematic. Documentation/sourcing is how we differentiate this forum from random blogs, right? Am I off base on this thing? Thanks--Jonashart 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you're off base much anyway. ;) It is just that sources for RCS are limited. That's classified or sentative info. We have to use the best reliable info available. -Fnlayson 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, right, exactly. So, stating definitively that the RCS HAS been reduced is assuming a whole bunch of things. Like I said, I'm more than willing to believe that, in fact, the RCS has been reduced. But then, that's a leap of faith...not an agreement with proven science. Anywho, thanks.--Jonashart 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref. fix! Nicely done.--Jonashart 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Boeing military aircraft

Jeff, I'm putting together a template for Boeing military aircraft at Template:Boeing military aircraft. (I don't think there is one - if there is, I haven't found it!) I'm not trying to duplicte the 707/-135 and B-29 templates, just mentioning the major models of those types. I've dumped some links from the IDS page, but still needs formatting and pruning/adding.

Also, we might want to convert the Boeing airliner template to include other civil aircraft like the BV107 and BV234. I don't know of any other non-airliner civl aircraft by Boeing, but there may be a few. THanks. - BillCJ 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I don't think we should include aircraft of other manufacturers that Boeing did not actively produce, such as the C-9. The template's going to be pretty big as it is. We may end up having to split it up, but we'll see what it looks like first. Sorry to stomp your edit :(, but thanks for the help, really! - BillCJ 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in line with most of these templates, I'm not planning on including the whole names, ie P-26 Peashooter, just piping the link instead (P-26), unless it's ambiguous or only a name (Bird of Prey). - BillCJ 01:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh that'll help a lot. Let me work on it a bit now. -Fnlayson 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Oh, I believe Boeing had a number of patrol planes during WWII, and also patrol flying boats/amhibs. I don't know if articles exist on them as yet, but if they did, I planeed on putting them on the "Patrol" line. I'll look for the articles while you work, and if I find any, add them afterward, on a new line if necessary. - BillCJ 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I put Reconnaisance, patrol & surveillance together since they seem to overlap some. If there's enough of one of them, such as Patrol that can go on another line. -Fnlayson 01:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

YC-15

Jeff, the YC-15 is a McDD product built in the 70s, 20 years before Boeing bought Mac. Boeing had nothing to do with the YC-15, as its YC-14 was a competitor. That's why I've been removing it. Yes, it led to the C-17, but they aren't the same plane at all. I won't take it out again, but wanted you to know my reasoning. THanks. - BillCJ 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alright. That makes sense. You seem to have done that with other ones too. Try to mention some of that in your edit summaries, so others might get it. -Fnlayson 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I will from now on. I sometimes forgot that what's obvious to me may not be so clear to others. - BillCJ 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's alright. It's difficult to describe when making lot of edits. -Fnlayson 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Triple 7 Trivia Section

Why not use {{Trivia}}, which is perfectly suited to a trivia section? {{trim}} can be used, but the former is much more applicable. Also, the section hasn't lost its focus, the content just needs to be merged up. It's like calling a house a building, when uhh...house is much more applicable. It also puts the article in Category:Articles with large trivia sections, which is more applicable. --Phoenix (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• The tag says to remove the entire Trivia section. Some items don't fit elsewhere in the article in general. They are just trivia, but worth keeping. That's how I see it anyway.. -Fnlayson 20:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• I had previously moved some items out of the 777 trivia section an into the main part of article. -Fnlayson 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

US-metric

You might be interested in User talk:Necessary Evil#US measurments in US articles and User talk:BillCJ#against Wiki guidelines?. I could use another brain on this, anyway. - BillCJ 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 787

Jeff, can you double-check my reversions of a series of IP edits by User:66.192.2.2. Some seem pretty fishy to me, esp the range and passenger reductions. I reverted them all, but there may be some good ones there. He also made changes to the 777 specs too. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)