Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

[[:|WT:Air]]

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Template:Todo3

Different Way of Cross Referencing Aircraft/Airlines

I think there is a bit of growing need to be able to cross reference airplanes and the airlines that use them/have them ordered. Right now you can go from an airline to an aircraft but not vice versa. I think this need has come up in the 737 article (Example 1,Example 2) Is there something snazzy that can be done with categories on the Airline pages to cross reference back to a category list of "737 Operators"? Its not the most elegant solution, but its a whole lot better than manually gluing it together. It could also be expanded to include pages for "Former 737 Operators" and "737 Orders"... I'm going to also put a notice on the Wikiproject Airline page that this discussion is getting started -- since it really is something that affects both projects.. --Cliffb 05:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the stuff in Category:Aircraft

In my yet-to-be-finalised category proposal, many of the things in Category:Aircraft will be finding new homes. There are a few oddballs that I would like to move or kill, listed below. I would like this to be considered as a kind of official proposal, so please comment if you can find the time.

Category:Aerospace engineering: Move to Category:Aviation
Category:Films set on an airplane: Move to Category:Aviation
Category:Aircraft images: Kill it. It is intended to provide a repository of freely available images. A much better option is to move freely available images here to the commons.
Category:Modern aircraft: 'Modern' is such a loose term, subject to so many qualifications. Kill it.
Category:Radio controlled aircraft: Rename Category:Radio-controlled aircraft.
Category:Supersonic transports: Move to Category:Airliners.

Oh, and let's remove that aweful bloat notice at the top of Category:Aircraft. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aerospace engineering: Move to Category:Aviation - What happens to the space engineering part of aerospace?
Category:Films set on an airplane: Move to Category:Aviation - Same argument, why doesn't this belong in movies?
Category:Aircraft images: Kill it. It is intended to provide a repository of freely available images. A much better option is to move freely available images here to the commons. - Agree
Category:Modern aircraft: 'Modern' is such a loose term, subject to so many qualifications. Kill it. - Agree
Category:Radio controlled aircraft: Rename Category:Radio-controlled aircraft. - Agree
Category:Supersonic transports: Move to Category:Airliners. - Agree

--Cliffb 05:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set on an airplane

Move to Category:Aviation -- "Movies" seems to be a better fit; it's not "Aviation" but rather films about aviation & aircraft.

Category:Supersonic transports

Move to Category:Airliners -- It seems odd to me that Airliners would be a separate Category from Aircraft.

Actually, Airliners is itself a subcategory of aircraft. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Askari Mark | Talk 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter

Need Help on Boeing 747 LCFYousaf465

What are you looking for help on? ericg ✈

“Problems”

Being a newb, I’ve been reading a variety of aircraft articles to get a feel for content and style, and I’ve noticed a tendency for sections to be added – explicitly or not – about “Problems” … which seem to be a magnet for POV debates. “Problems” is rather a vague and overly broad word and a poor choice for a section title when there are two basic kinds of “problems” being addressed, only one of which I feel is really pertinent to address at length.

That pertinent category would include those “Technical Challenges and Issues” which are endemic to development of very complicated modern weapon systems. Requirements changes or funding restrictions can stretch schedules and increase costs; testing can reveal things that need to fixed, delaying service entry; a key technology might not mature as rapidly as expected; an important vendor may discontinue a needed product or service; millions of lines of software code may prove troublesome to debug; etc. These all exist to some extent in every weapon system development program, and my recommendation is that perhaps only those which are most noteworthy to a particular program should be mentioned – and that in the development history section.

The other kind of issue deals with criticisms over “intangibles” such as whether or not they fit a particular “design philosophy” (e.g., the “Lightweight Fighter Mafia”), the appropriateness of that design philosophy (like whether or not “maneuverability” is the paramount performance criteria), or the degree to which it satisfied the objectives of its political advocates (cf. the McNamara POV debate in the F-14 article discussion). My recommendation is that these receive no more than a passing reference in an article about a given aircraft, but seed that reference with a link to another article where it is more fully and appropriately dealt with. (Examples: Fighter mafia, Robert McNamara, Iron triangle, Aerial warfare.) --Askari Mark | Talk 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's polite to add entries to the back, not top of the talk page. The "+" button on top allows you to add a new section at the end. I agree, and have been dealing with an editor that feels it necessary to delve into his personal POV on these issues on every page that is tangentially related, resulting in the duplication of disputed material over several pages. --Mmx1 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, nearly all relevant information on problems should be moved to the 'Development' section, or possibly the 'Operational history' section where applicable. And of course, to limit articles to their topics.

Part of the problem is that even though this is a huge WikiProject, we also have an enormous number of articles we have to take care of, and God knows it's hard to stay on top of it all. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Airreg}} template

I came across the {{Airreg}} template, which can provide autolinks to the FAA N-Number (or other national) registries. It also has built-in the option of linking to airdisaster.com, which seems to overdo it on advertisements. I left some concerns and suggestions at Template talk:Airreg. Rather than taking unilateral action (the template is used on nearly 100 pages), I would welcome input on the template talk page. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this to WP:TFD. Aside from the issue of linking to airdisaster.com, I can't possibly see this as a useful way of referencing Aircraft registration numbers. (even to official sources). I would rather see referencing done the same way other references are with a ref tag, and links at the bottom in the references section. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposing this move at the moment. It is still useful. If you can produce a better template, then I may change my mind. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template restricts the choice of sources to those where you can incorporate the N-number into the URL. On Template talk:Airreg, I have searched for sources regarding United Airlines Flight 173. On the template talk page, I documented three that I found. For two (NTSB and aviation-safety.net), you can't incorporate the N-number. These are arguably the more reliable sources, as one is official and the other does a good job of referencing its sources and presents (more) information in a clearer manner (and ad-free) than airdisaster.com. So, in the case of United Airlines Flight 173, it's better just to use the ref tag and provide the source link in the references section. This way, we are also not mixing references styles (embedded HTML links with the ref tag), as advised not to do by WP:CITE. Anyway, I'd like to take each article on a case-by-case basis, weighing the available sources and choosing the most reliable. This may vary from article to article, and there may be some situations where airdisaster.com is the best. But the template shouldn't restrict our choice of sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the FAA registry is not a good source. The N-number has been reissued and is used now by another aircraft. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propeller information in {{Aircraft specifications}}

Many of our sources describe the propellers of prop-powered aircraft. I would like to add this option to our specs template. Example:

4× Wright R-3350-75 radial engines, 3,350 hp each, driving four-bladed Hamilton Standard propellers

It would be generated by something along the lines of

{{#switch:{{{jet or prop?|}}}
 |prop=* '''Powerplant:''' {{{number of props|}}}× {{{engine (prop)|}}} {{{type of prop|}}}, {{{power main|}}} ({{{power alt|}}}) each{{
 #if:{{{propellers|}}}
  |driving {{{propellers|}}}
  }}
 }}

Is there support for this, or is it too much bloat? Ingoolemo ^talk 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't that be "number of engines" x engine then also "number of props" to cater for single engines turning two props/rotors or two engines turning single props?GraemeLeggett 08:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sound like good ideas. I'd suggest making it test for the number of props first - if there's no number (such as in the majority of situations where the engines each drive one prop), it just lists as Ingoolemo has proposed. If there is a number specified (say, {{{propcount}}} or something), then it will show 3,350 hp (kW) each, driving 2 four-bladed propellers.

The challenge here is to clarify between horsepower and what each engine is driving - hp is each, while if we're totalling the props it could sound like each engine has x horsepower and x props, rather than there are x props and x engines. ericg ✈ 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an updated proposal:

{{#switch:{{{jet or prop?|}}}
 |prop=* '''Powerplant:''' {{{number of props|}}}× {{{engine (prop)|}}} {{{type of prop|}}}, {{{power main|}}} ({{{power alt|}}}) each{{
 #if:{{{propellers|}}}
  |* '''Propellers:''' {{{propellers|}}} {{{propeller or rotor?|}}}{{
  #if:{{{number of propellers per engine|}}}
   |, {{{number of propellers per engine|}}} per engine
   }}
  }}
 }}

In my example above, {{{propellers}}} would be equal to "four-bladed Hamilton Standard". The only options for {{{propeller or roter?}}} are "propeller" and "rotor". {{{number of propellers per engine}}} is self-explanatory.

Ingoolemo ^talk 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web Rings

Some discussion has occurred over the past several days over how to advertise our project better off-site. One way to do it might be to join some web rings, such as the UK aviation web ring. Comments? Ingoolemo ^talk 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit ambivalent about this -- if there are web rings I think it should drop onto a portal page -- perhaps even a "webring" portal page. I am against linking directly to articles. —Cliffb 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webrings still exist? ericg ✈ 05:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth clarifying: all mention of our webring membership would appear in the Project namespace; none would be placed in the article namespace—that would be a blatant violation of policy and precedent. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-14 Tomcat

Our "friend" is back, see his recent activity over there. --Denniss 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the recent block seems to have cooled his edits, if not his tongue; I seem to be attacked in each of his edit comments. However, despite the edit comments, some of his edits have amounted to scaling back his more outlandish comments. (e.g. "easily defeat the A-4" -> "trained to beat the A-4", which I find acceptable). However, some of his sources are just silly (freerepublic posts, concluding that the Navy rewrote its program specifications, based on the labeling of a model), and those citation tags have been replaced. I'll see how this plays out.--Mmx1 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CP-140 Aurora and CP-140A Arcturus

I'm not that expert on these planes but they look very similar. The Arcturus seems to be a subvariant of the Aurora. Do we need separate articles for them ? Need expert option. --Denniss 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the Arcturus is a subvariant of the Aurora. The main difference is that the Aurora has a full ASW and maritime patrol suite, while the Arcturus lacks the ASW equipment. There doesn't need to be separate articles for them, and many reference sources include them under P-3 Orion articles. --Askari Mark | Talk 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Center of pressure needs help

Center of pressure has been disputed and stagnant for a long time now. Could someone please give it some love? Thanks, Melchoir 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this and have stubbed center of lift off to a new article. They're absolutely not the same thing, and center of pressure has no place in a discussion of center of gravity regarding aircraft. Lift != pressure. Anyway, a second or third set of eyes on this would be appreciated. ericg ✈ 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison tables

At CAC Boomerang, there was a comparison table comparing its characteristics to other similar fighters. The table, which I removed temporarily, can be found at Talk:CAC Boomerang#Comparison table.

What do y'all think? Is it worthwhile to include that sort of thing at all? If so, where? In each individual article? In a 'comparison tables' article? Ingoolemo ^talk 01:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO tables could be an interesting (although simplistic) means of comparing aircraft. Separate pages, like "Comparison of WW2 fighters", make more sense than stuffing these tables into the articles. I can foresee extreme fanboyism and potential claims of original research with these though. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't do a thing for me, personally. I don't see a need for them in the basic aircraft articles, but it might be useful in something like the fighter "generations" article as a way to compare "typical" fighters for each and contrast it with those of the preceding and succeeding generations. It might also be useful when discussing the progress of fighter capabilities during WWI & WWII from the respective start of the war to its end. --Askari Mark | Talk 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is oversimplification. Top speeds and initial climb rates do little to help one understand how two fighters stack against each other, and the important performance figures are largely unavailable. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in major text books the information is often presented in a non standardised way - one will have range with reserves, the next range with drop tanks, the next a combat radius with stated load. For aircraft of the era of the Boomerang, much data is dubious as production aircraft in service often failed to achieve the figures of specially prepared early machines. Tables are also often produced by a manufacturer who presents only the most favourable comparisons, (though to be fair, the nicely presented figures for the Boomerang only serve to underline its understandable inadequacies). Despite all that, better to have some comparative information than none at all.Winstonwolfe 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These tables, whether in an article about a fighter or an airliner, need to be killed. They're comparing only the basics, and preempting any real discussion of the complexities involved. I've pulled the 787-10 vs A350-900XWB table already (talk about vague and uninformative) and will be removing any others I come across. ericg ✈ 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, one form of comparison I did find interesting was comparative performance envelope diagrams - a bit academic as these are not readily available. Winstonwolfe. Incidentally I've just joined the project, and promptly completed templates for most of the articles I've had involvement with (usually New Zealand, or British interwar period, most were stub or start, low/medium importance) - I hope nobody minds. 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:Air! Why would anyone object to constructive editing? :) Performance envelope diagrams are indeed very interesting and also, as you correctly noted, exceedingly unavailable. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operators section

An anonymous user has decided that all of the 'operators' sections in our articles need to have the countries listed, and not just the air forces, so they went through and replaced something like * Royal Canadian Air Force with

* [[Canada]]
** [[Royal Canadian Air Force]]

I can certainly see the need for this if the list includes the Fleet Air Arm, RAF, USAF, USMC, and U.S. Navy. But in most of these cases, only one operator was listed. I think most of us are in agreement that in the latter case, the country need not be listed.

I would also like to note that our page content standards call for a list of all squadrons that use the plane in question. In General, when we have a list of squadrons together, the operators list should be removed.

Comments? Ingoolemo ^talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive navboxes, again

If you may recall, I proposed moving several massive navboxes to the portal namespace some time ago. There was no opposition, so I took care of it. Well, someone decided that the template needed to be recreated, so he created it again.

As far as I'm concerned, if they want a template, let them have it. But I find that such massive navboxes simply don't fit well into the bottom of an article, especially if more than one is added. So can we come to some kind of consensus that our WP:Air/PC should explicitly state that there are to be no navboxes in the footer?

Remember, there are over a hundred members of this project, so it's not fair to the rest of you if we make policy on five support votes because no one else said anything. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to an (egregious) example? Askari Mark | Talk

Here are two examples of such templates:

I support this idea. ericg ✈ 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

v t e RAF strategic bombing during the Second World War
Overviews	Butt Report (1941) RAF strategic bombing 1942–1945 Area Bombing Directive (1942) Dehousing paper (1942) Casablanca directive (1943)
Leaders	Arthur "Bomber" Harris Frederick "Prof" Lindemann Sir Charles Portal Sir Archibald Sinclair Arthur Tedder
Campaigns	Oil targets (1940-45) Area bombing of cities (1942–43) U-boat pens (1943–44) Battle of the Ruhr (1943) Combined Bomber Offensive (1943–44) Battle of Berlin (1943–44) Transport (1944) Hamburg Heilbronn Kassel Pforzheim Dresden The Hague
Operations	Bellicose (Friedrichshafen) Chastise ("Dambusters" raid) Hurricane (1944) Hydra (Peenemünde)
Aircraft	Blenheim Boston (Douglas DB-7) Halifax Hampden Lancaster Manchester Mosquito Stirling Ventura Wellington Whitley
Technology	Chaff H2S radar Gee "Oboe" Gee-H "Monica" radar Blockbuster bomb Earthquake bomb Tallboy Grand Slam Bouncing bomb Target indicator
Tactics	Area bombardment Bomber stream Firebombing Intruder operations Master Bomber Pathfinders Shuttle bombing
Units	No. 1 Group RAF No. 3 Group RAF No. 4 Group RAF No. 5 Group RAF No. 6 Group RCAF No. 8 Group RAF No. 100 Group RAF Light Night Strike Force
See also	Aerial defence of the United Kingdom United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) Air operations during the Battle of Europe Defence of the Reich Death by Moonlight: Bomber Command Into the Storm Target for Tonight

v t e Military aircraft manufactured in Britain since the Second World War
Fighters	de Havilland Hornet de Havilland Vampire de Havilland Venom English Electric Lightning Eurofighter Typhoon Gloster Javelin Gloster Meteor Hawker Hunter Panavia Tornado ADV Supermarine Swift
Naval fighters	BAE Sea Harrier de Havilland Sea Hornet de Havilland Sea Vampire de Havilland Sea Venom de Havilland Sea Vixen Hawker Sea Fury Hawker Sea Hawk Supermarine Attacker Supermarine Scimitar
Strike / ground attack	BAC Strikemaster BAE Harrier II Blackburn Buccaneer Bristol Brigand Eurofighter Typhoon Hawker Hunter Hawker Siddeley Harrier Panavia Tornado IDS SEPECAT Jaguar Westland Wyvern (naval)
Bombers	Avro Lincoln Avro Vulcan English Electric Canberra Handley Page Victor Vickers Valiant
Maritime patrol / anti-submarine	Avro Shackleton Fairey Firefly Fairey Gannet Hawker Siddeley Nimrod
Trainers	Avro Anson Avro Athena BAC Jet Provost BAE Hawk Boulton Paul Balliol de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk Folland Gnat Handley Page Jetstream British Aerospace Jetstream Percival Provost Percival Prince/Sea Prince Short Tucano Vickers Varsity
Prototype and experimental	Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52 Avro 707 BAC TSR-2 BAe EAP Blackburn Firecrest Boulton Paul P.111 Boulton Paul P.120 Bristol 188 Cierva Air Horse Fairey Delta 1 Fairey Delta 2 Fairey Ultra-light Helicopter Folland Midge Handley Page HP.88 Handley Page HP.115 Hawker P.1052 Hawker P.1072 Hawker Siddeley P.1127 Heston JC.6 Hunting H.126 Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig Saro P.531 Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 Saunders-Roe SR.53 Short Seamew Short SB.3 Short SB.5 Short SC.1 Short Sperrin Slingsby T.53 Supermarine 508 Supermarine 545 Supermarine Seagull Youngman-Baynes High Lift
Transport	Armstrong Whitworth Argosy Auster AOP.6 Auster AOP.9 Beagle Basset Blackburn Beverley Handley Page Hastings Hawker Siddeley Andover Percival Pembroke Scottish Aviation Pioneer Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer Short Belfast Vickers Valetta
Helicopters	AgustaWestland Apache AgustaWestland Merlin Bristol Belvedere Bristol Sycamore Saro Skeeter Westland Commando Westland Dragonfly Westland Gazelle Westland Lynx Westland Scout Westland Sea King Westland Wasp Westland Wessex Westland Whirlwind
Gliders	EoN Eton Slingsby Cadet Slingsby Grasshopper Slingsby Prefect Slingsby Sedbergh