User talk:Rlandmann/archive8

Saab 35 Draken

Troll attack has wiped out this article. Can you block the troll? Bzuk 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

NAL Hansa

I have recreated the article. I hope it is better now. I have used the NAL website as a source. I hope that is fine. Kaushal mehta 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I cant add the sanskrit text, will ask some of my friends to do it. Thanks for the appreciation. ciao Kaushal mehta 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks a lot for those changes. regards Kaushal mehta 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. Rlandmann, can you check on this article, I hope I have made appropriate changes to the article you originated. FWIW, I will also do up an article on the earlier Bellanca 28-70. Bzuk 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Further to the illustration, I know some of them have awkward provenances but this one seemed to be home-made and that is why I used it. As to the external links, the reason I moved them out of references is that I more-or-less completely re-wrote the article from my own sources but wanted to have the original sources still around. FWIW Bzuk 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

BTW, did you see where the Bellancas ended up? Weird! Bzuk.

Okay, I will start searching for another image. It is possible that an image might exist somewhere that a US government employee may have made of the US Navy versions. Bzuk 01:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have also added a new connecting article, the Bellanca 28-70 to complement the other article. Bzuk 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Since the aircraft had an Irish heritage, I made the link that the photo was taken by Col. Fitzmaurice or Eric Bonar. The markings "EI" were applied just prior to departure and you are correct that it was taken in New York, I didn't notice that caption, being dazzled by the Irish markings! Oh Well, I'll keep searching. FWIW, in my other life I was a graphic artist, maybe time to unleash those rusty old skills. Bzuk 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Year in aviation issue again

We discussed about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Easter egg links (year in aviation) in user box few days ago and we have today User:M Van Houten who is forcing his POV against WP:AIR's page content guidelines. I've reverted his edits in following articles:

As you could see I've added comment in these reverts but looking at history of cooperaton with this user I think he will make the same edits once again here or in another articles. I'm not sure what to do with that. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bird Innovator

I saw your note to User:MilborneOne with the quote; "is there something interesting we can say about the type beyond simply recording its existence". Sometimes the mere 'existence' and 'dry facts' of an airplane type are enough to quench my curiosity as I click through. So I just assumed other readers felt the same. I didn't think we were supposed to restrict ourselves to only articles that could become features. I'm happy when I can find anything at all about some of these old aircraft. Besides I hope that other editors will see something they can add to a basic article (I try for at least B-class) without going through the drudgery of infoboxes, images, structure, reflist tags, wkifying, and categories. That said, I have thought of merging the P-2 Hawk & P-3 Hawk articles into the P-1 Hawk article because I don't think there is enough new information out there about them that could take them past a stub-class. I could easily be wrong, and I may never get that far down my ToDo list, we'll see. Oh, and if I took the quote completely out of context, please set me straight, after all I was eves-dropping on the talk page. --Colputt 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will try that {{subst:aircraft-imp}} on the Consolidated P-11 article I'm working on off-line. Thanks for the tip. I have been cut-n-pasteing my way through the edit process. --Colputt 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Aircraft Swallow/Klemm L.25

I see your point about possibly including this article to include the Klemm (and presumably moving it to Klemm L.25) this would be logcal - the problem is I havn't got good sources on the Klemm itself - which would tend to make any merged article unbalanced. I'll see if I can find some better sources.Nigel Ish 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft s/n's on Wiki

I would be happy to contribute - provided I do not run into the same nonsence as on wikipedia - wondering if a home for the survivors series would also find a home here.Davegnz 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over the information on creating a Wiki that is different from wipipedia and one that fits what I am trying to accomplish - Willing to give it a shot - would like to call it Wikiaviation but the name aviation is already taken (for airline discussion)so considering warbirdwiki but seems bulky - want to do detailed aviation history - have to think up a name that is clear and easily managable - Davegnz 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, what about "Avipendium"? I don't think Wiki has to be in the name. I was leaning towards "Avipedia" for a while, but some "Gilmore Girls" project now has the name! - BillCJ 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore Girls - ugh do not make me pukeDavegnz 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK started the process - went back to my first choice and figured Wikiaviation should work - short, sweet and right to the point. Had some difficulties yesterday (blasted antispam checker did not want to work) but got the form accepted today so now its just a waiting game. One question I did have, after this wiki is up and running, what do I do about the information specific to wikiaviation that already on wikipedia (survivors series, serial numbers etc..) do I move them over (and link back to wikipedia, or just leave them to wither and die). Btw, I think you and I can work together Bill, from your home page we do have much in common. Davegnz 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave. I will try. The biggest problem we've had is on what should be here on Wikipedia, and now that we have an alternative, much of that conflict should end. I've been kicking around an idea like this for awhile, and would love to see the new wiki succeed. I don't know about linking either, that was a question I hadn't got aound to asking. One more question: How comprehensive do you want the new wiki to be? It could be a great place for all these pop culture entries, if you want to go in that direction. Also, are there any limits on what can be placed on the site, such as sourcing, etc? My last question I didn't get to asking Wikia was about administration of the site: Who has administrative authority? Is it Wikia, the site creator, both? ANy admin on Wikia? - BillCJ 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a purely technical level, the creator of a new Wikia project has Bureaucrat and Admin levels of access to that project and that project only. New admins can be created (and demoted) by anyone with Bureaucrat powers on that project.

On a more general level, it's a new community and will evolve its own authority and rules. If it grows and flourishes, in time WikiaviationProject:U.S. Bombers may be debating whether to split the B-17 production list up into subtypes or to keep it one long list. Of course, if Davegnz wanted to intervene in that discussion and end it one way or the other, he would have the power to do so (as Jimbo has here on Wikipedia). --Rlandmann 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now taking this one step at a time - really new to this idea and going to see where this ends up. Right now, I see wikipedia as a long winded Janes type of source with Wikiaviation as a more detailed oriented site. Survivors listings, serial number listing, individual aircraft history, not sure if I want to open it up to squadron histories or airfield history (future debate) - have ot be careful not to let it get out of control (the history of all C-152??) but going to see where it goes, what other ideas people have and what grows. Davegnz 16:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note on you setting up and wiki for aircraft serial numbers - have no idea what happened to my proposed Wiki called WIKIAVIATION - navigation at the wiki home page is not the easiest can not find any information on the proposal I submitted several weeks ago (and never received e-mail confirming or rejecting this proposed wiki) did find it last week (the initial proposal) but it is not lost...Davegnz 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trace Links?

Thank you for your consideration! Is there a way to trace links from the engine pages backward to aircraft articles? So far I have been going through the alphabetic aircraft list and properly linking their engines, but I would like a list of the aircraft linked to the engine articles so I can add them to ==Applications==.

Thank You Idsnowdog 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Su-25

As you are one of the contributors to the Sukhoi Su-25 article, please feel free to leave your comment/opinion at the WPMILHIST A-class review of the article. Thanks! --Eurocopter tigre 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of St. Louis

M. Rlandmann, there is a newbie editor that has insisted that the flight of the Spirit of St. Louis was the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic and has constantly reverted the article to eliminate the word "solo". He has not responded to the discussion page or to the note left on his "talk" page. These are his only contributions to Wiki articles and he continues to make spurious claims, see: [1] He will not stop the reverting although he has been politely informed that constant reversions without explanation on the discussion page is not considered appropriate. Asking for help here. Thanks Bzuk 13:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Early Cessna Aircraft

I have just created some of the early Cessna aircraft from the wanted list. Sorry they are a bit sparse with info but that is all I have got. Rgds MilborneOne 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breda

Ciao! Unfortunately I won't be in my house until September... otherwise I'd like to help much. I've already written or expanded some, Ba. 64-65 and Ba.88, IMAMs, Caproni etc. I will have internet till Sunday. Let me know for anything!! Good work... --Attilios 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for this image ? Image:ShinMaywaUS-1.jpg

I've replaced the image in question with the article with a photograph I took recently - see ShinMaywa US-1. Megapixie 07:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Ilyushin28.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ilyushin28.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John Smith's 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Aerotecnicas AC 12-14

I do have lots of pictures taken in the Museo del Aire, but I do not think I have those two helicopters right now. The only problem is that I am not living in Madrid anymore, but in Readind, UK.

I will try to convince a friend to take the pictures and to send them to me so that I can upload them to the Wikipedia.

Anyway, I WILL upload those pictures. Just give me some time.

By the way, If you think any other pictures or any data from the museum could be needed, please tell me before my friend goes to the museum.

Keep on the good work on the Wikipedia. Cheers Dabrio 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do about those three (at least) pictures Dabrio 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agusta-Bell HH-3F

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Agusta-Bell HH-3F, by BillCJ (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Agusta-Bell HH-3F fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Non-existent aircraft

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Agusta-Bell HH-3F, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like slapping a vandal?

Could you look at this diff and previous ones? I have warned the user 4 times, and atempted to discuss with it, to no avail. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THanks much! 3RR was my next warning, but you beat me to it. - BillCJ 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirects vs double redirects

Thanks for the help regarding redirects vs doubleredirects with respect to ceiling (aeronautics). I was confused by the merge policy, but you straightened me out. Pdbailey 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breguet Type III

I'm aware of that but in fact I have no idea how to enter operators in such cases. IMHO it's better to put general link like "Italian Air Force" to show that aircraft was used by the military operator and allow others to change link to better article. I think it could be helpful to prepare list of military operators in each country with proper names and years when particular force existed. Unfortunately I have no time for this right now. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the Bristol Boarhound, I was faster than my eyes and I didn't checked all changes before publishing it. I'll try to be more careful. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPAviation tags

Can you tell me if all the Aviation talk pages "should" have a WPAviation box on them? If so should I add them when I create an article? Some of the articles I started had the box added real quickly by someone, some of them still don't have one. Are there other things I should do when I create a new article other than add it to the list on Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft)? I've slowly been finding out about things like the {{subst:aircraft-imp}} you told me about. I have also been asking for assesments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment when I think an article I've been working on has met the B class requirements. --Colputt 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

For the censorship..--Stefanomencarelli 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation: Construcciones Aeronáuticas

I wrote: Best solution might be to return to revision #127549419, by which I meant that all edits past this revision ought to be permanently deleted (as it is pretty trivial anyway and might prevent further copyright trouble). I reported a handful of copyright violations akin to this before and they were all permanently deleted and no editor has ever complained about me reporting them. Did the policy change or is this behaviour not welcome? Kind regards, Agentbla ^(talk) 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Our mutal Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.

Well, my dear friend, to make an omelet one must break eggs. One day the 'room' will be cleaned, and nobody will be worried. If Michelangelo wanted to paint the Cappella Sistina, he had to mess a lot and this for several years. If he would not make a mess, he didn't painted. So one day 500 years from today Who will care of my 'distractions' when the article will be well grown? And i would be a moron? Or a visionary mad that knows better than many where it is needed to go? Think about.

But not worry, when 15 august will happen, i could return in wiki.it and save your 2 millions wiki-en.souls by the risk of perdiction.Just hold on!--Stefanomencarelli 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call-Air A

Working on Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics/2 I have just created Call-Air A which also covers the A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. Just noticed that other links and articles refer to them as CallAir or Callair so before I created some re-directs can I ask your opinion should we move Call-Air A to CallAir A or just create appropriate re-directs. Thanks MilborneOne 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I notice you have done the moves thanks. MilborneOne 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Well, i do not agree to you as well.

49 people is a 'staggering numbers' HAHAHAHA. For Wiki.en, perhaps. You have no clue of you are sayng. There were ban with over 80 infinite requests. But because many other have defended me, i had only 3 months. Think twice before draw such statements, it's unfair, untrue and not wikilove.
As Ki-61s deleting: perhaps in Wiki.en you acted so, but atlesat, with all our problems, in wiki.it it's NEVER enough 'suspect' that someone commits copyviol. Deleting is possible only when it's proof, if not it's vandalism. In the real world, who make accusations must proof these,not the accused.

So i continue to claim my absolute innocence with every copyviol issue, and never i was treaten so ignomineusly in wiki.it. So i rate this an higly offense, that sorry, i cannot forgive without official excuses. PRESUME GOOD FAITH is a thing that should be remembered or not? Answer me. If the only policy is OR, so delete all the others.

You, insthead, have acted to me presuming Bad faith. And it's definitively not wikilove. More, if i write a bad english post i ruin wiki, if i write better ,then i am for sure a copyvioler: isn't madness? So i wait apoligies from who has made such accusations. If this will not happens, becuase 'it's enough suspect' i will no be afraid to quite wiki.en 'cause it's an afwul place to be respected and no wikilove at all. Sorry, but as (southern) italian i have a very pronunced sense of honor. I dont' lie to the others, and i expect they don't take me as liar.

I claimed that Bzuk first, and the other then have deleted all i wrote. Ok, almost everything i wrote there, in Reggiane 2001. Just one or two phrases were saved. So your accusation on me to have spoke untruth are 99% false. bzuk version was 6,432 bytes, then i wrote a 12,237 bytes, then Bzuk cutted it to a mere 9 269: All the stuff about versions and tecnic that i posted were deleted, and NO EXPLAINATION WHY. Then i ripristinate and improved the stuff, 12,347, and finally akramaldeki roll-back to Bzuk's latest version. Finally, of what i wrote almost nothing is remained.

I have tried on many occasions to discuss the issues in the talk'pages, but without much success. You can say that i have tried enough, but what's the point when someone else arrives and clean all i wrote without any discussion at all? Why Bzuk has acted so, WITHOUT discussing it at all? I am the only that is obliged to 'be civil' while the others can slash what i write??

Yes the 'famed' GFDL license. But even if my articles are not really 'mine', this don't change that the effort, the time, the work hours to write them are mine, and when i see that the article is sustantially worsened by someone with the sense of houmor, then i cannot accept it 'because' GFDL. In fact, the best quality of the articles are the real target. The improper modiphic that worsened these are usually called 'vandalism', but in my case, when i try to roll-back them am accused to no respect GFDL. Is it not an higly hipocrital manner to act? Just tell me. It's not becasue articles are mine, but i care to improve 'em and i'm aware how to can do it, to improve them as i can. If someone just roll-backed all i write, where is the good for wiki? With this consideration (GFDL), also i can start to roll-back modiphics made by others with the strangest reasons, and then, screams about the non acceptation (of the autors roll-backed) of GFDL. It's the same stuff, but i am a vandal, Bzuk and others are heroes of wikipedia. Thanks, too goods. So i am forced to think that only a stupid will rest here to be treathen, beaten, roll-backed and accused to be a copyvioler.

So i quit from aviation project. Do you want leave in peace the mini-articles on italian aircrafts? 'So be it'. I wash my hands. Bzuk (with much less knowledge, of course) will think about.

My time is too precious to be wasted in writing stuff that someone can delete totally and then, also kidding me because i contest this action. Good work to all.--Stefanomencarelli 11:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS the claiming that Spitfire was faster over 7000m to the Reggiane 2001 is totally false. Reggiane flew no faster than an Hurrican Mk II, ranging from 440kmh SL to 545 at 5470. No way that Spit and even Hurricane Mk IIB were slower at any altitude. Ten. Florenzo Macchi, despite his name a former Reggiane pilot, valued it as 'mediocre' and never thinked thas superior to spitfire MkV in any sense. But before i posted -with source as well- this, Bzuk fellow has striken again. So go figure, if you care to poste false statements, it's not guilth of mine at all!--Stefanomencarelli 11:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. Rlandmann, in response, this is a cited reference, not my made-up figures. In Angeluci and Matricardi's book, Combat Aircraft of World War II 1940-1941 (p.58) the Reggiane Re.2001 is listed as achieving a top speed of 563 km/h (349 mph) at its optimum altitude of 5,400 m (17,700 ft). Morgan and Shacklady in Spitfire: The History (p. 153) list the top speed of the Spitfire Mk V as 563 km/h (349 mph) at 15,000 ft, rising to 375.5 mph at 25,000 ft. At 5,400 m (17,700 ft), the Spitfire MK V showed an advantage that continued until it reached its optimum combat altitude of 25,000 ft. These figures are entirely in line with the statement made in the Reggiane Re.2001 article and the reference source quoted: "At lower and medium altitudes, the Re.2001 was able to hold its own, but above 7,000 m (23,000 ft), the Spitfire was clearly at an advantage in speed." from

Brindley, John F. "Caproni Reggiane Re 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete & Re 2005 Sagittario." Aircraft in Profile Vol. 13. Berkshire, UK: Profile Publications, 1973. ISBN 0-85383-022-3. (p.224)

As you might appreciate, my patience has worn thin over these continual insinuations. FWIW Bzuk 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) And if you check the edit history, you will see that I did not remove the questioned material, another admin did, reverting it to my edit (and read his very telling comment). FWIW Bzuk 19:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) There is too much to relate in a short message, I have written you an email. Please check the following edit history (from Alan Radecki: I can clearly see why he rolled you back, and I just rolled back your most recent changes because you removed important information without reason, and, unless I missed something, you added a bunch of information without references. Also, and this isn't the sole reason but it's important, your English grammar and spelling really needs some work, and what you added was almost unreadable. This encyclopedia is expected to have a professional-grade of English. I don't mean to offend you, but your writing simply isn't there. I would strongly suggest that you propose text changes on the talk page and get input from other project members who can make sure that the material is factual, it's cited, it's supported by the citations, and it's grammatically correct. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)), I had written the major submission on 31 August, my work was overwritten on August 5 and 6 including removing citations, captions, and references, all I did was restore them. FWIW Bzuk 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My apologies to Stefanomencarelli for overwriting some of his submissions without discussion. I will try to restore these edits in the Reggiane Re.2001 without losing the original meaning. Bzuk 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

After 1 day of block i return here to point some issues not still cleared.

First, i have too sources to state the max speed of Re.2001: an article and a monography of N.Sgarlato, and an article of PF Vaccari. All 3 they report 545/5400m. Angelucci was great at his time, but there are all around, today, much better stuff about the old aircrafts: once almost nothing was known about Piaggio bombers, except that Br. Mussolini was killed by one of them, just as example. So 'if' 563km is right, it might referred to the prototype (without paint and even radio mast) or the maximum speed at light weight. Either not matching with real perofrmances of the normal series aircrafts.

Second, chart reported by Bzuk are contracticing what he says. If Spitfire was 600kmh at 7500m, or 563 at 4500, and Reggiane had 563 at its best altitude, 5400m, this mean that spit was faster at all altitudes. This is called 'airspeed curve'. If one wants compare two aircrafts, must equalize: weight, altitude and engine output. If one take the spit'speed at sea level, and then compare it to Reggiane at 5km, so the Reggiane is 'faster'? 900m. are not so few: if Reggiane down to 4500m., looses part of its speed archieved at *best* altitude. If Spit climbs at 5400 closes to its best altitude, so it gains speed. So perhaps, at 4500m Re.2001 was 540kmh and Spit 563, at 5400m. Reggiane 563, Spit 575. In no case Reggiane was as fast, always slower. Its performances were overall similar to Hurricane Mk II, at sea level was even slower (440 to 450kmh) than Hurricane Mk I. Hurricane was slower than spit, Re2001 was as fast as Hurricane, so for syllogism aristotelic was slower than spit as well. No way to tell that in other manners. Plus the slower speed really archivied by Reggiane. Florenzo Macchi said that Spitfire was so temible, that fews of them all around needed go over Malta with even 20 Reggiane at once, and not always was enough to face them. This is a real world report, not empty figures. Reggiane was quite pretty, and perhaps the most flexible DB601 powered fighter: but it was also the slower than all the others Bf, MC, Ki, and Heinkels. Not oustanding at all as speed.--Stefanomencarelli 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference of speed can be explained in several modes, with less drag as example: Re2001 prototype was not fitted with antenna mast, but also it had retractrable tail wheel: 18kmh more is not so strange.

As combat: nobody said that Reggiane was capable to fight spit on equial terms, atleast nobody of i am aware. Perhaps it could outmanouver it at low levels, but also japs fighter can do this. SpitV usually was rated, over 6-7km, superior to Macchi 202 too, and always a match for the best axis fighter except FW 190. So at lower altitude Reggiane could had been a better oppositor, but i am yet to read someone that claimed is parity on spit in any occasion (except some fough with 20 Reggiane vs 7 spit, and not always). 'holds his own' to me could means: fought decently, not more. Florenzo Macchi stated that he feared spits, and when 15 Re2001 and 7 Macchi 200 fought against 12 Sea hurricanes in june 1942, they not managed to whip'em (ended 1:1, substantially). Not an aoutstanding fighter at all.--Stefanomencarelli 10:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree: Reggiane could fight decently at medium-low level (still something lacking to parity). We have done a very good job on Macchi and (despite the move in other page) Ki-61, now MC.205 is almost complete (i'll search more with german and arab service). Now i am tryng to put toghever the history of SM.79, but i must say it: even with syntesis, it will be 'monumental'. Almost the other italians stuff are a joke compared to the 'hump' (despite as bomber it was a real junk). After all, i wrote pages over 80kb in wiki.it, so for me 20 are almost relax. Also CANT Z.1018, the fairer of all italian bombers for general aclamation, is an hard match to play, but i'll play. Filippo Zapata was a designer comparable in his field to Sergio Leone: few indimenticable aircrafts.--Stefanomencarelli 14:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerotécnica AC-14's pictures

As I promised, I have uploaded some pictures of the Aerotécnica AC-14 displayed in "Museo del Aire". If you consider that I have uploaded too many, please, feel free to remove as many as you feel like to.

It is a pity how packed are all those helicopters in "Museo del Aire"'s hangars. It is impossible to get an acceptable background.

I'll upload pictures of Aerotécnica AC-12 as soon as possible.

I also have pictures of CASA C-207, but there is not an article yet. Should I write it? I have gathered some information and I think I can create a fairly good article. But if you have drafted one already, I think that you are the ones who should have the "glory" to create it. Anyway, I can upload the pictures as soon as the article is ready. I await your reply on this matter. -- Dabrio 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already uploaded a few pictures of Aerotécnica AC-12. Just as I wrote you before about Aerotécnica AC-14, remove any picture you think that should not be there. -- Dabrio 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have just finished re-drawing and re-uploading the outlines myself. As you presumed, the ones bebore were pictures taken to the helicopters' informative signs. Now, I think they comply with GFDL requirements.

I think I may have heard about CASA C-112. It rings a bell in my head, but I don't recall anything (Maybe HA 1112?). Next time I go to the "Museo del Aire", I'll ask the curator. The only problem is that I don´t know when I am going to be able to visit the museum, as I live in the UK now.

I´ll try to get ready CASA C-207 for next week. Regards -- Dabrio 03:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan XV-8 and Paresev

Thank you for upgrading the XV-8 stub!! Could you please also take a look at the experimental glider article called Paresev for consistency of formatting, classification, etc. Thank you! BatteryIncluded 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:aerostart

I just found the Template:aerostart that you created. I noted that it uses the Template:aerospecs, which you also created. The first one is quite handy, but leaves quite a lot of white space if not filled in properly, the later one is a little troublesome, as it differs somewhat from the Template:Aircraft specifications. The later is somewhat a kind of a standard here now on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft. As of current, 398 articles use your template. --MoRsE 10:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]