User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive page 1

[edit] Inlet geometry

On F/A-18 Hornet, you added the F-16 as having variable inlet geometry. I always understood that it was fixed on the F-16, and I can have several printed sources on that. Has that been changed on later F-16s? - BillCJ 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted a change where the F-4 replaced the F-16 in this sentence: The engine air intake of the Hornet is notable among its contemporaries for being "fixed", unlike the F-14, F-15, and F-16 which have variable geometry or variable ramp engine air intakes.. The F-4 is from an earlier era. Please correct that if needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson 05:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I didn't check the earlier history. I just wanted to ask first to find out why it there in case you had a reason, and now I know. I'll take it out. THanks. - BillCJ 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C-5/C-9

I should have explained, sorry. The usual practice is 3 designations per side - 2/3/4/5/6/7/8. The C-9 made 4 after. I'm not trying to be nit-picky, but I couldn't see an obvious reason for it to be there. Sometimes if a number is first or last in a sequence, I may put more to extend it a bit, or if there is some historical reason to show it. There are some unique cases, such as the sequence in the F-35 Lightning article. If you know of a reason in this case, I'd have know problem with it being there. - BillCJ 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know about the 3 per side. Thanks. There weren't that many C-9s anyway. -Fnlayson 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content page under "Related content:Designation Sequence". - BillCJ 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 787 titanium usage

Hello Jeff! How are you? titanium is 40% heavier than aluminum. The first reference says titanium being replaced by aluminum but second reference which is older does not. Take care!--Bangabalunga 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Marcus. Thanks, I looked closer. Somebody got the alumunum/titanium switch backwards in the komotv article. -Fnlayson 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff read this article please. Also there is confirmation from the head honcho at Boeing, the big CEO Mcnerney, he says the plane is 5000 pounds over weight. I live just north of Seattle so i get lots of 787 news. its always on tv. Should we mention this or not? http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/12/29/100loc_a1boeing001.cfm
- The Herald is the big news company here.--Bangabalunga 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That would help quantify the issue. But that's only 2% of the empty weight for a DC-10 (empty weight for 787 not available). -Fnlayson 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We dont have the empty weight of the 787 yet, but 5000 pounds is 2% of 250,000 pounds. This is about accurate. the 787-8 has takeoff of 476,000 pounds, so empty should be around 240,000 pounds. 245,000 as a last resort, but it is 5,000 pounds too heavy. makes sense.--Bangabalunga 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quad TiltRotor copy edit

I've just posted a new article at Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor, and could use a second set of eyes, if you're in the mood. Akradecki 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KC-767

Thanks for fixing the ref coding on KC-767. A75

You're welcome. I think I understand where you going with the CDARAP amd lease parts. I put the lease info in a subsection. See if that's how you understand things. Thanks. -Fnlayson 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, I checked it out and made another section tweak along those lines. Open to other idea's if you want to change it further though. A75

Thanks for not just reverting my edits on KC767, and actually incorporating the gist of them in your updates. I am happy with the new version at this point, and good luck on your edits. A75 03:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I try to do that whereever I can. If you get a chance see if the Lead reads OK. It would get too long if I touched on the lease and controversy. -Fnlayson 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way that was good addiation about tanker consortium for the UK MoD. Interesting approach they took. Since it was just on paper I didn't think a bulleted list was needed. -Fnlayson 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Winglets provide lift

Hello Jeff, I see you are an engineer. On the 787 talk page several people are arguing whether winglets provide lift to an airplane. Is this true? I dont know the answer either way, but my guess is that winglets may produce localized lift which eliminates drag at the tip of the wing which in turn takes pressure off the plane. The winglets dont provide direct lift to the fuselage like wings do but by their localized horizontal lift cacels some pressure off the wings. I'd appreciate some insight.Marcus--Bangabalunga 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the issue was about winglets providing some thrust. I don't really understand it. My background doesn't include aerodynamics. I had always thought they just reduced drag. One way or another that's the net result. :) -Fnlayson 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-14 Tomcat

The Ceremonial Last Flight Tomcat experienced a single Generator caution light so the spare launched in its place. The local AP stringer (SONJA BARISIC) changed that to "mechanical problems" to suit her spin for the AP wire release. The local press only reported one problem, which was accurate:

An F-14 flown by Lt. Cmdr. Chris Richard with radar intercept officer Lt. Mike Petronis makes the actual flyover after the first jet had a mechanical problem. The F-14 is being replaced with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=111479&ran=132499).

The AP reporting in Tidewater has gotten things wrong in the past in a rush to get copy on the wire. Wasn't the first time, likely not the last. HJ32

OK. Thanks for explaining. I would have figured it out when you added the reference. :) -Fnlayson 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure because the references do conflict with one another so it does pose a dilemma in which one to go with, ne c'est pas? --HJ 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, looks fine. -Fnlayson 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 222 table coding

I was wondering why you changed the Bell 222 table from the wikipedia standard style to something else? —MJBurrage • TALK • 00:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What standard? Where? There's nothing about a standard on the Help pages or Manual of Style that's I've been able to find. -Fnlayson 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Most tables on Wikipedia use style="wikitable" which gives them a standard appearance. Note that as far as I know this is not a rule, but rather an informal attempt to make Wikipedia more uniform. I.E. there are many tables that use other colors for specific reasons, but if the color of the table is unimportant to the topic, most tend to stick to the "wikitable" table design. —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the aircraft articles I watch use the class="wikitable" thing. That doesn't do anything that can't be done other ways (Help:Table). -Fnlayson 03:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to back Jeff up here, a lot of aircraft and airline articles use colors and differing styles in their tables. As long as there is no guideline on tables, either wiki-wide or in specific projects, editors are free to choose their own styles or colors, with or without a good reason for their choices. I have brought up adopting a standard style for spec tables on airliner pages on WP:AIR, but the discussion did not get very far. Feel free to chime in, and maybe we can come up with some ideas for a standard table.

Btw, the Bell 222 page is going to be replaced soon with an updated article, including the table. If you make changes to the table that's there now, be aware it is going to be replaced anyway. - BillCJ 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, all using class="wikitable" does is standardize the colors and lines of the table to match the general look of Wikipedia. Content and structure are still based on the editor's decisions. Using this default style gives the table an appearance consistent with the majority of tables in the encyclopedia (since more use this design than any other), and removes the need to clutter the table code with lots of color and/or border commands since they are built into the CSS class already. Compare the following three tables:

No formatting
Model	A	B
Speed	Mach 2	Mach 3
Altitude	100 km	110 km

**Custom formatting**
Model	A	B
Speed	Mach 2	Mach 3
Altitude	100 km	110 km

Wikitable formatting
Model	A	B
Speed	Mach 2	Mach 3
Altitude	100 km	110 km

Notice how it takes more work (than in the third table) to do custom formatting in the second table, and that the table would be harder for someone else to edit due to the extra code. The third table is 1) more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and 2) easier for others to edit later. (P.S. where in WP:AIR is this being discussed?) —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I understand those differences. Several articles have tables with a different BG color on the header row but that's about it. The dicussion on table guidelines has been archived now. See Spec tables in WP:Air talk archive 15. -Fnlayson 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 737 under-wing engines

The "issue" was having to use partially triangular engine intakes and side-mounted accessories on the high-bypass engines on later models. This is well documented; I don't think we need a fact check on it - the article discusses it elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement read like there were engine failures due to FOD. That'd be an incident. -Fnlayson 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- True. That more specific claim could use some references, sure. Georgewilliamherbert 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell helicopter sandboxes

Jeff, I just added the updated version to the Bell 407 page. Could you double-check it for me? Thanks. Btw, I've moved my sandboxes to new pages; the updated list is here. - BillCJ 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. Got it. Those better names for your sandboxes. -Fnlayson 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the Frawley book does not cover the 429, as it was printed in 2003. It does have info on the 427, tho not the planned/stillborn 427i. I plan on using the Bell 429 site and the Flugrevue page in the EL fo r the specs. - BillCJ 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. You have a Frawley ref thing in the Capcaity line in the Specs. Guess that was a carry over from something then. No problem. -Fnlayson 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a carry-over from the 407, where I stole the specs table from. Thanks for catching that. I've gone live now with the full version at Bell 429, and the sandbox will be deleted soon. - BillCJ 18:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I noticed that the specs on User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 222 and User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 430 don't have the engine models listed (just the power rating). I still don't trust myself on tables, so can you try to add those sometime in the nest few days? Oh, don't bother messing with the current Bell 222 page's table unlkess you really want to do it. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can add a row for Engine/powerplant, but I may not be able to readily find the models numbers to fill in. I'll leave question marks for stuff I can't find. -Fnlayson 02:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Finished. Couldn't readily find the engine type for the 222(A). Maybe an earlier variant for the 222B's engine (??). -Fnlayson 02:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A previous editor on the 222 page (probably Alan) has detailed engine info at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 222#Powerplants. I'd need to ask him to be certain that he was the one, and to clarify his sources, but most of the data is probably from the Bell 222/230 Field Maintenance Training Manual, which is listed in "References". - BillCJ 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 430 ready

Jeff, I have finished up the Bell 430 sandbox. If you could double check it for me, I'd appreciate it. I'f asked Alan to look at to too, and then move it to Bell 430 over the redirect, so it might be on the main page by the time you read this. - BillCJ 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some cleaning up. Looks good. -Fnlayson 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I manually copied your sandbox content over the redirect in the 430 article. That does nt get the history though. Let Alan move the sandbox over it I guess.. -Fnlayson 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Alan does that it's fine, but if not that's OK too. I just think it's good to give the new pages some edit history if we can, but it's not a big deal either way.

I'm going to cut the 430 out of the main 222 page, and copy the new specs over, and the other sections, but I'm still working on the new text in the sandbox. Thanks again for your help. - BillCJ 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of mph/kph in 787

Jeff the reason I have removed the speeds is mph/kph are multifold, this is currently the standard parctice on Wikipedian jet article (737/747). The refs I have provided from Boeing only quote the Mach number. The reason they are not present is because there is no consitent way to convert Mach Number to a velocity. As I'm sure you are aware the speed of sound (Mach 1.0) depends on a number of factors (temperature, pressure altitude, air density etc..) For example (discounting air density/pressure altitude) at 0°C the speed of sound is about 740 mph (making Mach 0.85 equal to 630mph) where as a temperature of -50°C (not uncommon at FL400) the speed of sound is only 670 mph (making mach .85 = 570 mph) This gets further complicated when you consider pressure & density, When considering this with respect to an aircraft there are other things to consider, for example wind speed, this then brings the question do the speeds refer to Ground Speed, Airspeed (TAS or IAS). Hence the reason jet aircraft crusing speeds are normally given in Mach Number. The litereture that does give speeds in mph/kph is usually the Janet & John bit (i.e. for those who have no concept of the speed of sound). -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard practice? There's no consensus on WP:AIR for that across the board. Boeing provides mach values and speeds for all its other planes. Fair enough on the 787 since they don't have that listed on its pages right now. But it will get spec pages like the other planes later.. -Fnlayson 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Regrading standard practice - As I pointed out it's currently the Standard practice for similar aricles on WP. It's also the industry standard, IAS/TAS is only used when climbing or descending curise speeds are always given in Mach. (E.G. A NatX pos rep "BAW309 - at 52N30W FL360 Mach .82 at 1330Z....". -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as listing only mach numbers in similar articles is not true. Only the Boeing 727, 737 and 787 articles are like that and Boeing hasn't provided speeds for the 787 yet. No mach numbers are listed for the 707. Wikipedia is not limited to industry standards. It's no problem to list conversions & extra data. -Fnlayson 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I can see there are arguments from both sides. Rather than have every article different - I have decided to garner the community consensous at WP:AIR see [3] -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello! South Carolina Trip

Hi Jeff. I have a chance to go to Vought in Charleston South Carolina in August and see the 787 being built. Would you like to go with me? You can read Bill's talk page for more info. Take care Marcus --Bangabalunga 18:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. Would that be a 1 day tour? There's plenty of historical stuff in Charleston to see as well. I'm sure I can do that. Let me know a date when you are able to narrow it down. -Fnlayson 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will. I asked if we can fly on the Dreamlifter 747 but of course they said no. I knew that. I said it in a jokish way. But we can peak inside and take lots of pictures of the dreamlifter. We can also take down specs for the dreamloader and all other stuff for wikipedia. Marcus--Bangabalunga 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thanksfully the Dreamlifter is big and long enough so it doesn't look so much like the bloated Guppy planes. -Fnlayson 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Carolina Trip

Hello Jeff, Yes as far as I know the trip is on. I have semi-distant family memebers living in Spartanburg and we are planning on visiting them around August. I dont know if this is for sure or not as flights are expensive. I will try and make it there for this summer. I will give you plenty of notice.--Bangabalunga 17:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll be driving and will probably take a most of a week off for that. -Fnlayson 17:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I think the empty weights on the 787-3 to be correct. I didn't place the numbers on the spec page but they do sound right. I placed a fictional calculation on the talk page.--Bangabalunga 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!!! Aggies Band

Well folks, thanks to your reviews and comments, the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is now a featured article on Wikipedia. It should take a day or so to update, but it's a done deal. Thanks for the help, Fnlayson. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad it came through. -Fnlayson 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sukhoi Su-25

Hi Jeff, I have some big plans with the Su-25 article (my final objective is to make it an FA until August), and I need somebody to give me advices and do some copyediting and other things like that. I started editing this article because I found a very good source, which can cover almost the entire article. I completely overhauled the "Operators" and "Combat service" sections, and I like to hear your opinion regarding them (because I think you are a truelly expert on the subject). Are you interested to help? Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll do what I can to help. I don't know anything about the Su-25 right now, so I'll see if I can do some simply copy edit stuff. -Fnlayson 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I actually needed, somebody to take care of the minor things of the article (typo, copyedit; fixing links, templates, layout, etc.). Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bombardier CRJ

Jeff, although I didn not inted to do it this soon, anotehr jumped the gun, and split the Bombardier CRJ aritcle into the Bombardier CRJ100/200 and Bombardier CRJ700/900 pages. Could you break up the specs template on the main page, and move the correct versions to their respective pages? Thanks. Btw, if those gaudy border colors were "accidently" cahnged during the move, I wouldn't complain ;) - BillCJ 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look that. They split the CRJ into 100/200 & 700/900 (fixed your link above). -Fnlayson 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. Would you like me to do the spec sheet? I love table making. --Bangabalunga 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I did that saturday. I just had to copy the table from the CRJ article to the 2 pages and remove unneeded columns. -Fnlayson 13:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mikoyan MiG-29

Sorry for my snarky edit summary and reversion of your edit. Thanks for finding a compromise version. --John 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that big of deal. The NATO name thing got discussed on the Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29 page some. It seems like a Western biased to emphasize the NATO names for Soviet aircraft too much. -Fnlayson 03:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

- Jeff, if we can find a good source that notes the Russia/other users use the NATO name, we should put it into the article. It's rare that NATO code names are adopted by the "enemy".
  - Soviet use of "Fulcrum" is actually in the article at the end of the Development section and referenced too. -Fnlayson 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, good! See, I'm just a bit slow, but had the right idea! We might look into moving that to the lead, if it will fit stylistically. - BillCJ 03:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Good idea! Mentioned in the NATO sentence. -Fnlayson 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-2 weight in gold

Hey Jeff, I remember the B2 article for the longest time made the point that each B2 costs twice its weight in gold. I remembered this and just brought a friend to the computer to show it to him and its gone. Is this statement not true? I divided the cost by its weight and multiplied it by the price of gold at 400 bucks an ounce and it is really true.--Bangabalunga 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but there is a detailed discussion of this on the B-2 talk page. One important thing to remember: Gold doesn't fly, nor is it nearly invisible to radar, among many other things the B-2 can do. A pile of gold sitting on the runway does no one any good except the enemy that won't get bombed! - BillCJ 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Very funny Bill, but the comparison to gold can bring the enormous cost of the plane into perspective for someone that doesn't understand what a billion dollar is! I was showing it to my kid cousin who loves military planes and B2 and B1 are his favorites.--Bangabalunga 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If someone can't understand a billions dollars, they won't understand the real value of that gold. It's along the lines of saying a plane can carry XYZ golf balls, imo. -Fnlayson 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I agree with Jeff. In order to include such a statement, you'd have to quote a verifiable source. As pointed out in the discussion, the quote cited in the articel was from a political speech by agovernor of IL, not a finacial or erospace magizine article or some such. But if you can find something like that, post the source on the talk page, and we'll take a look at it. - BillCJ 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh totally forget it. I am not serious about this at all. I have no feelings either way. Its just that i was reading it and I couldn't find the gold statement. Thats all. I thought it was an interesting trivia fact that had it been made of gold, it would cost half as much. Of course it wouldn't be a functioning plane at that point. I agree as well. Not a biggie.--Bangabalunga 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Costs

Jeff, I would like to replace the last paragraph of the Devel section to: The B-2 cost estimates per plane has ranged from 1.157 billion^[1] to 2.2 billion US dollars.^[2]

The 1994 Defense Authorization Act approved of 20 bombers with the following costs:^[2]

$28,968 million in 1981 dollars (currently equal to $44,656 million in then-year dollars)
$39,639.7 million in 1994.

It reads like a magazine article not an encyclopedia. Any objections?

(Side note... BillCJ is really ticked off! I understand! Hope he comes back.) LanceBarber 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine with me Lance. The comparison to an aircraft carrier seems silly. I'd like to keep the actual $150M manufacturing cost sentence, if I can find a reference for it. -Fnlayson 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XB-70 Valkyrie

Just wanted to write a note of thanks. I'd been working a bit on the Valkyrie article, and submitted it as a GA candidate mainly to see where it was and how much further it needed to go. I've been so busy working on my thesis lately I hadn't had a chance to make many of the needed improvements. You've put a lot of work into the article, and I wanted to make sure you saw that someone recognized it. Twredfish 01:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for your work on it before. I got a little more on the background I can write. -Fnlayson 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with your thesis work if it is not done. Writing my thesis was like pulling teeth to me. -Fnlayson 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bombardier CSeries

Jeff, I was looking at the Bombardier Aerospace page today, and realized that there was an extensive section on the Bombardier CSeries there (mostly unsourced). I moved the section to the Bombardier CSeries article, and rewrote a small blurb on it of the company page. Unfortunately, after spending almost an hour rewriting the Bombardier CSeries page, I lost it all by hitting the wrong key. I have tried to redo it, and hopefully it makes sense. When you can, could you look over the page, and check my edits? Thanks. - BillCJ 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles look alright to me Bill. I did a little clean-up but nothing major. -Fnlayson 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-1 Lancer UK link

Jeff, UK webmaster fixed the captions. Link added back into aritcle. Have a great 4th! LanceBarber 18:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed you added it back, Lance. Thanks and have a great 4th!! -Fnlayson 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Got a series of walk-around pics for the B-1A, will load them in a day or 2... I'll create a gallery section... nose gear, bomb bay, tail section, main gears, intakes, and canard. LanceBarber 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good deal! Thanks for the update. -Fnlayson 12:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery added. LanceBarber 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MD-80's closest competitor

Why is the really stub information about Boeing 737-400 being the "closest competitor" of the MD-80 being moved around as if it would be important. Unless sourced, that's really a piece of information out of the blue. The plane has been offered to customers and buyers for 30+ years, and it has been competing with a lot of aircraft types during those decades.

Appreciate the other edits you've made in the MD-80 article; sets the style, adds quality.

That sentence has been there for some time. Other airline articles have similar statements. Most of the articles list the aircraft in service at the bottom of the section as it is usually the most current info. That's why I moved the competitor sentence up. -Fnlayson 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Thunder

Jeff, you can keep an eye out for a Blue Thunder pic that we can use? If it's copyrighted to Columbia, then we can use it under fair use. We'll have to post it on the movie page if it's fair use until we get the copter page ready, since fair use pics can't be used on userpages. - BillCJ 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do there. -Fnlayson 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M1911 A2 Project

The project was in late 2004. I added that in there and stuck it at the bottom of Current Users. Thanks, Matthew Biebel 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. -Fnlayson 14:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question, assessment

Jeff, who is the person who usually promotes an article after an A-class review on WPAVIATION? Does somebody like Kirill Lokshin exist there? The other article which is on A-class review is there since May, and nobody passed or failed it... Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Euroc. I haven't been involved with that. Looks like you need to ask for assessment on WP:Air/A. -Fnlayson 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done it. Can you have a look to see if it's right? Thanks, Eurocopter tigre 23:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It looked fine to me. I added a link to that page on the Su-25 talk page. -Fnlayson 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Eurocopter tigre 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Hi Jeff. In the F-22 Raptor article, I noticed that we were both altering citation styles. This article incorporated so many different "quirks" in style guides that I had decided to incorporate the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide to simplify all citation entries. This guide along with the APA (American Psychological Association) style guide are the two most often used formats in Wikipedia. The APA has invariably been used in the templates but both MLA and APA guides predominate. The MLA guide is the world's most common reference format and is extensively used for research papers specializing in the humaities and social sciences.

At this point, I want to determine whether your eyes are not rotating back into their sockets, but irregardless, let me go on... The reason for choosing the MLA style is not only because of its widespread acceptance in research but also because of its innate simplicity and flexibility. All citations have a very standardized form: Author (last name, first name, alphabetically ordered by first entry). Title (if a periodical, encyclopedia or other media title shown in quotations, with the main entry source in italics). Place of publication (city, country if needed): Publisher, Date of publication. (With all other entries added, for example, a page number written as "p." or any other information, re: ISBN, internet link, etc.) Now in using a consistent MLA style, this is how a citation and reference would look:

Carlson, Maj. Gen. Bruce. "Subject: Stealth Fighters." U.S. Department of Defense

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Transcript, 21 April 1999. [4]. Access date: 16 July 2007.

(The quirk I introduced is the period to separate entries as per MLA style guide.)

Again, this is Wikipedia, and the whole article can be reverted at any time by another editor with a new "take" on the editing, which is fine with me. Sorry for my overly pedantic comment. FWIW Bzuk 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

The only real change, I've done is to link the title. An extra link at the end wastes space and looks bad in my opinion, especially with a list of 40 something references. I've explained that in my edit summaries. You ought to work to get cites templates changed or make new ones. -Fnlayson 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff again. No problem on my end, but you will note that the original citation entries were not in templates just some made-up form that editors have employed. I like the internet link style you use, it just doesn't fit the MLA- Author, title, place, publisher, date and link style of the MLA. Irregardless, this style looks good and is simple to use but whenever I "work" (that's a euphemism for waste time on Wikipedia), I tend to rely on the MLA guide. |:¬) FWIW Bzuk 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

That's fine. The exact details of the style guides is not my thing. I'm an engineer and mostly reference reports and memos with document numbers with Gov. agencies and companies as the authors. -Fnlayson 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I cringe to add this comment, but I am an editor and author by trade and a former librarian (33+ years) previously. Now you can determine the extent of my madness. I also write and edit mainly aviation history, which is a further affliction. |:¬) Bzuk 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] F-35 Lightning II

Jeff, does it appear to be a whole lot of speculation in this article? I know that things are still up in the air but I wonder if it would be prudent to trim some of the other editor's ramblings? I noted you took umberage about someone's "babble" that crept into the intro. FWIW Bzuk 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Yea, that was an IP user's opinions about what's wrong with the F-35, all unsourced. No sure where you mean. If you can cut back some ramblings without it losing meaning, go for it. -Fnlayson 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Jeff, I won't go into detail here about the use of quotation marks, but sufficient to say is that the Wikipedia style guide in this area is mistaken as to use of quotation marks. I have dealt with this issue for a decade with editors worldwide so I know that it is still a contentious issue. BTW, I am an editor by trade and very pedantic to boot.

Briefly, The Properly Incorrect Use of Punctuation in Quotes as given in technical works:

The correct rule for punctuation within Quotation Marks, says:

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.

Example: He told us, "Put the period in the right place." Does this rule apply to technical writing?

No! Not always.

The goal of a technical manual and preseumably Wikipedia, is to tell the user precisely what to do and how to do it. Sometimes, grammar gets in the way.

Consider the following sentence:

Type your name into the from field like this: "Doug." Then press the tab key.

This is misleading in a technical manual.

Quotation marks are often used in technical document to show exactly what the user should type into an input field. In these cases, the quotations show what a user should type verbatim.

Should they type the period? NO! not in this case. So the period does not belong inside the quotes. Instead, break the grammatical rule and write this:

Type your name into the from field like this: "Doug". Then press the tab key.

Now is is clear to the user that they should type Doug in the from filed, without the period.

You can try to avoid these grammatical problems by changing the sentence structure, but this may lead to other problems. For example, you may change the need for a period into the need for a comma. Or you may end up with a longer, more convoluted sentence, hardly clear, concise and a quick read.

Follow the correct rules for punctuation whereever possible, but keep clarity and technical correctness (rather than grammatical correctness) as the priority.

Make sure information is easy to find and can be clearly understood, even at the expense of making a few minor grammatical faux pas.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it has established a variance in a grammatical rule as if it was the norm. FWIW Bzuk 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Gee, if that's not going into to detail, I'd hate to see detail.. ;) -Fnlayson 23:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I did say pedantic, didn't I? |:¬∆˙ Bzuk 06:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks - BAE Systems

Hi. Thanks for the reply regarding BAE. Since then I looked into it a bit more & I sent the webmaster an e-mail. I'll let you know what (if any) response I get. The phrase that set me off was "is the successor to many of the most famous British aircraft, defence electronics and warship manufacturers." -- I wrote that to "provoke interest" in the subject of the article as suggested by a FAC whilst also considering what might sound NPOV. The more I read the more I recognised it!! Mark83 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Want to hear something interesting? The section in question has been pulled from the website (http://production.investis.com/heritage/nonflash/timeline/1999_bae_systems/ original link now broken) and timeline with final entry (the one in question) removed.[5] Mark83 18:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the quick fix to it. Did they reply to your e-mail? -Fnlayson 01:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)