User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive page 2

Contents

[edit] Behind the making of the 787

Hello Jeff, James wallace of the Seattlepi wrote an article yesterday that is interesting. The part about the Sonic Cruiser is the best! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/321719_dreamliner29.html take care, marcus--Bangabalunga 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Jeff, thank you for clarifying that the drop test is crash test. I was somewhat reluctant to refer to this test as a crash test, since this may imply more than testing for a very hard or gears-up landing. Since you are a mechical engineer and probably have participated in drop tests, I appreciate your correction. --Dan Dassow 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it sorta read like they accidentally dropped a fuselage section during production at first. So I thought that should be clarified. It's not a full crash test, but a partial one. Thanks for adding that. I hadn't seen any news on that stuff. :) -Fnlayson 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Jeff, I have a Google alert for "787", "B787", "787 Rollout" and "Dreamliner". Most of this is repetitious, but occasionally I come across something of interest.--Dan Dassow 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Boeing's release on crash testing. "787 completes physical crashworthiness testing". -Fnlayson 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C-23 Sherpa

Jeff, a user has added two commercial pics of the Short 330 to the page, so I am going to try to work on adding text to User:BillCJ/Sandbox/C-23 Sherpa page this week. I spent today adding pics from the DOD image site to the C-23 Commons page, so feel free to have a look, and add the ones you like to the sandbox. DOn't worry about blank space right now, just pic what you think are the best of each type. I'm also setting up User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Short 330 and User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Short 360, and hope to dump in some text in the next few days to expand them. - BillCJ 07:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frawley pic credits

Jeff, I see you added The International Directory of Civil Aircraft, 2003/2004 to your books list, and so I assume you have it now. If so, check out the photo credit for the Short 360 listed at the bottom of page 193. Interesting, huh? There should be a few more throughout the book. PS, is the new Harrier II book any good? - BillCJ 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL! He's not a relative that I know of. I just got that one in the mail this afternoon. I guess I should add some info on the Short 330 & 360 this week... -Fnlayson 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another sandbox! (CH-53K)

Jeff, I've started a sandbox on the CH-53K at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky CH-53K. I don't expect to go live with it this year, but when more info, such as specs, does come out, we can have something close to ready. - BillCJ 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • OK. I added that to my watch list. You intend for that sandbox article to eventually become a stand alone CH-53K article, right? -Fnlayson 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so. The CH-53K is going to be largely new, even the fuselage is about a foot wider. I don't think it needs to be separated now, but eventually it will get to that point. - BillCJ 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • That's fine Bill. On something else. Canada is very happy to get the C-17. Look at all the CC-177 articles on the CF Air Force news page. :) -Fnlayson 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So are the Canadian editors here, who keep adding to that section on the C-17 page :) Soon, it'll be longer than all the other sections combined! I'm going to try to cut it back to the bear essentials once all the hoopla dies down. You've done a good job of keeping it trimed tho to this point. I hope we don't end up having to spin off the C-177, becasue it's not any different than late-model USAF planes. In fact, they actually ARE USAF planes, because the USAF allowed Canada to take some of their slots, and the planes were under consturction befre Canada signed on. I'm exicted for the Boeing people who make them, because a few years ago the C-17 was about dead. At least the RAF/RAAF/CF/NATO orders have given it new life for now, thogh the orders are relativley few. It's even more exciting for me because of all the bad-mouthing about the plane during its development, probably second only to the V-22's criticism. But with the War on Terror, the C-17 has demonstrated it's usefulness, and now "everyone" wants some, even Sweden! The Swedes don't usually participate in programs like this because of their neutrality, but they are part of the NATO buy. Anyway, McDD did a good job on it. (Isn't this the last McDD transport still in production?) - BillCJ 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I cut out a paragraph and half from the Canadian section last week. I say give it a month or two before cutting down more. The C-17 was not a simple design; a large STOVL cargo plane that can use rough runways. It's the only MDC support craft in production that I can think of. The AF will need more of them in a few years with all the hours the C-17 fleet is piling up. -Fnlayson 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Eurocopter tigre 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice but I have not signed up on the MilHist Project. Also, I don't recognize any other users bieing voted on. Good luck. -Fnlayson 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jeff, could you please go and close the Su-25 review at WP:AVIATION. It has support, but nobody would ever close it because of the bad organization in the project. I would done it, if I weren't the one who requested it. Thanks, --Eurocopter tigre 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how to close that out. I'll add it to the WP:Aviation assessment page under Requesting an assessment (link Su-25 review page). -Fnlayson 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Abrams not adopted by countries ....

The article is somewhat missing a criticism section where several negative effects of the M1 should be combined. Other nations trialling the M1 but not adopting him should be included there. Do you have any idea how to achieve this? --Denniss 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see a good place for that now. I'll see if I can make a place... -Fnlayson 22:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A Critism subsection in the new Design features section might work. -Fnlayson 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project organization

Since I see you already update Template:WPAVIATION Announcements/Rotorcraft, and chance of getting you to add your name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal as the Rotorcraft liason? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, signed up. -Fnlayson 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-14 Tomcat

Jeff, the issues that have arisen with this article do have an explanation. Please email me and I will fill you in. FWIW Bzuk 05:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

  • I only see 1 user complaining about US-bias and stuff. Looks like a hot-head to me. I'm not that concerned. Thanks. -Fnlayson 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Mr. Sand Box

Thanx Jeff for your help on staring the Sand Box. I got a Helicopters in Pop Culture- I'm trying to get back on (after being deleted : ( so if you have any contribs, please feel free to drop in thanx again ANigg 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on that, Jeff. I know how to do it, but describing it left me. - BillCJ 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I guess this User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture is the sandbox article you mean? That really should be User:ANigg/Copters in Pop Culture so it is on your user space. -Fnlayson 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Jeff I think actually I do have it in USER space. If you get a chance can you chk. my page out to tell whether or not I do have in the right place. Also if so if you have any contribs, please feel free ( And no I'm not trying to pass the work on to you LOL)ANigg 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The link above is on your user page, sure. But the "User:DREWNIGG/" part of the link is not your account. Anyway, I'll look at it sometime. That's not a major interest for me. -Fnlayson 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrier news release

I don't know if there's anything we can use here, but I found this news release, which you might find interesting. - BillCJ 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Bill. Humm, that seems to be recent. It mentions AV-8As, which I thought had been retired. Also, the original UK MoD article is better formatted I think. -Fnlayson 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AV-8A is a typo, I'm sure. the pics of the Harriers in the MOD article are definitely B Pluses. - BillCJ 17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-4 Phantom II

Jeff, take a look at the recent edits in this article. Send me an email, I'll fill you in. FWIW Bzuk 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

  • Alright, writing now.. -Fnlayson 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 797

Re this diff, has there been an announcement by Boeing of the 797? Or is this just pure speculation again? - BillCJ 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it is just pure speculation. That's the only thing I've every seen of a Boeing double decker. Their work on the 747-8 would be sorta wasted if they planned to do a 797 anytime soon. -Fnlayson 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, was just making sure I hadn't missed something this week with by slow-down! I Googled "797", and found a bunch of rumors on a Boeing 1000-seat BWB design named 797 dating to 2006, but that certainly wasn't a double-decker like the A380. Also, the best guesses out there have "797" as a possibility for the Y1/737RS, with the Y3 (777/747 replacement) to come later. - BillCJ 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, the BWB thing sounds familiar. That'd probably require infrastructure changes at airports. I was going to do a search on that myself later. Thanks. -Fnlayson 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qantas

  • What are you asking? That Qantas' subsidiaries should count with Qantas or something else? -Fnlayson 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

yes they should count. Sparrowman980 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That's how i see it. Qantas transfers their planes to subsidiaries, so they should all count together, imo. Where is this coming up at; Qantas articles or aircraft articles? -Fnlayson 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well at Qantas page but at World's largest airlines i have to call it Qantas group but it really isn't called that its just called Qantas. Sparrowman980 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to its web site, "Qantas" covers the whole company & subsidiaries. They also total QantasLink and Jetstar with their numbers here. -Fnlayson 03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right and thats what i used now another one that means that all thos planes are under Qantas right and if that is can you back me up because every time i change something they always revert even if i am right. Sparrowman980 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll try to help. Use the adobe (pdf) file above as a reference for changes. -Fnlayson 04:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanksSparrowman980 04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What i will do thou is creat Qantas group page and link it to Qantas think that will work. Sparrowman980 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you mean a redirect page? Is that really needed here? -Fnlayson 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thats what i am asking?Sparrowman980 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Use a question mark then. ;) I see not need to create a "Qantas group" redirect, unless that a term someone might see used. -Fnlayson 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

K then i won't do it then.Sparrowman980 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel's Syria raid

Jeff, do you know of a good non-wiki article or source on Israel's raid on the Syrian nuclear facility earlier this month? I totally missed any good coverage of it, and thought you might know of some. Also, do you know if there a Wikipedia article on it yet? Thanks. - BillCJ 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know off the top of my head. Seems like I read about it in an article or two. I'm not seeing anything on the aerospace/defense news sites I check. Here's an article from the Washington Post though."Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site" -Fnlayson 17:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alabama Crimson Tide football

Before reverting, you may want to look at the contributions of Emgeannikis (talk · contribs), who originally added that link, and 129.44.49.20 (talk · contribs), his IP. He is the author of that book and was adding it randomly as a "reference" to articles. Putting ref tags around spam doesn't make it not spam. He understands now that this action is against our policies, so there's not a problem any more from that standpoint, but unless you have read this book and have something you would like to legitimately reference with it, please don't undo my removal. --B 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, but how is anyone else to know that? You should have given that reason when you removed before. -Fnlayson 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There were 50+ school articles that he added it to. Hitting the admin rollback button on all of them takes 30 seconds. Reverting the "slow way" would take 30 minutes. ;) --B 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • How much would pasting "linkspam" add? ;) -Fnlayson 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • A lot more actually ... with tabbed browsing under Firefox or IE7, along with either the admin rollback button or a tool like WP:TWINKLE that simulates it, you can open up someone's contributions page and have one-click reverting for all of their contributions ... you just go down the page and wheel-click on all of the rollback links. To revert the "slow way", you have to wheel click on each diff, click on each undo link, paste the edit summary, and click ok. If you do a lot of vandalism fighting, I highly recommend WP:TWINKLE for the rollback button on the contributions page ... it makes bulk vandalism reverts very easy. --B 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I use Firefox 2 & tab browsing. Good job keeping linkspam/conflict of interest links off wikipedia. -Fnlayson 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

Thanks for the kind words. I was disturbed by an essay I read that mentioned the possibility that Wikipedia would never increase in quality, only in size. So I decided to back off from adding pages until I at least tried to help bring up the quality on the existing pages. When I saw that MILHIST had a drive on to update their assessments I tossed my hat in the ring. I have restricted myself to American and German Aircraft for now because I have been studying them for most of my life. As I learn more about editing I may branch out into more of the basic Military History areas I'm interested in, American Civil War, WWI, WWII. I have a large library of specific books I've collected over the years, and I'm learning how to scan through them to find those "things I know I read somewhere" to help with the sourceing craze. Bzuk has been patiently teaching me how to format citations.

While I was slugging through the F's in B-Class military history articles needing review I updated F/A-18, just after I did, I noticed you had recently nested the two project banners. Alas, when I updated it I removed the |nested=yes entries. I've been trying to do nesting for project banners greater than two. It just looked like convention to me from all the Talk pages I've viewed. Is there another reason for nesting besides the number of boxes? Please enlighten me. --Colputt 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I've nested them when there's 2 or more banners and a lot of talk. No rule for that, as far as I know, just a space saving thing. 3 or more banners sounds fine to me. Yea, I've picked up some cite formatting from Bzuk too. I was using the cite templates, but manually formatting it is just as easier and simpler to read and check. -Fnlayson 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archtrain

I submitted a formal request for a name change to Archtransit because I didn't like the "train" part. The new name was a compromise to retain a similar name rather than a completely different name. A bureaucrat accepted the request and transferred my entire edit history to Archtransit.

If you look at the edit history of Archtrain, you will see there are no edits. However, the signature (4 tildes) that Archtrain left remain. It's an idiosyncracy of wikipedia, I think.

Judging from your talk page, you edit quite a lot about aviation! Welcome! Archtransit 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. It's not problem with me. I was just wondering. It seemed odd that the train redirects to your new one. -Fnlayson 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered accepting a nomination to be an administrator? Some people think that a potential administrator has to be of a certain mold, i.e. looking for vandalism, participating in articles for deletion debates, and not necessarily a good or frequent editor of articles. I think that a good editor, like you, is the ultimate sign of commitment. With good temperment and a sense of fairness, you encourage others by example to edit. If interested, I'll nominate you. Archtransit 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think I want to get into that just yet. Thanks for the offer and kind words. You work on some aircraft articles, you want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, if you haven't already of course. Take care AT. -Fnlayson 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-10 edits

Nice job on the A-10 rewrite and an EXCELLENT notation in the references!!! — BQZip01 — talk 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I don't think I've done that much there. The text has been pretty good. -Fnlayson 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. user:GB-UK-BI

user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, --noclador 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MD-12

I'll work on a cite for the panorama windows thing. I clearly remember the Aviation Week ad back in the late '80s showing the concept of a lower front deck. The views in flight would be amazing, but LANDING might be pretty disturbing, depending on conditions... A2Kafir 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I've not seen anything on that, but have seen something about putting people in a lower deck on a concept idea for some plane. I'll look too. -Fnlayson 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Cool, found mention of that on Airliners.net MD-11 page. -Fnlayson 19:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey A2Kafir, in case you didn't see, I found a reference for the lower-front passenger deck with panoramic windows in the MD-12 article. It's mentioned on the Airliners.net MD-11 page. -Fnlayson 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I noticed; good find! Next time I'm at the university library, I'm going to look for the ad I remember; it had a cool illustration (if I remember it right) and might make a good illustration for this article. A2Kafir 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure. I'm curious as to what it looked like. -Fnlayson 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm too late. I know there was consideration of a panorama deck. The L-1011 actually did have such a thing. It was built for PSA. The plane had strakes to provide additional crush protection in case of a wheels up landing. Archtransit 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • OK. A lower deck is mentioned for the L-1011-1 section for Pacific Southwest Airlines, but the panoramia windows are not mentioned. That be something good to add sometime. -Fnlayson 18:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PW1120

Jeff, I just found the Pratt & Whitney PW1120 page, and it needs some work. There's been a "Too Technical" tag on it since last Dec, and it is that, making me think it's a text dump from somewhere. I've added a few things, such as ref section and ELs to Globalsecurity pages on the Lavi and F-4 variant with the PW1120 engine. Also, I haven't checked to see if there are any links to the F100, of which the 1120 is a derivitive. When you have time, could you take a look? Thanks. - BillCJ 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yea, it does look messy. I'll see what I can do there. An unrelated question: Does the U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947 book cover non-Army variants like the CH-53E and MH-53E? Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Naw, the Army never bought any CH-53s. I thought they got early models. -Fnlayson 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

THanks. Nope, the book just covers aircraft which either served with or were evaluated by the Army. Sometimes it has some history on variants/usage in the other services, mostly as background, but not consistently.

PS, if you want to say, exactly what area of aviation/engineering do you work in? (filed, not company, as were in an open forum.) I'd just like to have an idea of where your expertise lies, in case I need advice/help in a particular area on here. Like, I know Alan is in helicopters, primariyl engine maintenance, but I believes he's a pilot also (or at least knows how to fly). So when we had autoratation questions on the V-22 talk page, I asked him for help. Born is an Army OH-58 pilot, so once in a while I'll toss a questiong his way. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. My education is in Mechanical Engineering and I work in Structures (stress analysis). I've dealt with space hardware (Spacelab), missile/rocket hardware, no aircraft yet. So I can generally cover structural failures and structural integrity matters. :) -Fnlayson 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Have you done much editing with the (fairly-new) Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and aircraft incidents pages? Alan has worked on some of those articles, esp copters, and I try to watch some just to watch the flakes, and the new incidents. Just asking. - BillCJ 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Nope. I might look n on it, but that's not a big interest for me. -Fnlayson 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Thought I'd ask. Anyway, if I run across a structural question somewhere, I'll keep you in mind. :) - BillCJ 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I know plenty about metals and a little about composites too. -Fnlayson 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I would be glad to try and help on the helicopter accident work. My expertise is in Army helicopter crashworthiness and flight safety. I'm not an accident investigator, but I understand the helicopter technology incorporated in the aircraft.--The Founders Intent 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sure you can help. If you like it and help regularly there, add your name to their participant list. -Fnlayson 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be great, but I find that the regulars seem to ignore anyone new. It's as though they speak passed you. I could be wrong, but that's the impression.--The Founders Intent 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess it takes a little time for folks to get used to seeing new users around. Don't let that bother you if you want to jump in and work on something or add a comment. -Fnlayson 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Battlefield Warplanes

I see you finally got Modern Battlefield Warplanes. How d'ya like it? - BillCJ 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh yea, it's very good. I've read the AH-64 and AH-1 sections. Reading on some others now. It's got a lot of good info. Added some info on Fire fighting Cobras from it. -Fnlayson 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! The Harrier section has some good info too. It covers some different areas than the Harrier II: Validating V/STOL book, so the complement each other well. - BillCJ 06:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • True. The Validating book focuses more political stuff rather than design info. -Fnlayson 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-67

Because you'd done a few edits on the A-67 page, just wanted to let you know why it disappeared...the entire article was a cut-and-paste copyvio, so it was deleted. Would probably be a good subject for a "real" article, though. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I noticed some copy & pasting after looking at one article. Dang, I was trying to write a lead in sentence.. -Fnlayson 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that, didn't mean to mess you up. Do you need it restored to rework it? It would probably be better to move it to a different title, though. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's OK. I copied it over to /A-67 Dragon. I can at least make a basic stub out of it. -Fnlayson 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-22 stealth generation

Sorry, I overlooke this : And by the time we got to the fourth generation, we were able to add supersonic speed,

I thought this:

Q: To what degree are radar absorbent materials used on the F-22, and are they of similar sorts that were used on the F-117?

A: Just by way of comparison, the F-117 is completely covered with radar- absorbing material, and this airplane has a very small percentage of its surface covered with radar-absorbing materials. And the materials are, if these are second generation, then these are fourth and fifth generation.--HDP 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing that up about the RAM. Looks like you're quoting from the 1999 briefing. Not sure if I understand what's asking. I'll try to answer... The shape of the airplane's exterior allows use of less RAM on the newer aircraft designs such as the F-22 and F-35 (also F/A-18E/F vs. F/A-18C/D). I think the main differences in the newer RAM is maintenance. The newer ones are easier to maintain and repair from what I've read. -Fnlayson 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[[1]]Ref 19 regarding RAM : "A: Just by way of comparison, the F-117 is completely covered with radar- absorbing material, and this airplane (mean F-22) has a very small percentage of its surface covered with radar-absorbing materials." What Gen. Bruce Carlson not mentioned, CFK absorbs radar waves therefor need the F-22 less RAM. The electrical conductivity of CFK is low. Radar energy arriving a CFK structure has a hard job setting up the electrical an magnetic currents which reradiate the energy. --HDP 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AH-56 Cheyenne

Jeff, I've seen you working on the article. Wondered if you would look at my sandbox article. I've been working the History section to include up to the award of the Engineering Development contract. I'll be looking to cover development work by Lockheed in the Development section. Let me know what you think. --Born2flie (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Your History section looks pretty good to me. My main source on the AH-56 is the Abridged AAH history report. So I don't have a good knowledge of all details. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently searching for the test flight program and other development details on the part of Lockheed, including weapons testings and integration. I found an interesting tidbit about the tail rotor gearbox being redesigned to turn the opposite direction for aerodynamic reasons but would like to be able to substantiate more of those kinds of developments. --Born2flie (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you people come into possession of this sort of data? I need you as sources.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I do various internet searches using phrases and such. Sometimes I do advanced searches on *.mil sites or something like that. You can also use the references/bibliography in reports to find other sources. I don't know about Born. He seems to find all kinds of things. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the Internet is all I have (no access to libraries in my remote location) so I guess I've gotten into some more detailed searches. Google is a decent search if you know how to ask it for what you want. One term leads to another, which leads to another. I'll build up some print sources when I go back home. I would like to own a couple Jane's AWA yearbooks. I think 67-68 and 69-70 would be good ones to own for now. I only plan on buying other books if I find they work well for me. But if I had libraries, that is where I would go. --Born2flie (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Constitution

Jeff, the Specs table at USS Constitution#Specifications is too narrow,and has text beside it that bunches up at 800x600. Do you know how to fix this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It's letting the next section float up next to the table. I'm looking into it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you fixed it. I don't know much about table formatting, and didn't have a clue here. I did spend about an hour yesterday trying to fix a ref tag that was messed up, and blanking part of the text. Whew! - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure. Yea, forget a slash to close out a reference and it'll do that. It does something werid if <ref/> is used instead of </ref> as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 707 edits!

I found out that there are edit counters. I have 707 mainspace edits. That means I have to stop editing today and enjoy the number. 707 is a lucky number, just like 747, etc. You can remove this silly message if you wish. Archtransit (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL. Good deal. I'm not even sure how to check that. A special page of some kind, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Assessments: importance ?

Hello Fnlayson, I read your question on the aviation discussion page. As the Assessment Coordinator I wish I could answer this question. Ever since the merging of the various aviaton projects we have only used the quality scale. This issue could be voted on at the aviation discussion page if you wanted. Marcusmax (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • That's alright. Not that important (pun) to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-15 AESA Radar

  • Nothing readily accessible. Air Forces Monthly magazine had it pretty close in an issue a few months back but it referenced only the 18 ANG units. I'm the ACC F-15 Avionics Manager and deal with this daily. I didn't mean to get so far in the weeds with this, just wanted to correct the V2 vs. V3 thing and the total number of aircraft that were programmed for upgrade (which is now 177 after the Missouri ANG jet crashed). There are a few other errors in the article but I'm not real sure about editing them wholesale and coming across as a cad. Feckzhere (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • We have to go by references available. I really doubt the 28 year old one that crashed in Missouri was on the 178 "Golden Eagle" list. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it was. I can provide the entire list if you'd like.Feckzhere (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's alright. I forget how old the F-15Cs are. The Golden list is likely to change after the accident investigation and probable inspections afterwards. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You may be right about that - we just ran a drill to compare repair costs to modification costs. If a jet is long term (Golden as they've been unofficially coined) it will most likely get repaired - the cost of JHMCS, V1 or V3, EGI and new AAI/IFF totals about $10 mil. The cost to replace longerons probably will not tally that much.Feckzhere (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Hum, hopefully the detailed inspections (NDE, other) work out OK with little repair needed. Yea, I can't see metallic parts costing anywhere near that. Thanks for the info. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Eight aircraft cracked so far (none with dual longeron cracks, only on one side or the other). Cost to repair is not nearly as much as the amount spent to modify so it does not look like the list will change. Right now it looks like the options are to repair or retire, repair being the leading option. Feckzhere (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey thanks for the update, Feckzhere. I've read about them finding 8 from ANG units with cracks, but that was it. I guess if they have already done other upgrades to them, they'll repair them too. Beats the cost of new aircraft, especially F-22s. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • A bit of clarification - only two of the eight are long term aircraft. Feckzhere (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Firefly Minor Characters

There has been a call for deletion of the List of minor characters in the Firefly universe article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. Shsilver 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I should have kept my mouth shut on that... -Fnlayson 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, the guys who are citing all the Firefly stuff for deletion would have found it eventually.Shsilver 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Sutter's 747 book released in 2006

You mentioned that you read it. Is it worth getting on interlibrary loan? Interesting? (probably) Useful as a WP reference? Archtransit 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It is a very good book to read. It doesn't have a lot of technical details or dates. But it had enough for me to write most of the 747 design section. If it is not too much trouble, get it. -Fnlayson 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sutter book handy?

In 1965, Joseph Sutter was transferred from Boeing's 737 development team to manage the studies for a new airliner, already assigned its model number 747.

Reference available, perhaps in the Sutter book? Archtransit (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved! Found a reference that even says he was working on the 737 before. There are tons of references for the latter part but I found a reference for the first part of the sentence.

After we "finish" (never finished!), I would like to submit the article for peer review (opinion?). Not so much as a pre-GA or FA stamp of approval (though it could be used for that) but just so we can say that we did a reasonably good job and someone else agrees (or gives suggestions). Archtransit (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sutter was ask to "head up the companies studies for this bigger jet" (747) in August 1965. But you have it covered now.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can use his book to replace some web links if needed.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XV-1

Been working the XV-1 sandbox article over in my neck of the woods. I dropped Apostolo out of the picture since he didn't have any unique information. I've staged the Operational history section covering the research flight testing, but I still have a lot of text commented out of sight for the Design section. I have also considered using the GlobalSecurity.org page as a reference, but can't seem to establish the source. Knowing GS.org, they cut and paste a lot of their technical information on equipment and systems, so I'd like to determine whose work it is to avoid copyvio before putting the article out into the wild.

I know you and Bill have a bazillion pages on your watchlists and get spread out over the other subjects you cover. I just pick one that sounds like a good one to work and start putting it together. I think Robb had something on the 16H in his article in Vertiflite, so I might work on that one next. I'll get back to Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Helicopter soon, but when I hit writer/researcher's block, tackling a new article helps. --Born2flie (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If you're weren't sure, the XV-1 sandbox was Bill's. I moved/copied a bunch of his stuff a few months ago when he was thinking of leaving or getting rid of that account. I've barely looked at some of it. I've been working on the CH-46 Sea Knight some and helping with the 747 article to get it to GA or better level. I usually try to rewrite/reword all the text I find.
    On another matter, I compressed the Bell 533 reports down to about 40 Mb total. Any idea of a web site I could upload them to? -Fnlayson 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's PD, you might try Wikisource. - BillCJ (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I reword all the text as well. Sometimes it comes out sounding similar, because the way the text is presented, there are only one or two ways to put it that other writers have already come up with. That is kind of why the Operational history section looks the way it does. I put all the parts into order and remove the blocks of the original text, then try to reword everything into a cohesive section that covers the material. I just ran out of time when I was working it last night, before I had to go to sleep. --Born2flie (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point about Wikisource, Bill. I'm not finding anything there on the XV-1 or related by McDonnell Aircraft though. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help again.

Jeff, just did a whirlwind redo on Helicopter to submit it for the contest. Mostly because I want to find it on Veropedia some day, although $100 wouldn't hurt. I left the early history a bit messy because I focused on everything else that I felt other editors wouldn't whine and cry about while I was trying to get the editing done. Anyways, if you get time, run through it and tell me what you like, don't like. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll try to look at that later on. I'll remove the bulleted lists. No reason for that with the subsections there. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The Jan Bahyl paragraph was added by an editor and I suspect it was a nationalist attempt to portray his accomplishments as greater than they really are. The editor argued that Bahyl flew on the helicopter but flying a model and flying a helicopter, as similar as they may sound, are two different things. I am really wary of putting that paragraph in the First flights section for that reason. If you look around the web, there are references that attempt to cast him as the inventor of the modern helicopter because he used a combustion engine where so many previous efforts used steam. I don't know when the first combustion engine helicopter (model or otherwise) first took flight. There were so many attempts. I would suspect Liberatore of knowing, but I don't have his book. Anyways, just wanted you to know more of why I put that paragraph back in the Early developments opening section. If you don't agree, you can move it back, and I'll wait until a more authoritative reference establishes itself.
And, all the references in the current article are in MLA format. That's why I asked Bzuk to proof them. He already fixed the ones he had the issues with. They look different, but I find they have a more consistent appearance than using all the various {{cite}} templates. --Born2flie (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. I just missed the model part on that paragraph. I've been using MLA format mostly. I prefer to link the title to save space and appearance sake. I'm not sure if the format in 1860-80 paragraph is quite right. If they were all 1 sentence entries, I'd use semicolons between them. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I may go back and edit some of that stuff. I would prefer a line of people who made real contributions. For instance, one person I know is not presently in the History but who influenced a lot of the early builders is Sir George Cayley. There is someone who was methodical and scientific about his work. Very few of the successful inventors were not scientific about their approaches. Consequently, those who made contributions or who demonstrated real applications of the theory of those who went before, are the ones that I believe should be included. Octave Chanute documented a lot of crackpots who wanted to be scientists, or at least appear scientific. He talks about some who made claims that just didn't hold water.
Re: MLA. That's fine. Now I know that's what you're doing, I won't think I need to fix it if I see you changing it. I do like being able to see the link, though, for some odd reason. Maybe I'm just weird? --Born2flie (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-86 operators

Jeff, I've been adding basic data to the F-86 Sabre#Operators section, this afternoon. I need to take a break. Would you mind proof read the section and correct any grammatical/format errors that I may have. When I get done, I will review my edits back with the book, one more time. I probably should have copied the section to my own sandbox add all the stuff in , then replace the section in one wack. Didn't think it would take that long. Would appreciate your review. I hope to finish it tonight. Thank you so much. Lance..... LanceBarber (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks fine after a quick scan. Some of the entries look long. Try not to repeat info that may be in the Variants section (a possibility, I didn't check). I'll try to look it over better later. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Back from dinner... thanks for the check. I will check on dup info. Already eliminate one dup in the History section. I tried to keep it short, just to quantity, type, dates, squadrons, and few s/n's for short entries. Thanks again. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. I've removed the uncited text and subsections from the Operational history section (renamed it Conflicts in history) the were better reference in the Ops section. Added and adjusted pics, and H-model specs. LanceBarber (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Good work. I think it'd be fine to stick standard section headings. Operational history includes combat and other non-combat stuff if needed. Just my opinion though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, Changed the section names to WP-Av guidelines, and created a couple of sub sections, and a new article List of Sabre and Fury units in US military. Please review and comment. Thank you kindly, Lance.... ps- Article still needs info on Iraq, Iran, and Ethiopian AF... any thoughts? Thanks again. LanceBarber (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Think about splitting off a separate Design section. That'd be a good place to go into more detail on design features, armament, etc. I moved the F-86D speed records to the Break the sound barrier section (adjusted section name too). Check the last 2 sentences there. I might have moved too much. See if there's a better place to put some info from those long Variant entries. Hope that helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good catch Lance. I need sleep ... -Fnlayson (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything I could help on? Let me know.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure. Take a look at F-86 Sabre and see if it's missing info. It looks like it could use more early development info. Any help would be appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-15 inspections, Miniture pigs?

Jeff, I read this report today, and something stuck me as odd. In the eighth paragraph, it mentions a "boar scope". I assume this is supposed to be "borescope", and that boar was a typo, but I really don't know much about it at all. Plus I couldn't resist sharing the image of little pigs running around inside the F-15s with cameras or sensors strapped on! :) - BillCJ (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, it should be borescope. BOARscrope, LOL! Or they borrowed them from A-10 maintenance crew. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • An overview article on the F-15 situation that mentions this from the AF assoc. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Warthogs - I should have thought of that! Very cute! THanks for the link. - BillCJ (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Air Force Assoc magazine has updates on the F-15 inspections and all on the Daily Reports for December. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 747 upper deck

I think that the external dimensions of the upper deck of the -300, -400 (except -400F, which doesn't have a SUD), and -8 are the same. The inside structure of a -300 SUD is different because of the flooring (which cuts down the main deck cargo space when converted to a freighter).

Anyway, I believe that the wingbox and fuselage barrels over the wing were redesigned for the 747SP and the -300 and later versions used this same design. That's why the -300/-400/-8 upper deck all end at the same spot. Since there is a lot of design work going into this, they must have reused the design. Otherwise, the -400's upper deck could have been longer. Archtransit (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Good to have you back, ArchT (works for your old user name too). The -8's fuselage is longer, so the upper deck would be longer if it ended at the same distance from the wing. They don't use the upper deck for cargo on the freighters. I guess there's no practical way to load cargo there without putting a side loading door in for it, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, you're on to something. There was a drawing in Aviation Week within the past month or so. I'll look. As far as references, "access date" is ok with me. But will someone cite this as a reason to use "Retrieved"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style The reason for perfection is that I'd like to get this article as a featured article on the main page on September 18, 2008, the 40th anniversary of the first 747 flight. Archtransit (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/251973_air14.html The upper deck will be bigger, too, part of stretching the 747-8 to accommodate about 34 more passengers. Archtransit (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Great, thanks! Stretched with a longer upper deck too. :) I don't really care whether it is Accessed or Retrieved, although the former seems more accurate. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of the holidays, but also in recognition of your help:

(Wiki wings moved to main user page)

  • Thanks. I'd happy with the 747 article making GA status. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that an A class article is higher ranked than a GA. 747 is an A class article. Unless you object, I would like to work on the article for a week or two (or however long it takes) and submit it for Featured Article consideration. I was looking at some FA and our article beats them. Archtransit (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Doesn't matter much to me. I just think it is GA or better quality now. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 747 cleanup, getting old

accurate comment! Both of us deserve a barnstar (or 2) for ref work...need to finish because this is not fun unlike article writing! Archtransit (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I mainly meant about the layout stuff, but yea it is all getting old. I wouldn't have caught a lot of this format stuff and all. Just too many references to try and check for one person. Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that in no way, was my comment on the 747 talk page, nor on Archtransit's page meant as any kind of insult or slight, as you both seem to have taken it that way, my apologies. I was looking for a FAC that could use some help, and I guess that you took my comments in a way I did not at all intend. My apologies, and good luck with the FAC. Ariel♥Gold 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. I thought explained about the note. O brought up a related issue on the FAC page. Oh well. Sorry for my tone. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Sutter book, don't get too ambitious! It's fine with me but I'm tired of fixing references if someone doesn't say "ref #219 is objectionable." Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As you may have seen, I've outsourced a job! Per the suggestion of a FAC criticism, I asked a League of Copy Editors to review the article. I think it's next on their list as he/she has just finished their current task. Hopefully, that review will get the LOCE stamp of approval. That's outsourcing that I support! I never heard of LOCE before now. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • LOCE, huh. I'm sure they'll help a lot. I've read the text far too much to have any better ideas left. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Before I didn't like outsourcing, now I like it. It's in progress. Maybe an FA star is getting closer to reality. Hope you have a Merry Christmas or at least a pleasant day off next week. I don't think I'll edit much today though I could make a liar of myself. Archtransit (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, I keep a long watchlist to keep up with things. You managed to recruit plenty of help on this. Thanks and Merry Christmas to you! We get week or so holiday break at work (balanced by few 1 day holidays rest of year). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Why can't SandyGeorgia and Raul654 just hurry up and give the article a FA star! FA is not cooked up to what I thought it would be. Full of reference work and trying to make everyone happy. Archtransit (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, I helped with the FA review comments on BAE Systems and there was a lot of work involved and I did very little. Some of the comments on the 747 seem to come from left field. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

Hello Fnlayson, a cut&paste repair has been requested regarding the F-4 Phantom II page, because User:Nigel Ish copied a section to that article, at which you've participated with two edits. I'm not 100% sure, but I think a complex repair can be avoided if you release exclusively this and this edit under the public domain. If you don't want to, a history merge is necessary. Happy editing. --Oxymoron83 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I release my work. They were just small edits. Is this sufficient or do I fill out something? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's sufficient, but we'll wait if someone opposes this procedure as I'm no copyright expert. I think this way is the easiest one :) --Oxymoron83 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas to you, Jeff.--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

Happy New Year 2008! No edits for today. Probably tomorrow. Archtransit (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks and have a good time. I've still got over 14 hours left in 2007 here. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)