Talk:Aermacchi MB-326
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tannin appears to prefer this version of a part of a sentence:
- Flight testing showed that the type had spirited performance and viceless handling characteristics
while I prefer
- Flight testing showed that the type had good performance and handling characteristics.
I argue that "spirited" and "viceless" are not merely descriptive words, but are POV. I don't even know what "spirited" would mean in the context of aircraft performance. Perhaps we could come up with a compromise that is clear and NPOV but gets across what you would like to say? moink 23:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I do not think that "spirited" and "viceless" are particularly less NPOV than "good". Neutral doesn't mean flat and lifeless, and I think that's what you're pushing here. After all, even "good" is an opinion. In this case, we are reporting an opinion explicitly -- that of the Italian Air Force and its test pilots, which led to them deciding to buy the aircraft. —Morven 02:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- Well, if what they called it was "spirited" a quote would be great. I guess you're right that good is also an opinion... although at least I can find graphs that show "good" handling qualities as a purely mathematical function of frequency and damping ratio of the natural modes. At least I understand what "viceless" means, though it's an odd word, but I don't even know what one would mean in terms of "spirited" performance. moink 02:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Agile, nimble, "hot". I suspect if you wanted to, this could probably be expressed as a range of wing loadings and thrust-to-weight ratios. However, "spirited" is a descriptive term, not an engineering one. I agree that NPOV doesn't necessarily mean using the "flattest" term possible. --Rlandmann 02:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Both terms are colorful descriptive terms, rather than engineering/scientific terms, which I think is the issue. I suspect moink, as one studying engineering according to their user page, has the scientist's/engineer's propensity for using, indeed, the 'flattest' term possible because it's the one most likely to have no unintended shadings of meaning. However, we're not writing for such an audience; we're writing a general encyclopedia, and I submit that for that audience, using more 'colorful' words helps make articles livelier and more readable.
-
-
-
-
-
- I've seen the words 'viceless' and 'spirited' being used to describe aircraft before, and I don't find the usages unusual. The only issue I have with them at all is that they're a little over-used in the enthusiast press; hard to find a trainer that's not described as 'viceless'. —Morven 07:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh yes, I was agreeing with you - just re-read my comment and realised that may not have been clear! :) --Rlandmann 12:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hmmmm... you have a good point about my POV. I certainly couldn't put those kinds of words in any report I could write. But I have to point out, while the audience is not my professors, it is also not the same as the readers of enthusiast magazines. And of course, those magazines (I've read a few articles, but not many... I find them... errr... imprecise :) are not bound by NPOV policy or anything like it. I like "agile." That at least is something I understand. Does spirited performance maybe mean the aircraft is agile and powerful? I would be happy with that. moink 21:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Agile and powerful would do fine. And yes, aircraft enthusiast magazines are notable for their enthusiasm over their accuracy ... as in all fields. —Morven 22:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- FWIW, I don't see how "agile" is any more precise (or less POV) than "spirited". I just googled the phrase "spirited performance" and threw in the word "engine" to make sure I was confining results to vehicles. This particlar combo returned 2,400 hits, mostly about cars [1] but showing that this word is indeed in common usage when describing machinery --Rlandmann 00:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-