Talk:A-4 Skyhawk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A-4 Skyhawk article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Source

Curio - this page was cited by the New Zealand Herald as a major source in a 24/9/05 article about the Skyhawk.  :-)

[edit] Malaysian Skyhawks.

Thank you for the enthusiastic contribution made about Malasyian A4s.

I have taken the liberty of correcting some of your English.

The scentence; "The aircraft was sold for USD34 million dollars in the early 80s", I had had to remove because it was impossible to work out who sold which aircraft to who.

Please by all means add this information back in, but please make it clear Who sold the aircraft? (U.S., Malaysia?) Which aircraft? (PTM, or other, or both?) Who bought the aircraft? (Malaysia? Another nation?)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another use in fiction?

Was the A4 the aircraft used in the 'Top Gun' spoof 'Hot Shots: Part Deux'?

[edit] John Travolta

As I understand it, John Travolta, who is a licensed pilot, attempted to purchase a Skyhawk. I don't believe he actually did. Perhaps this tidbit of info can be added. 66.44.10.213 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Thanks, Fred

[edit] Requests for citations

I have remove a large number of "{{fact}}" tags from this article - are any of these pieces of information seriously in question? There are a number of references and external links at the bottom of the article, splattering "{{fact}}" tags all over the place is akin to SPAM as far as I am concerned. Nick Thorne 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operational service

Should be that text be under the US section of Operators ? --Jor70 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally it would, and I debated about that before moving it, in as far as the Operators section is usually limited to only a brief mention and that larger passages are best placed within sub-sections. However, I am not fixated about the placement as I have only just "stumbled" onto this article and there is a lot more editing to go. Bzuk 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
The Operational service section is really covering Operational history. The history from the other operators should in there as well, something like with the F-4 article. -Fnlayson 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean that currenly is simply covering the US operational service, whilst all other operators service are under Operators, --Jor70 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Right. I was commenting on the location of the info. It is likely there won't be history from some of the operators. It simple won't be available. However all the users should be listed in the Operators section. -Fnlayson 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you still working on this ? Because Combat Service is now only under US (when in fact the other 3 coutries used them in combat too) and all the related info of those 3 countries is splitted in two parts Jor70 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Not now. See the TOC. The sections under Operational service are U.S., Israel, Argentina, & Kuwait. -Fnlayson 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok about combat, but operational US units are still mentioned on the lead whilst all others are mentioning under operators Jor70 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Help out and add a sentence or two there then. -Fnlayson 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I will like to, but I not feel quit responsable of this article to do so. but I will move all the "United States" paragraph to the respective US section under operators and rename "Operational Service" to "Combat Use" Jor70 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not necessary, combat use is not a recognized standard term for sections. You will note that the lead-in sentence clearly identifies the A-4's combat lineage. Bzuk 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

My apologies if I seemed unreasonable but why shouldnt the AR, AU and NZ operational histories go up too like the US ? Jor70 11:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Operational service includes combat service and any other service. Please don't rename that. Information on other nation's service can be added to the Operational service section. It just hasn't been done yet. -Fnlayson 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the Argentine section is now more clear, I think we should do the same with the others 'Operators' , as an example, the Kuwaiti operational lines do not have any sense as they are Jor70 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users

What about putting a "9 other users" in the 3rd user spot like the F-16 has? -Fnlayson 14:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

How notable would a reference to the Skyhawk in fiction have to be for inclusion? Agripa 19:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vicious Cycle

I have reverted the removal of the term vicious cycle.

A vicious cycle or vicious circle is defined by OED thus:

vicious circle

 • noun a sequence of reciprocal cause and effect in which two or more elements intensify and aggravate each other.

It seems to me that this is an exact and appropriate term to use when discussing the effect of increasing the weight of an aircraft component and the consequent effects on the design. To use the A4 as an example, if the main undercarriage was stowed internal to the wing rather than below as it is in fact, then the main wing spar would need to be made thicker and stronger to allow for the cut out required by having the gear internal, which would add weight. To maintain performance a bigger, more powerful (and heavier) engine would then be required which would require more fuel which would require bigger, heavier fuel tanks (including the fuel weight) to maintain range and endurance and thus a stronger airframe which would be heavier and so a more powerful engine would be required etc etc etc. In other words a vicious cycle or circle. Because of the close coupling of these factors in aircraft design it is also entirely appropriate to describe this as a tight vicious cycle. Nick Thorne talk 01:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the 'and so on' part was enough, but either seems clear to me. In general decoupled structures will be heavier. You don't get something for free by decoupling. -Fnlayson 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't mind if the statement is included or not, but the whole paragraph sounds like an editorial piece. I have fact tagged it. Can you provide a reference for that paragraph's statements in relation to the A-4's design? - Ahunt 11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the references - that adds a lot to the credibility of the paragraph and also to the whole article! Wikipedia has been under the gun recently regarding credibility and all over the project articles are being challenged to provide in-line citations or have sections removed. - Ahunt 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I added what I thought were some reasonably credible online references, being for museum sites. I will be having a look through my library to see if I can find some specific written references as well. Might take a few days due to work commitmemnts. Nick Thorne talk 05:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be great if you can find some good refs. Much of the rest of the article could use some citations to add to its credibility and reduce future challenges. I have been doing just that from my library on some other articles, such as UH-1 Iroquois but have very little on the A-4 in my library to help out here. - Ahunt 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

There are quite a lot of images here, some are causing spacing/layout problems. The commons link would link back to them if they were removed, only about three or four need to go perhaps. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would rather see them put in a gallery rather than removed from the article. Many members of the public using Wikipedia for research (especially school kids) won't go as far as Commons to look for images - if they aren't on this page they probably will miss them. The software supports galleries specifically for situations like this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I thought about that. Some editors don't seem to like galleries for unknown reasons, looks like the best way to go to me and there are more images in commons that could be added to it. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed - some editors have expressed a dislike for galleries in the past. I would much rather that the photos end up in a gallery as opposed to being deleted from the article. In many cases people have gone to great lengths to provide good quality photos, only to see someone else cut them out of the article. It de-motivates them from adding more photos to Wikipedia and makes the whole encyclopedia poorer as a result. Also I always try to keep a focus on the who the typical reader of these articles is. For the aircraft ones my target reader is a Grade 8 (13 year old) junior high school student who may be doing a school project. What will help them? What will they be looking for? One thing is definitely a wide range of free (especially PD) images that they can freely use to illustrate their essay. In this case I believe making more pictures available in the article itself, where people don't have to go looking for them, is better. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the gallery question needs bringing up again at project level, as time goes by more images will come available and more are likely to be inserted in articles. Century Series is an example of a short article with a gallery that works. As long as the number of images is limited to a sensible level so that it does not overwhelm the page then I can't see a problem. Wish I had WP when I was 13!! Nimbus227 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it probably does need discussing at the project level. Please do go ahead and start that conversation if you like. You can quote me above it that would help. I think that if I had had Wikipedia available when I was 13 then I probably wouldn't have this huge collection of aircraft books today. Many of mine date from that period! - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a supporter of lots of images in articles - and I dont like galleries. But this article is probably a good example of the use of images to show different aspects of the aircraft and its use. It does not have loads of images of very similar appearance which sometimes happens when you add a gallery. A-4 landing here, A-4 landing there, A-4 landing somewhere else. As to the original spacing/layout problems not everbody sees the same layout (depends on screen resolution and image settings) so moving stuff about can sometimes not help. So in summary I would say remove just one duplicated TA-4J picture at the beginning and leave the rest alone as a good example of how to use images to illustrate a subject. MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x 2) I notice that the position of any gallery is not mentioned in our page content guide WP:AIR/PC, nor is their use mentioned. Perhaps there is archived discussion on this somewhere. Recent discussions I have started in the project seem to get negative or cold answers, as in this case we would only be enquiring and not 'pushing', you first!! I understand about the page resolution problem, if you have your 'favourites' window open that squashes the article and changes the layout as well, good point. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I admit, I tried to get a lot of Skyhawk-pictures. However, I am totally open about the question: How many are necessary? Of each version of the Skyhawk, of each user? I once annoyed Ahunt, because I replaced his TA-4J-picture - as I thought that one of a plane in use illustrates better than one of a plane in a museum. Put just a few pictures and link to commons? I know, especially for people not that much into airplanes it is just good to know what a plane looks like and not version A, B, C ..., especially, if you have to know the differences. Well, I would opt at least for a good, big picture of the main version (like here A-4C or A-4E) for the infobox. In the text a prototype picture and the obviously differing versions (here A-4B, A-4E, A-4M, TA-4F/J, TA-4S). For the history, (one) pictures out of conflicts (Vietnam, Falklands, Middle East, Kuwait) would be nice. --Cobatfor 00:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannon attacks during the 1982 war

According to Argentine and British reports, on June 13, several A-4Bs did a bombing raid on land based targets on the Falkland Islands. During this attack, the A-4Bs also used their 20 mm cannons to attack Sea King helicopters that were either flying in the area or were on land, damaging several of them. I think that this should be included as well, since attacks against helicopters with cannons is a very rare feat to do with a bomber like the Skyhawk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.97.42 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like interesting information and may well be worth including in the article. It does need a verifiable reference, however. Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My source is a book entitled 'A-4B/C Skyhaw' (ISBN 987-20375-0-7) which basically tells a resumed history of the development of the A-4 Skyhawk in the United States, and its use by the Argentine Air Force and Navy from their purchase to the year 2002 (year in which the book was released). According to the book, June 13 was one of the very few days that the A-4s attacked ground targets (something that was usually done by other airplanes) near Two Sisters. The cannons of one of the planes jammed, but the other one was able to shot many Sea King helicopters, after they had released their bombs on the targets. The second wave of attack also encountered Sea King helicpoters but they were unable to shoot them down with the cannons, but they were able to damage the ones on the ground.

Also, if you look for the Wikipedia article about the battle of Two Sisters during the war, it mentions the A-4 airplanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.97.42 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)