User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive page 3

Contents

[edit] AH-1Z Viper

Jeff can you take a look and see what you think so far. User:ANigg/AH-1Z Viper I talked with Bill & he says even if this dosen't become an article it could be incorporated in to the AH-1W Artcl. ThanxANigg (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll look at it. My books don't say anything about the Viper name. One says it will retain its SuperCobra name. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a pic I want 3 views of the Viper, can you give me the quick summary on how to do that. ThanxANigg (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You mean a 3-view image? Is the image from a US government source or what? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes "3-view Image" I have made on my own, based on Bell Heli. Specs. If you have an e-mail address, I can send to you & tell me your thoughts I'm at AKANIGG@aol.com / PS thanx for the help on the Viper Pic ANigg (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Since you made it yourself, it'll be easy to tag. I'll e-mail you. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] typo results in unintended joke

The end of references always has a < / ref >. I forgot the / . Look here (2nd paragraph of "overview") [1]

Excerpt: but is in the process of transferring the bulk of its European air operations to Leipzig, Germany in 2008[1] or North Korea. [2]

If you forget the / , then all the text is diverted to the footnotes until the next reference. In this case, the #2 footnotes ends with the text "North Korea".

Weird coincidence! Archtransit (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pretty good. :) It hides everything until the next </ref>, I believe. Putting the slash in the wrong place, like <ref/> does similar strange stuff too. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-tamper

The focus of anti-tamper has been on military aircraft. The following article indicates that the FAA is now concerned about this for civilian aircraft. Do you have any thoughts on how or if this should be incorporated in civilian aviation articles?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/03/220564/faa-demands-connectivity-security-for-boeing-787-control-and-information.html FAA demands connectivity security for Boeing 787 control and information networks --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure right now. Maybe wait until Boeing has a press release on how they will or have handled that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know. This article was ahead of most. More articles have come out this week. As I understand it Boeing has an agreed plan to test and verify the security of their 787 network. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 747 now FA!

We won! 747 promoted to FA! I looked up WP:FAC and didn't see the nomination. I thought 1) rejection or 2) vandalism. Looking up the rejection list - - not there. Vandalism requires looking up diffs and the history so I decided to look up the FA winners. It's there! Then I looked up the history to make sure it's not a prank. SandyGeorgia promoted it here [2]. Just waiting for the FA star to appear. All those left field suggestions and the reference work paid off. I have no major changes planned but now I feel I can edit the 747 article. I was afraid to edit it before because someone might say "it got LOCE approval but since you changed the comma, it's now not approved". Happy New Year, again! Archtransit (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Jeff and Archtransit, congratulations on Boeing 747 winning FA status. The FA star is now in place. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That was a lot of work. Arch did a lot and found most of the references. Thanks to all that helped! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well done! 4u1e (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your review comments and help 4u1e. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Congratulations - fantastic job! --JCG33 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAe products

Yes, I see the logic Fnlayson, but I think if the links should be anywhere, they should be on all of these products! I guess it's a Wiki style issue. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • BAE Systems is a Featured Article and as such needs to be well maintained. Excessive links were removed from it as part of the review process a couple months ago per policy (WP:OVERLINK). It is somewhat borderline as the Typhoon links are well spaced. It not worth me arguing about anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, no problem. And thanks for the helpful suggestions re F-22 cockpit. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure. Oh yea. I was going to do some work on those references there. Many are repeated. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the tidy-up. I have now asked Nick Dowling if he considers the article notable. And thanks also for the welcome on my talk page - it was nice to get a welcome that wasn't also a reprimand for my early efforts! Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. You seem to be becoming the resident cockpit expert. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about that! I am merely trying to fill a perceived gap in the articles I have read. Until very recently no military airraft could fly without a pilot and no pilot could fly without a cockpit. I regard military aircraft cockpit design as one of the most interesting and demanding challenges still facing aerospace engineering, not least because of the almost global move to single seat design, at a time when sensors and weapons become ever more sophisticated. There seems to be no concommitant development in the sophistication of the human operator. On the other side of the coin, there must be literally thousands of miliitary jets still in use which are potentially lethal (obviuosly) but which still have cockpits designed when the occupant was an afterthought and/or was regarded as the most expendable component. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-22/Eurofighter/Fourth-Generation Jet Fighter

Jeff, all of these articles seem to be conflicted at present with debates about various and sundry aspects of type capability and performance. Can I ask you to step in and defuse some of the angst, especially since the continuing debate I sense is deteriorating. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Uh, I was trying to stay out of it, mainly on the Eurofighter. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess: the two main combatants are still economist and Downtrip? Sorry to hear it's still going on, but that's why I stopped watching those pages! Seriously, it might be time to file an ARBCOM against these two, who first started warring over these pages in July/August. If Downtrip really is Wikzilla, as the fact that each showed up when Econ began his rants and edits month apart, then he'll just keep coming back, but at least we'll have some official sanction on actions against them. I wouldn't even mention the Wikzilla angle in an ARBCOM, as Downtrip has enough against him as it is. - BillCJ (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Downtrip and HDP are the current users names. Don't know about Econ angle. Staying out of that part. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
My one and only Wikipedia name is HDP! [3][4] --HDP (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, HDP has been trying to do the right thing all along. Sorry, HDP, my above comments aren't directed at you in anyway!
Downtrip is, and always has been, trying to stir up trouble, and isn't interested in anything resembling civil conduct or discussion. PS, an anon IP has repeated my above comments on my page and on Down's. These guys are SO predictable! - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I mentioned HDP in a suggestive way without meaning to. Sorry about that. I only meant the 2 main users "disputing" EF content now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mop (admin)

I've just been given the mop, the adminstrator's tools. Thank you for your support. Even more thanks for the 747 help. I'll take a break for a day and return for editing tomorrow. Archtransit (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Saw that the RfA was closed. Congrats! And the drop the hammer on some vandals when you can. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NF-104A edit

Hi Jeff, I am puzzled by your recent edit to Lockheed NF-104A (placing notes and references after 'see also'), I checked it against Boeing 747 which you helped to get to FA and the bottom of this page is not in this order. If this is the MoS way then we have a lot of articles to change. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I haven't really checked the 747 article. It was a pain getting that approved for FA due to the Navboxes and order of bottom sections. The Manual of Style and the Layout guide gives more guidelines on the bottom sections. Note 1 in the Layout guide actually says the See also can go before or after References. I had missed that note before. I moved the See also below references in the NF article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-35 Unit Cost

I noticed you changed the unit cost for the F-35. No argument on the number. I do however think that it really is a bit misleading considering the fact that only six are being procured and that while they are production aircraft, they still will be used for testing before the F-35 goes in to volume production. While I don't think anyone really knows how much they are going to cost when in volume production I do think the 200 million does not in fact reflect reality. Is there anyway to note that these are not volume production costs?--Downtrip (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note sure. I listed 2008 even though we're barely into the year to be more realistic. The previous flyaway cost listed was actually for 2014, I think. A Cost or Procurement section (like F-22) could cover this better in the text. Flyaway costs will be very volatile depending on how many the international partners order and when they want them. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-22 Unit Cost

hi, sorry to remove the F-22 Unit cost. however the reason behind this is because i included the Unit Cost including the development program, since this is the cost listed for the Eurofighter and the Rafale. The source for this estimate was: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

as their methodology shows, the US authorities themselves cannot even make their own minds up on the F 22s cost! anyhow, i see your point but also believe that this cost should also be displayed too... Pratj (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Doesn't really matter. You removed a valid reference without replacing it. Your edit wasn't but it could look like vandalism to some users, especially with no edit summary. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. Anyhow I personally think we should include both the USAF budgeted Flyaway cost as well as the Defense-Aerospace.com's estimates of program unit cost. their methodology and sourcing seems very sound, and is the best estimates of the "actual" cost of each aircraft that we have. and is being used on other aircraft's pages. Pratj (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure and sorry for my tone above. That's a reasonable idea for aircraft where the cost data is difficult to find. It doesn't make much sense to add for the US aircraft where the service readily supplies the data already. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i agree. the problem with US budgets is that the DoD, USAF and US GAO cannot agree upon the actual cost of the F-22. also, the European aircraft also include VAT is their budgets, something the US does not. therefore i will be including the program unit cost for the F-22 too (if u don't mind of course) Pratj (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As explained before with the US costs, the difference is largely average unit cost versus incremental flyaway cost. Bad data/incorrect calculations are a factor too... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

yes. i understand. anyhow i have been doing my own bit of research and the 2007 figure seems to be way below the average flyaway unit cost, even using USAF units which are flattering to say the least! i know there is a policy of using the most recent data possible, but i believe in this case the most representative data should be used. anyhow, do you know where any official government (UK, Ger, Ita, Esp) figures on the Eurofighter and Rafale flyway cost can be found... Pratj (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-35 weight

The Lockheed reference is this is very old ~2004. The Reference 73 is from the USAF, September 2006, this is 2 years more up to date. --HDP (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, I thought the previous weights were from the Global Security page. OK, I'll change it back to the numbers from the 2006 briefing then. I hadn't noticed empty weights in it before. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] X-33

Is this what you sugggest for communication? You may have noted that I have been adding bits to the X-33 article. As it exists this article STILL MASSIVELY CONFUSES the funded (and cancelled) X-33 project and the VentureStar "Concept" (Artists Conception). In this it sounds like LM "PR" Hype, pretending that a new Space Shuttle was in preperation and would soon be flying! In fact a new suborbital Hypersonic Aircraft (with performance similar to the X-15) was in process as a technology demonstrator, but it failed to prove that the new technology was usable for this suborbital application, or that this technology would improve the chances of a SSTO effort succeeding - it was appropriately cancelled for this reason! Rpspeck (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It'd be better to discuss at Talk:Lockheed Martin X-33. I don't see the VentureStar confusion myself. That is mentioned just twice in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rpspeck (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC) If that is the best place, then please copy all this there.

[X-33 confusion comments moved to Talk:Lockheed Martin X-33.
Thanks. I'll copy the rest there. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Basically I don't know enough of the X-33 details to fully understand all these details. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 747, C-5 Galaxy and the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) RFP

Jeff,

It is not clear in the Boeing 747 article that Lockheed's concept for the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) became the C-5 Galaxy. Likewise, it is not clear in the C-5 Galaxy article that Boeing's concept for the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) became the Boeing 747. I would like to edit both articles to reflect this information, but not at the risk of losing focus on either article. Since you are a principle contributor to both articles, I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter before I consider any edits.

Thank you in advance for your guidance,
--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The 747 didn't directly come from Boeing's CX-HLS proposal according to Joe Sutter in his book. Boeing's proposal design seems to have influenced the 747 design though. Thses details do not really matter to the C-5 article. The Background section in the 747 article probably could be shortened some. I should borrow parts for the C-5 article though. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft page layout

Noticed that you are changing the order of items on aircraft pages, particularly moving refs above see also. Rather than just reverting the changes I just thought you should know that other aircraft project members have spent some time moving them the other way round!! Please have a look at the agreed page layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content their has also been recent discussion at Talk:De Havilland Vampire. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well crap. We had References then Related content (now See also) before. I don't think that order change was ever discussed. But whatever, revert/fix all of them if you want. I'm not going to bother with fixing any of that... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK just trying to be helpful. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, you were, sorry. Just irritated that the order was switched without me catching it... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK no problem - if I remember it came out of one of the FA reviews it was easier to change the layout then keep arguing with the reviewers. MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Very true. Things are better off now with the new navboxes and all anyway. The MoS layout guide allows the order of See also and References to be switched. But I'll go with the project more specific policy. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, most of what I did this morning was put Ext Links and navboxes at the bottom of articles. Switching the order of the References and See also sections, won't be that bad to fix. Just do a little at a time... -Fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reminder to self: See also, then References, (External links, & navboxes) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Jeff, I just noticed your previous quote on your Userpage. Reminds me of a comment attributed (I think!) to Kenneth Johnson, creator of the 1978-82 Incredible Hulk TV series, in response to the 2003? Incredible Hulk movie directed by Ang Lee: "Don't make me Ang Lee. You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee!" :) - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Ang Lee.. Nice. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ouch - a truly wonderous pun!--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane

Jeff,

You might find the following of interest: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064803cae35
FAA
"Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Operation Without Normal Electrical Power".

--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/28/221879/us-faa-to-impose-special-conditions-on-boeing-787-electric-power.html
Flight Global
US FAA to impose special conditions on Boeing 787 electric power
By Stephen Trimble
--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T-38/F-5

I just had a quick look in my books, seems the F-5 was developed from the T-38, though it all happened about the same time. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just to add to Nimbus227 - the N-156 was a private-venture lightweight fighter design, a two-seat N-156T which was ordered as the YT-38 in December 1956 (although they had FY58 serials) then the N-156F single-seat fighter as the YF-5A (which had FY59 serials) but the main production of F-5s were not ordered until 1962. If that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys. I was thinking of Northrop's N156 design as equally the F-5 at first, but that designation came later. I've got Warbird Tech book on the T-38/F-5/F-20 that I haven't got to yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You learn something every day here! Looks like the F-5B two seater to me (to quote 'Woody' from Toy Story, 'why am I not surprised') ;-) Nimbus227 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KC-45

Do you think that the page should be split since the aircraft was finally selected today? I was the one who you moved the page from yesterday so I didn't know if you wanted them split so that your choice is valid. Kevin Rutherford 23:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes. There's an article on the KC-45 now. See Northrop Grumman KC-45. I think Bill copied the A330 MRTT article to start with. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nice work

We all have to keep on top of the featured articles. Amazing that the 747 and Phantom were in the 'wrong' order all along. I know that you, Bill CJ and myself have been correcting the order of many articles, which was the source of the confusion. There seems to be a fairly 'concrete' layout order now which has got to make things easier, no one has contested the changes, in fact 'RL' said it was 'perfect'. We will have to have a look at the other FA articles for consistency otherwise the other Bill (bonsoir Bill) and the MoS police will 'whoop our asses'. :-) Nimbus227 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That restaurant image still goes into the Specs section on my screen. The Manual of Style lets the order of some of those sections be switched. The FA review on the 747 was just finished a few weeks ago. The reviewers made sure it was right per the MoS (or very close) then. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-10 mils

Here we go again. I'm thinking of calling in some admin help on this one (for warnings), instead of revert warring with someone who doesn't seem to understand deeply-technical info even simple technical info, such as radius of a circle. The [FAS site gives the same basic info as in the book source - 5mil, 80%, fired at 4,000 ft, 20-ft radius. This is starting to seem like another "lost due to navigational error" type situation! - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Great. I missed the latest change. I'll fix it. This might as well be vandalism... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll see how long this carries on. Since this is a gun issue, I've asked for expert help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and for admin intervention if necessary, just in case it is troll vandalism.

I noticed you have the book the cite is from, Great Book of Modern Warplanes. Have you checked the original wording to see if I'm reading this right? It's on page 44 of the 2000 edition. It does say "at 4,000 feet", but I'm not clear on if this is the range, or altitude as the user claims. Range seems to fit best. I you could double check my interpretation, I'd appreciate it. Higher math was never my strong suit, especially if I didn't keep it up.

Btw, the 1987 edition of this book has the F-4, F-111, and a full section on the B-1, esp the B-1A development. It's well worth having both editions if you can find the older one cheap somewhere. Mike Spick did a good job updating the new edition, but He didn't have the space to go into the kind of detail on the new models or newer planes that the older edition did with the older ones. I got the 1987 edition new, and wore it out the first year I had it! Someone gave me a second copy of it for graduation, and I sold the first one to a used book store. I've been able to keep the second copy in better shape! If you can't find a copy, I'd be glad to loan it to you; just e-mail me about it. - BillCJ (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - BillCJ (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I hadn't really check the wording in the Great Book. The Jenkins WarbirdTech book states similar angular data and that the cannon was optimized for a range of 4000 ft. I'm going to add that part to the article for useful info and to help this situation. Thanks for the info on the older edition. I hadn't thought about them removing chapters like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pressure article

Pressure You state: "(Revert unneeded. Scalar quantities has no direction component.)"
May I ask why we should obscure this fact from those seeking information?
The article describes the gas pressure as acting 'in all directions' anyhow, so what's the problem? --Profero (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Not hiding anything. Scalar quantities have no direction component. I felt changing it to "no particular direction" was unneeded and somewhat incorrect. I added "component" to the wording to better clarify. Sorry if you were offended. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not offended - just humorously curious - because I think "no 'particular' direction" underlines the same fact you wanted to prove. When one uses the expression "in all directions" in the Scalar nature-part of the article I can't see the problem of using "no particular direction" – which is no less correct.
So one has to decide about the logic: if one states that the pressure works in all directions, one cannot say that "all directions" doesn't include "one of all directions". But I don't have a problem if anyone prefers it that way. The reader probably understands the symbolic use of the expression ; - ) --Profero (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess it's really just a semantics thing. It's not that big of a deal to me. Change the wording to something better if you wish. I won't bother it... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. No big deal. It's just sometimes interesting to see what language can do to logic.... --Profero (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Airplane" vs. "aeroplane" vs. "fixed-wing aircraft"

Changing from a common term to a less common one. Got to make everybody happy, whatever..

– -Fnlayson (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna argue that a bit too, Jeff. But the consensus in the community is that if a term in one version of English is spelled differently in another version, but a similar term also exists that is common to several versions of English, then that is the term that should be used. Morcus didn't even present it in light of the MOS, but while I was looking to argue my case, actually found that the community agrees somewhat with the point Morcus was making; since American English and the Queen's English cannot agree on airplane vs. aeroplane, fixed-wing aircraft is an acceptable term. --Born2flie (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I understand the situation. Just wanted to put a comment in about it. "Fixed-wing aircraft" is the lesser of 3 evils. ;) Take it easy... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, wasn't sure. <salute> --Born2flie (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA for B-70?

Now that the article has been fleshed out and has long stabilized, would you be interested in another GA attempt? Every one I have done in the past eventually turns into a debate over the number of citations, which bores me to no end, so I'd likely need some help on that front. But basically, aside from the superb play-by-play of the flights on 001, I think it's safe to say this article is the best of its sort anywhere. Maury (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It is worth a shot. I'll do what I can to help. But I don't have print sources to cover much of the B-70's background. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well on that one the technical report from Rockwell (linked in the article) is likely the best source we could hope for! Practically every statement in the article comes from it, with the exception of the really early history. Maury (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AH-1 pics

Jeff, I haven't seen a AH-1W with the Zulu-type exhaust suppressors, but this sure looks like one! Evetrything else about the Cobra appears to be a Whiskey, including the winngs with the little box on them, and the two-bladed rotor. But that's definitely not a Whiskey exhaust. - BillCJ (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I hadn't seen enough pics of the that area to tell much difference. But I found a AH-1W image to compare to here. Found some other images of the duckbill exhausts here and here on the first DVIC results page (searched on AH-1 Cobra).

I haven't seen any released reports that the -Ws were using the duckbills (or at least I didn't realize that is what they were talking about), but I will try some searches tomorrow or the next day to see what I can find out. We definitely ought to have someting about it in the SuperCobra article, and a few pics of the new type too. Interestingly enough, I was actually searching for "amphibious assault ship", trying to find pics of the LHAs/LHDs with other carriers, especially the foreign ones. That search had over 5000 images, and I only got as far as 600 before I had to stop to do other things. - BillCJ (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I found something on the Hover InfraRed Suppression System (HIRSS) being installed on AH-1Ws here, and it was selected for the H-1 Upgrades also. - BillCJ (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Also, "Suppression System" does seem more likely than "Suppressor System". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] C-130J Super Hercules

Thanks for catching the author and copyright on the C-130J Super Hercules specs cite from the USAF fact sheet. I know I didn't add that info in on purpose, but it was on the first edit I did of the page. It must have been from the original cite template that I copied, and I just missed that info was still there. I don't even know how to make the copryright symbol on the keyboard! Thanks again for cleaning up my messes. - BillCJ (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. No idea how to make that symbol either. Probably some odd key combination. You caught that incorrect spec change. I let it go and checked later and found ceiling is 28,000 ft on the Lock-Mart page. Was going to fix the data, but you had already reverted it by then. Thanks and take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KC-X protest

Also, Flight International/Global has a link to the redacted version of Boeing's KC-X protest here (2.5 Mb). It's interesting in that they show the KC-30/A330-200 wingspan by length "footprint" is actually larger than a KC-10's. Seems kinda inefficient based on that. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-addition of a tag I removed

This edit: [5] goes against Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Museums#Museum_Ships, because of Battleship Memorial Park. -MBK004 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Well that's much clearer what was redundant. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I know I could have been clearer, but as you can tell, I was using the same edit summary to expedite the correcting of my mistake as seen from the discussion at the project level. This was my fault and could have been avoided had I asked before I started tagging all the museum ships blindly without checking for applicable articles solely about the museums. -MBK004 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation "Boe_storyIV"

Jeff,

The citation associated with "Boe_storyIV" referenced a blacklisted website: www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com . I did not discover this until I tried to re-insert the citation.

The original citation was:
<ref name="Boe_storyIV">Cox, Joel. [http://www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com/article/324426/the_boeing_story_part_iv.html "The Boeing Story Part IV"], ''Associated Content'', [[27 July]] [[2007]]. Retrieved: [[17 December]] [[2007]].</ref>

This citation appears to have been removed by User:RoboMaxCyberSem with edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=199054955


--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Same here. I tried to re-add it last night only to discover it was blacklisted still. So I just removed the rename part and added a fact tag to remind myself and others to reference that. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • 747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation, Joe Sutter, Jay Spenser, ISBN-10: 0060882417
    • based on a "Search inside this book" at amazon.com
    • references to bulge: on page 85 and 94
    • references to door: on pages 85, 98, 120, and 215
    • --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, well done! I hadn't thought of that. I loaned my copy of that book out. The page 85 in file (93 in book) is the one. You should add that page number to the footnote to get the credit. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obit for Robert E. Bateman - Boeing aerodynamicist

Jeff,

Since Mr. Bateman worked on the B-52 and Boeing 747, you may be interested in his obituary. He died March 23, 2008.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/obituaries/2004309049_batemanobit27m.html?syndication=rss
By Jim Brunner
Seattle Times staff reporter
Thursday, March 27, 2008

During four decades as a Boeing engineer and executive, Robert E. Bateman worked on some of the company's most recognizable planes, including the B-52 and the 747. He led one of the company's more unusual experiments — the construction of sea-skimming hydrofoils.

...

--Dan Dassow (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harrier Jump Jet

Jeff, would you be able/interested in putting together a specs table on the Harrier Jump Jet page? If you're not able to do the whole thing, I could do the leg work of lining up the specs figures, if you'll tell me which you think we should compare. I was thinking of P.1127 and/or Kestrel, Harrier GR3, Sea Harrier (FRS1 or FA2 - not sure which), Harrier GR5, and AV-8B+. THose ought to be enough to give a good comparison, and we can swap out some of the models if we can't find particular specs. It just needs to compare the major points, comparable to what a simple specs table on an airliner page does. This isn't a high-priority thing, so we can take our time. I'm surprised it took me this long to think of it, though!

  • PS, good idea on linking the birds in the HSH page. - BillCJ (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I can get that started anyway. I can take specs from the variant article except for the P.1127. You want to list both BAE/MDD Harrier IIs. They are slightly different (hardpoints, gun, etc). Here's table with rows for basic specs.


Aircraft: P.1127, Harrier I, Sea Harrier, Harrier II

Data: Crew, Length, Wingspan, Height, Empty Weight, Maximum take-off weight, Max speed, Range, Engine, & Thrust


Will add the extra column... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


OK, thanks. As to the Harrier II, there are basically 3 models: AV-8B Day attack and GR5, AV-8B Night attack and GR7, and AV-8B+ and GR9 (only plus with radar). A lot of the avioncis are different in the American and British models, but most of the specs are the same, esp dimensions, and the engine models are comparable for each pair. I do believe the AV-8B+ has a slightly longer fuselage than the rest (and the FA2 is longer than FRS1), so that's why I prefer that one, and because of the radat. If you can, a line for the radar would be good too, with "None" for the non-radar models. The Shar has the Blue Fox radar (Blue Vixen in FA2(, while the Plus has the APG-65. We don't have to do all the models, just enough for comparision, though if we could do both Shar variants, that would be good. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I got that started on the Jump Jet page. Some of the specs don't look quite right. I know the Harrier IIs are a little slower. Take a look and discuss on that article talk page. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 717

Hi, I'm trying to clarify in the lead that the plane was never actually produced or delivered as the MD 95, which is disussed in the text below. There is a lot of information crammed into the lead, thus I'm reluctant to add much more text to clarify my point. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Right, I just moved marketing to before MDC. Also, what "introduced" means could be vague to some people. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that "introduced" is vague. I think we need a clearer statement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • True. I don't have any better ideas right now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • We were edit conflicting so I continued to fix my errors and formatting. I'm done for now, so please fine tune as you see fit. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: Is the closing of the LB plant pertinent to the lead for the 717? I removed, but won't contest the return of the text. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the edit conflict(s). That didn't fully close the LB plant. Boeing assemblies the C-17, makes commercial airplane parts and does engineering at the LB facility. The last commercial airplane in LB thing is covered in the Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A plane, not a scandal??!

What in the world is going on at Talk:Boeing KC-767#This article is about the thing (plane)? I didn't sign on today until after 8pm EDT, and wow, what a mess! Thanks for being the voice of reason there - I hope they'll listen! Revert wars over categories? I think this one could on the "Lamest revert wars" page, your efforts to moderate it notwithstanding nor included as part of the "lamest". - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that is kinda funny if you don't get too involved and worked up. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sound a little familiar?

To paraphrase the old line: "The more times change, the more TIME get even worse!"

I ran across an article from TIME in the Nordeen book, and just had to check it out: The Marines' Bad Luck Plane! Sound a bit familar? If you need a reminder, TIME has included a list a "Related Articles" on the left, and the one I'm referring to is the last one. THe article is pretty short, and skimps on details as for the reasons, primarily because the Marines weren't able to order two-seaters until the last batch, which arrived the year the article was written, and the accidents rate came down after that. I know some of our sources cover this in detail, especially the Gunston piece in The Great Book of Modern Warplanes. - BillCJ (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I didn't need a reminder on the flying shame article. The 2 seaters back then were just trainers, right. There are going to be teething problems with cutting edge technology (AV-8A & V-22). -Fnlayson (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WT:AIR#French nav boxes

Thanks for your constructive way. I can propose to hide the box like this.What do you think? Is it good this time?

Military of France

--Toubabmaster (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I meant reformat like the Bell and other navboxes. But adding the collapsible option sure helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Delete warnings

Hi, can you specify which image(s) you're referring to? Spellcast (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-104 Starfighter

Looks like someone is writing an essay in there! Nimbus (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yea. I didn't have time earlier to do much more than add the unreferenced tag. Looks like only the last paragraph is needed to set the stage for the F-104, imo. The rest looks like fluff. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph recently entered contradicts the referenced truth in the next para, that Lockheed took the design to the USAF unsolicited and not the other way round. That IP has many warnings, does not provide references or edit summaries and is digressing into dubious B-47/MiG-15 performance comparison here? Cheers Nimbus (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point. The text says Johnson was trying to build a better, simpler fighter to counter the MiG-15. That's different than designing an interceptor to counter bombers. The Origins content is all unsourced, OR-like and out of place/wrong. Delete it if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's gone, will see if it stays that way. I agree BTW about your change (10-15 years), that text has been there for quite a while although I think it was one of the reference book editor's POV that could have been copied in (phrase sounds familiar) Nimbus (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good deal. Your descriptive edit summary should help if that gets readded sometime in the future. The Joint Strike Fighter went some 5 years from when the prototype development contracts were awarded until the X-32 & X-35 first flight. Not sure how long they worked on proposals before that though. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that the '104' had a 'Gattling' gun as well ;-), why would someone add an edit which caused a redirect that was not there before? I saw that this morning, left the house shaking my head! All the best. Nimbus (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Army Aviation Museum sandbox

Howdie. You might want to mention the Cessna_CH-1 as well, because they have in storage there the only remaining version of it I believe. I just found a photo of it in storage and the owner of the photo was nice enough to release it. He said that pictures of other stored aircraft might be possible too in the future. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The image attribution for small images is under discussion on the village pump right now: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions. You might want to weigh in. I think additional attribution is appropriate when adding a third-party cc-by photo. I've given it some thought recently. In this specific case, the photographer is offering to go out of his way to photograph more of the aircraft in storage if that helps expand articles. Quite generous... what would you think about a (cc) link without the author's name, just linking to the image page? That would make it more clear that the image is cc-by licensed and more explicitly where to go to find out by whom? I doubt everyone knows to click on thumbnails, especially in infoboxes where no expand icon occurs. Thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I looked on the image page and didn't anything for adding attrition. Revert my edit or do the cc thing if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I did a CC link in the CH-1 article. Good idea. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback?

Saw that you have a good record of reverting vandalism, and that you don't have rollback. So, would you be interested in having this anti-vandalism tool? -MBK004 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That looks like that would be helpful to have. Sure, I'd like rollback capability. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done: I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback, User:Kushan I.A.K.J/New Rollbacks School and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. -MBK004 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I've been meaning to suggest this to you. It works well with vandalism. I've reverted other edits a few times too, mostly by accident. In such cases, we need to leave an explanation on the article talk page or the user's talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the .js pages so I can do an edit summary if needed. However, the links to the user name/talk pages are cleared out. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Von Braun

Jeff, I noticed you had a book on Von Braun, and thought you might be interested in this tangental discussion at Talk:DARPA#Von Braun. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I replied there. I still haven't finished that book. Probably over halfway done though. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KC-X

i know the weight doesnt fits. But the extra cargo is included in MANY references. Probably they removed the passenger-seats, which can be done fast and easy in the airbus.

And it is normal in the US Air force to give plans overweight with extra long runway, water-injection and so on. Probably this are the differences between european and us-version. Wispanow (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or other engines. The KC-767 is also "advanced". Wispanow (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. It's doesn't quite add up. They will probably increase the MTOW some. I think the KC-30/-45 is supposed take on more fuel after takeoff too. I think the fuel capacity with cargo should be called something else, like typical. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emirates "daily"

Would you mind going over to the Emirates Airline discussion page to comment on the anon who wants "double daily" and "7 (Daily), please. I'm "nervous" that perhaps I'm wrong and I'd like lots of opinions. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. I commented in the Emirates article. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems on 29th

Hi. You did a good job yesterday keeping an eye on vandalism. Unfortunately I wasn't that free to be able to do much. Caught a good one today though (when not logged in): apparently BAE was formed by the:

"merger of two British companies, Marconi Electronic Systems (MES), the Electronics Division (GDE) a subsidiary of defense contractor and naval shipbuilding company General Dynamics (GD), and aircraft, munitions and naval systems manufacturer British Aerospace (BAe)"[6]??!

I think we can both be proud of the article making it to the front page (with a lot of help from others of course) Mark83 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Just some police work on my part yesterday. The back and forth UK/England edits got on my nerves. I let that go after a while so as not to get into an edit war over it. I did very little on the article. Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gripen wording

Hi, Fnlayson.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the expression "A decision by Croatia".

First, I don't think "by Croatia" is needed for clarification, since they're the only party in the context that has to take a decision (at least in that paragraph). Saab has made an offer, Croatia will take a decision. Right? (Not very important point though, I can live with Croatia being mentioned again.)

Second. I don't think it's good English, although I realize that, in the present company, you should be the expert. How about "A decision from Croatia is expected ..." or "A decision is expected from Croatia ..."?

LarRan (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker but far from any kind of expert at it. Just seems some clarification is needed there. The Swedish Defence Material Administration and Saab are mentioned right before that sentence. I tried rewording some more. Change to something better if you want to. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again. There's something strange with the references section on the Gripen page: suddenly all text - apart from the headings - has become much smaller. It wasn't like that before, I believe. Does it appear the same to you? LarRan (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only noticed a reduction in the size of small font such as the reflist template used in many Reference sections. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. More language issues: "The Gripen NG's empty weight is just 200 kg (440 lb) heavier..". Shouldn't it be more rather than heavier? "How heavy is the weight?" is not a question that can be asked, is it? Also: "Due to relocated main landing gear...". Shouldn't it be "Thanks to ..."? It's an advantage, not a disadvantage, right? What do you think? LarRan (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Heavier" seems fine to me, but "more" is fine too. "Due to" seems more neutral, but either is OK with me. I will work on rewording the NG section so the text is longer a copy of the article. Help where you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to common units of measurement

Hi,

We ran into each other at M16 rifle. Links to common units of measurement are in the top most frequent links in Wikipedia. The guideline at wp:overlink says In general, do not create links to ... Plain English words, including common units of measurement. and has footnote giving some examples of these.

Some people say that links help with conversion but where the conversion is right there on the page, that rationale does not apply, of course. I just thought that I would let you know. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it just seemed odd to remove the Yard link and not the inch one. How many links are enough is a big gray area sometimes. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that 'inch' is in a similar class (i.e. common units) to 'yard'. The removal of the link to yard was not an endorsement of the link to inch. I simply overlooked inch. I also agree with you that the *correct* amount and the *actual* amount of linking for each unit term (metre, kilogram, foot, inch) are both somewhere on a continuous scale from 'none' to 'all'. This is not the most important issue for me. Lightmouse (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)