Talk:HMAS Melbourne (R21)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMAS Melbourne (R21) article.
Article policies
Featured article star HMAS Melbourne (R21) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
saberwyn (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Sea King Vs Wessex helicopters

An edit was made by 58.169.65.33 replacing Sea King in the list of aircraft with Wessex and the edit comment stated that the Wessex replaced the Sea King.

This is completly incorrect, if anything it was the reverse. The Wessex was the original ASW helo embarked on Melbourne and was replaced in this role by the introduction of the Sea Kings at which time the dunking sonar was removed from the Wessex and fitted to the Sea Kings. Wessex helos continued to embark in Melbourne as utility helos, typically with 2 helos from 723 squadron. During the time of my service on VS816 squadron in the late 70's and early 80's, Melbourne would typically embark 6 A-4 Skyhawks, 6 S-2 Trackers, 6 Sea Kings and 2 Wessex. At this time one of the main roles for the Wessex was to fly in the rescue helo position astern and to port of the ship when Melbourne was at flying stations during daylight hours.Nick Thorne 06:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne was not scrapped after all?

According to this http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/china/surface.htm, the hulk of the Melbourne was still in China being studied as of 1994. Anybody know about this?--Commking 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...Bob Hawke and the Labour PartyDervish6 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the Chinese were interested in acquiring aircraft carrier technology in an effort to gain blue water projection, presumably to enforce claims over the Spratlys and Paracels. One report has the deck of the Melbourne removed and bolted to an airfield near Beijing, where it is used for practice. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
i am quite sure the ship is scrapped, they only want the steam catapult. Akinkhoo (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Melbourne was scrapped, but the majority of the ship was intact into at least the 1990s, and the flight deck was around until at least 2002. -- saberwyn 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Photo

The picture on the right of this page could not have been taken in 1961 ,as the Catapult extensions were not carried out untill the 1970s. Also there are Tracker aircraft shown on the filght deck of Melbourne , and these were not carried by Melbourne until 1969 for operational duties .

Above comment originally entered on main page by Millview moved here

Does anyone have any accurate information about when the photograph really was taken? Nick Thorne 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Pic shot May 16, 1981 - Catshot

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS melbourne 2 crest.gif

Image:HMAS melbourne 2 crest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional images

There are some additional images I'd like to see in this article, but cannot find a legally usable example of at this time

  • A size comparison between Melbourne and another carrier (preferably a US supercarrier)... see [1] for a comparison shot of Melbourne and USS Enterprise
  • A photograph of Melbourne being towed out to China in 1985

If anyone comes across these or other useful images, do not hesitate to upload them. -- saberwyn 12:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1980 deployment

I served in 816 squadron during this deplyment. The period when fixed wing flying was banned was for 10 days. This was due to the catapault being stripped down following a malfunction that threw an A4 Skyhawk from 805 squadron over the bows. I do not recall any issues witht he arresting gear or ship's radar, although the opportunity to perform maintenance on these while the catapault was being worked on may have been taken. The ultimate cause of the incident was never determined, although it was known that somehow the dump valve between the steam collectors and the carrot valve on the catapault had incorrectly closed and thus steam pressure had built up behind the catapault until it was enough to break the hold back fiting but not enough to fly. Apparently during the strip down a number of discrepancies were found between the catapault and the drawings and when it was re-assembled it was done according to specificatio.

The pilot of this ill fated aircraft intially thinking that it was a simple "break out" tried to stop the jet with his brakes (the black stripes left on the deck were testament to this) but when, as he put it "the front of the ship kept approaching so I pulled the aircraft jettison handle" - in other words he ejected. This led to a further issue as when he landed in the water his parachute wrapped around the tail of the sinking aircraft and he was dragged under. The oxygen masks and seat supply were supposed to work under water but apparently in this case they did not, but luckilly the pilot was able to free himself and he bobbed to the surface a short while later. We shouted him free drinks in the Wardroon that night! (Oops, forgot to sign this entry, Nick Thorne)

I'm assuming that the incident you are referring to was in the "Assorted facts need a home" that was left-over from my userspace drafting. That fact was only present in Timothy Hall's work (which was only published in 1982). The information about what he implied were major malfunctions halting fixed-wing flying for the duration of the tour was not confirmed elsewhere, so I was a bit suspicious of it and left it in that (now removed) section. If I could find a published source for your (correct) version of events, I'd be happy to add in the incident, but for now its probably best to leave it out. Lucky for your Skyhawk pilot that the jinx didn't claim him.
As someone who's served aboard the carrier, how do you feel about the rest of the writeup? -- saberwyn 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, that is where I found it. Of course my recollectiuon does not qualify as a source for Wikipedia purposes, but I will have a look through what material I have here to see if I can find anything.
WRT the remainder of the article, I think it is a fair description of this ship. BTW, the nicknames commonly in use when I served in her were "war canoe" and (less compimentarily) "the offal barge".Nick Thorne talk 02:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard the nickname "Steel War Canoe" (my grandfather told me that one), but again, don't have a print source for it. -- saberwyn 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whats missing

I think the kitchen sink from the galley ;o) BTW, wasn't she also know as "Skippy" (informally) on the count of the ship's crest?--mrg3105mrg3105 06:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Find me a source, and I'll be happy to whack it in. -- saberwyn 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference shortening

Because this well-cited article had a wonderful bibliography section with all the details for books spelled out completely, I shortened the notes enclosed in <ref></ref> tags to "Author, p. NN" rather than "Joseph P. Author (year). Book title: Which can be really long with all of the subtitle included, p. NN". (In the case of Tom Frame who had three books, a notation of the particular book indicated was left in the tags.) Shortening them saves on page size (almost 5 Kb), and — since most of the references are really short — allows a three-column format for {{Reflist}} — Bellhalla (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Its a combination of the way I have taught to cite texts at university, and my percieved need to provide enough information for a reader to begin hunting down the correct text without having to trawl through a third section to establish which book is which. -- saberwyn 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As an aside, the JSpeerreview (Automated peer review) does not like the current layout of the citations, and tries to insert a "cite web" template into most of them. But that's the software's problem. -- saberwyn 10:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evans collision

Concerns have been expressed during the peer review that the section on the collision with USS Frank E Evans does not represent a neutral point of view as required by Wikipedia. The material currently in the article is an improvement on what was there, but there are still problems with neutrality, and I will attempt to work on those over the next few months. Indications of the specific problem areas and any assistance in fixing them would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The current solution is to farm most of the material on the investigations of both the Evans and Voyager collisions to the subarticles, and leave a neutral, 1-paragraph summary here. -- saberwyn 08:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career

pardon me, but an aircraft carrier career isn't to fire shot but launch aircraft... what is going on here? Akinkhoo (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Basically, Melbourne, the aircraft embarked on her, the Bofors bolted to her deck, and the small arms carried by the ship and her crew, were never used in a combat situation, thus the ship "never fired a shot in anger". -- saberwyn 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracker wingtip clearance

The article states that the wing tip clearance between a tracker and the superstructure was less than one metre. This is incorrect, the clearance was 9ft 6in which is near enough to 3 metres. Nevertheless "The Beast", Melbourne's crash recovery vehicle (basically a mobile crane), was parked in the gap and the clerance between The Beast and a tracker's wing tip would indeed only have been a metre or so. In fact, as 816 squadron duty officer one day, I actually saw a tracker land on well right of centre and the pilot actually had to lift the starboard wing over The Beast to avoid hitting it - although just how voluntary the movement was is open to conjecture, I suspected it was an artifact of the shakey landing etc.Nick Thorne talk 13:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The problem is the source says "less than one metre". Maybe Hall was incorrect, maybe he was counting The Beast as well but didn't mention it. -- saberwyn 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a poster that was produced for Melbourne's 25th anniversary - it is a lovely colour photo taken from the air close up looking aft, it would be perfect for the article, but I have no idea where the image could be sourced from and no doubt it is Crown copyright - anyway, the photo clearly shows the "foul deck line" which was a line painted on the deck equivalent to the position of a tracker's wingtip as it travels down the centreline. Anyway, in the photo, there is a man standing at the point of closest approach to the island and the distance is clearly signicantly greater than his height and consistant with a gap of around 3m if he is of normal stature. Interestingly, the photo shows The Beast, plus a Wessex parked immediately aft of it. No way that could fit into 1m! I'm looking to see if I have a photo that shows the clear deck line so that we can correct the article with a verifiable source. (Pity we can't use the poster.) Nick Thorne talk 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I found an aerial photo I took when Melbourne visited Freemantle in 1980. I have marked up a detail from the photo and by cut and paste have been able to compare the distance between the Tracker foul deck line and the island with the wingspan of an A4 Skyhawk parked on the deck. The distance shown is consostent with my recollection f 9ft 6 in or just under 3 metres. How we can use this, I am not sure, mainly because I do not know if this constitutes original research, within the meaning of the policy. If we just need for the information to be verifiable, perhaps the photo is all we need, I don't know. Anyway, here it is:


I will wait a while to see if anyone objects, if not I will alter the article to reflect the truth. Nick Thorne talk 11:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is that doing that is probably going to be interpreted as WP:original research. Although I have no doubts that you are correct, as the standard for Wikipedia is WP:verifiability, not truth, we may have to let this one slide. -- saberwyn 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I checked my copy of Hall. On page 83 he says:

He has to stay right on centre line because in the Grumman, for example, he has less than a metre clearance with his wings.

Hall does not state that this clearance is between the wing and the island, in fact what he says is entirely consistant with what I have been saying, that is, that the clearance of less than one metre refers to the distance between the wing tip and The Beast. I will modify the article to simply reflect the reference and remove the additional information that has been added that this clearance refers to the superstructure. This resolves the problem as far as I can see, the comment is now consistant with the reference and is not incorrect - a win win! Nick Thorne talk 09:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what the book says, so I am 100% cool with it. Now, I need to work out how I got from what was on Hall's page to the phraseology that was in the article... probably an embarrassing side effect of taking notes from the book in a library I can't borrow from and rarely visit. I am ashamed. -- saberwyn 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)