User talk:Towpilot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Page Blanking

On 11-May, you blanked JAS 39 Gripen. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry! I temporary lost my internet connection in the process, and then I completly forgot about it. I was correcting the designation for JAS 39, wich should be written without a dash, like all other Saab aircraft and all airplanes of the Swedish Air Force, and when I was trying to move the entire page it refused because JAS 39 Gripen allready is a redirect. Then while trying to figure out who to write to and ask how to do, my earthlink connection took an sudden break. Anyway, to have it all correct, JAS-39 should be a redirect to JAS 39! Not the other way around. --Towpilot 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. That happens. To reverse the direction of the redirect, list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves and, if there is no disagreement, it will be taken care of. -- JLaTondre 14:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've looked at that page, but this move is nothing that even have to be discussed or voted about. JAS-39 simply doesn't exist! JAS 39 is the correct designation! --Towpilot 07:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is at JAS-39 Gripen & the redirect is at JAS 39 Gripen. You want want to reverse that, correct? If so, you need an adminstrator to do that. Wikipedia:Requested moves is means of requesting that. It's a trivial change and should go through without a problem, but you still need to post it there so people see it and act upon it. While Wikipedia:Requested moves is used for moves requiring discussion, it is also used for non-controversal moves requiring an adminstrator. What you want to do fits that criteria. -- JLaTondre 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

You have an amazing collection of photographs - thanks for making them available here --Melburnian 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Melburnian! I've seen that you uploaded some nice pix yourself. It's interesting to see how different some other people think about pictures on Wiki. I've worked with lay-out myself, and it's my firm opinion that pictures here should be a graphic part of any article, not threated as an external link shuffled in to a corner with a stamp sized thumb! A half empty screen with a small thumb is a waste of space and picture! To upload pictures and use them as in the article about Fantasy of Flight, to give an example, is just ridiculus! (I'm thinking of replace those myself with some real pictures!)
Anyway, nice to know that there are some others not thinking Wikipedia is a text only web encyklopedia!--Towpilot 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B-17 myth

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The only source I have on Sweden's B-17s is this one. Could you tell me where I can find information of the planes being given to Sweden for free? Until such a time I'd prefer to take Sweden out of the article entirely. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the other webside and realized the source of this unfortunally quite common missunderstanding about the Swedish B-17. It's using Scott Thompsons otherwise excellent book "Final Cut", and I've noticed the incorrect info about 1 $ airplanes in his book before. It also claims that those airplanes were flown by the "Saab Airline". No such airline ever existed! They were all operated for a short time only by SILA, today a part of SAS. Saab only did the conversions.
A Swedish historic aviation magazine called "Kontakt" published in the early 80's a copy of the bill of sale for all the Swedish B-17. It clearly stated that the aircraft were given away for free! There's accually much more to the story of the reason why, than the circa 300 crewmembers (who by the way never were POW's!) that were allowed to return to England. US gov had a high interrest in the courier traffic from Sweden to Scottland to be uphold. This was the initial main reason for the deal, and not really to fly regulary pax. Those courier flights had earlier been done with DC-3, wich turned out to be to unsafe.
I think it would be a good idea to divide a list of "Operators" into military and civilian ones. Present list is missing big postwar operators like the French IGN, and all the US tankers. For that, Thompsons book would be an excellent source!--Towpilot 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viggen

The Saab 37 Viggen page has recently been expanded, could you have a look at it to check the information added? --MoRsE 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you were fixing the article. Do you might have some information on the RBS15 too? Is the correct designation Rbs 15? I've tried to check Saab's web pages, and they use the foremer, but still....I have a feeling in my stomach that it is the second one that is more correct. --MoRsE 04:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Not knowing anything about this robot itself, I still think it's safe to asume the correct Swedish designation should be RBS 15, not RBS15 or RBS-15 since there is no indication (or reasons) given anywhere that the system of military designations in Sweden have ever changed. I know it's confusing that official websides for Saab or SwAF sometimes write in different inconsistent ways, but remember that the sites are designed by webmasters, not the people working with the hardwhare itself. I've just read the RBS 15 article here for the first time. It defenitely need some cleanup from the big mix of all different ways of spelling Swedish robot designations!--Towpilot 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for correcting the base and aricraft designation names. I would, however, appreciate a nicer tone in the comments. Capital letters and several exclamation portray shouting.--T96 grh 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

SwAF required and Saab built the Viggen for having STOL performance according to what is listed as STOL by NATO. Perhaps only a clean Viggen with minimal amount of fuel onboard can meet those requirements, but it was developed as such. T96 grh 10:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not! SwAF required that the airplane should be usable in the already developed system of using narrow relatively short public roads and highways. That's not necessarily the same as asking for STOL performance per definitions! I asked a very good friend of mine about this, who flew the AJ version more than 2 000 hours during its entirely period of service. He said neither the word STOL or the definition were ever used by SAAB or the SwAF themself in anything that had to do with the airplane, definitely not in any manuals! According to him, at MTOW (some 18+ metric tons) on a "good day" (not to warm weather and some 10-15 mph head wind) he could rotate at no less than 500 meters! That is, as you understand, before clearing any 50 feet obstacles. At MLW (13 ton) in a so called "direct landing" (no flare), with an alfa of 15,5 degree (otherwise normally 12), engine on full reverse and using full wheel brakes, he could sometimes stop in slightly more than 400 meters even with no wind. This was very seldom done. A normal landing took at least twice the distance. Again, this is without any obstacle clearence given.
The performance of this aircraft is still very impressive. But a STOL aircraft per definition it is not! --Towpilot 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a good look at the STOL requirements. It says 450m with 15m obstacle. A clean Viggen can do this landing as you say yourself your friend told you. Now, in peacetime, this was rarely practiced since it put a lot of wear on the tires, wheelbrakes and the entire ejector/reverser. But it could be done! Rotation at 500m at 18 ton will give you (with a rough calculation) 13/18*500=360m at 13 ton (not to speak of that you could probably rotate a little earlier with smaller weight). Besides, no Viggen in SwAF flew without the throttle restrictor, so that would have also helped takeoff performance. Your own numbers speak for themselves. Viggen was capable of STOL. T96 grh 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, take a good look at the STOL requirements. It says 450m with 15m obstacle. That means, in reality, that the actual roll on the ground have to be much shorter, in both take off and landing, in normal operations. Therefore the take off roll itself of 500 meter before rotation already disqualify the airplane as a STOL! To clear a 15 m obstacle at take off you probably have to add another 100 m or so. The fact that a Viggen can be slammed into the ground and stop rolling in slighly more than 400 m means that to also clear a 15 m obstacle in the same process it needs much more than the 450 meters! In other words, neither take off or landing fit the definitions. And even if one of them, either take off or landing, would do it, both have to fall inside given numbers to be a truly STOL airplane. Also, to say "But it could be done!" is kind of a stupid argument. I have seen myself a Fokker F28 land and roll about 400 m after touch down on the ground before stopping. As far as I know, no one claims it to therefor be a STOL aircraft only because "it could be done". Same thing with, as an example a B-25. Only because the Doolittle Raid proved that it could take off in a distance way shorter than the STOL definition, no one have tried to say it was a STOL aircraft. Yeah, the numbers do speak for themselves. Interpret them correctly and you will realize Viggen was not a STOL aircraft! Also, if neither SAAB, SwAF or the pilots who flew them called it, or agree it was a STOL aircraft, why should Wikipedia?
On a side note: In 34 years of flying myself, I've always been told that a definition of STOL included only "about 1000 feet on the ground", not 1500 as per a "NATO definition". But maybe it's because the SwAF, where I once commenced my flight training, never have been a member of NATO. :-) --Towpilot 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The STOL-like performance of the Viggen is an aspect of its design that is unusual. I think since there is some contention that it was not a "true" STOL, it may become a topic on the article "talk" page that has to be resolved first on the discussion page. On the other hand, if you or other editors have some reliable and authoritative reference sources then it is a suitable topic to be introduced into the article, with an edit note that a further discussion is found on the talk page. I think your conversation above shows the best of Wikipedia- a collaborative effort by two individuals who have interacted with knowledgeable yet courteous exchanges. I commend the both of you! FWIW Bzuk 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC). Comment added by Bzuk (talk FWIW Bzuk 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC).
You know, the phrase "The STOL-like performance...." followed by some text about the still pretty impressive performance might be a better way to solve this! Maybe we simply should copy this discussion and paste it into the article's discussion page and see what suggestions of editing that may popup? Meanwhile, I will have my own brainstorm and see if there is a more interesting way of editing the subject than just remove the word STOL like I did!--Towpilot 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the naming of the Talk:Saab_37_Viggen and whether the Vigg(swedish)=duck=canard(french) was official or coincidental. Do you have access to any published info about this? I do remember reading about it in a book in Swedish about the Viggen, but I don't have it here in the US. T96 grh 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fokker C.V/VL Tuisku

Hi there, Towpilot. I understand you are of the opinion that the image I found at Backwoods Landing Strip marked as a Fokker C.V is really a VL Tuisku. Can you be so kind as to tell me how it is that you can see that the image is of a Tuisku and not a C.V, and thus why Backwoods have gotten this one wrong? Manxruler (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Manxruler. Well, it's not really an opinion, it's a clear and easy fact! I can understand in a way if your not an airplane buff, all biplanes may look the same. I do understand people who can not see the differences in, let's say a Boeing 707 from a DC-8, or a Martin 4-0-4 from a Convair CV-240, but in this case the differences are bigger and more obvious. First, the entire empennage is a dead-give-away! Compare the vertical fin and rudder on the picture of the VL Tuisku with my picture of the Fokker C V-D on display in your museum in Norway! Then, another easy detail is the landing gear. Compare the standard attachement of the gear under the belly on the Fokker with the very unique way the landing gear is attached to the side of the fuselage on the Tuisku. Beside that, the wings and the struts are very different. The entire fuselage has a different shape. The engine installement is very different (I don't think any Fokker C V at all flew with a NACA cowling). In short, we are talking about two, in my opinion completely different looking airplanes! I will remove the picture of the Tuisku again unless there is a good reason to mention it in an article about the Fokker C V! --Towpilot (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Towpilot. I now see the difference. Pretty weird of Backwoods to make a mistake like that, but I can see your points. The landing gear really looks different to that of the Fokker C.V. I'll give Backwoods a pointer to the fact that they seem to have misplaced that image.
A couple of things, though; You might want to ease up on your use of exclamation marks, they make it seem like you're yelling all the time and doesn't exactly make for civilised communication. Just a bit of friendly advice from me to you. Also, when you're editing on Commons the "Source" part of the image template isn't for "this is where I have my info from". It's for "this where I found the image". Just cause Backwoods appears to have mislabelled the image it's still from Backwoods. I'll go make the necessary adjustments in a minute.
Thank you for the information and have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
My comments on Commons was more a frustration over not be able to correct a lot of all the incorrect info I found there. The picture of the Tuisku is not in any way a single mistake. I also do them sometimes, but it should be an easier way to correct them. As for now, a lot of it is carved in stone.
I see no reason to ease up on my use of exclamation marks! To say the use of them should be considered yelling and not "exactly make for civilised communication" is obtuse! THIS IS YELLING, but this is not! I checked your wiki link and nowhere does it say that all of a sudden using exclamation marks should be the same as yelling!
You are welcome, and have a nice day too! --Towpilot (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)