Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Aircraft talk — archives

pre-2004 [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]

2004 [ Mar-Aug | Aug ] — 2005 [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006 [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov - Dec]
2007 [ Jan - May | Jun - Oct | Nov - Dec ] — 2008 [ Jan | Feb - ]


October 04
In mid-August, some members of this project had detailed discussions off-wikipedia at a forum (aeronaut.ca/wikiforum). While useful at the time, discussion is now much more active here on the talk page. All forum discussions will remain up indefinitely for browsing.
v • d • e
Lists relating to aviation
General
Military
Accidents/incidents
Records

Old talk archived at:

Contents

Convair B-36 FAC

I've nominated Convair B-36 for FAC, vote at this page. →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:11, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

The article has received its first (of ten votes) objection:

Object.

  1. Operational history contains numerous original or unattributed judgements. The entire article continues to a lesser degree, as phrases such as "was considered" are used without specification of who considered this so.
  2. The article says the aircraft was "arguably obsolete", but no mention is made of who considered it obsolete (the editor?).
  3. The following sentence labels the aircraft as revolutionary and apologises for problems: "Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft."
  4. "It is highly unlikely any will ever fly again"--according to who?
  5. Blatant original research and POV: "Its little-used nickname Peacemaker was apt, because its mere existence, whatever its flaws, probably played a significant role in preventing World War III."
  6. Again, original research and assertion of opinion as fact: "It was never tested in combat, however, and it is impossible to say how well it would have fared."
  7. Weasel statement reflecting POV: "it is possible that its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable."
  8. POV/unattributed: "could produce pictures of incredible clarity".

Trouble is, many of these complaints are pretty valid, even though some border on nitpicky. Any suggestions on how best to deal with these? A featured aircraft article would be a good achievement for this WikiProject, so it would be great if we can refute the criticisms and get the user to withdraw their objection. →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:25, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Re: points 1 & 2, if something can't be attributed, make it a statement of fact, if it is a fact (ie., "was" rather than "was considered", "obsolete" rather than "arguably obsolete"). Point 3 might be worded better, perhaps with an example of another troubled revolutionary aircraft. Points 4 & 6: the text seems to be common sense to me. I agree with point 5 and sort of point 7 (it should be demonstrated that the recon missions were "valuable"). Point 8: while it would be nice to have a sample of the photography, I have no problem with the text. Geoff/Gsl 06:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's recap:
  1. Change 'was considered' and 'arguably' to statements of fact
  2. Arguably obsolete: change to obsolete (might actually need a little more tweaking)
  3. 'Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft.'>>'Like many other revolutionary aircraft, the design had a number of problems. (Compare the case of the B-29 Superfortress, early versions of which were plagued with engine trouble).' Other comparisions: XB-70, B-47, B-17 (except the last two really didn't have problems).
  4. Definitely commonsense: the 900 hours of maintenance says it all (though the number seems a little high; more research needed).
  5. Perhaps change to 'Without the B-36, the Strategic Air Command would have lacked a feasible nuclear deterrent, potentially placing the United States at the mercy of the Soviet Union.' This statement needs more tweaking, but it is nevertheless a simple fact. The next closest bomber to the B-36 only had the range to make it halfway to Moscow.
  6. Common sense: it is impossible to say for sure how a plane would have faired in combat.
  7. About the recon missions: recon is always valuable, I think we can agree on that. Also, before the U-2 came into existence, there was only one plane capable of long range recon, and that was the B-36. Ergo, being the only plane capable of doing recon missions, and recon being valuable, it was an immensely valuable recon plane. Perhaps it should be reworded a bit. ('though it gained all its publicity... It's recon missions were also valuable'?).
  8. The golfball stat says it all.
Any more thoughts? →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:45, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
Re: point 7, having re-read the relevant text of the article, its comparing the value as a bomber versus value as a recon aircraft. As 119 put it, the "it is possible" bit is the problem. Dropping it to give "While it received all its publicity in connection to its role as a strategic nuclear bomber, its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable." is better but is now making a firm judgement on the value of its two roles which would need to be justified. It really needs a quote from someone that ranks its recon versus deterrent roles. Or don't try and compare and just say it did a lot of recon... Geoff/Gsl 07:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I think we're there. Now I'm going to try and address those objections, on the nom page and in the article. →Iñgōlemo← talk 18:54, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Categorisation again

Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1940-1949 has fighters under both the F- 'fighter' and P- 'pursuit' heading. Should we merge them under F (or P?) or leave them as they are? →Iñgōlemo← talk 21:30, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I say leave them as they are. -Lommer | talk 23:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's probably right. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:25, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

FAC success

The Convair B-36 Featured Article Candidacy has succeeded. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it (including Morven, Brendano, Rlandmann, Lommer, and many others).

Great work, folks. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:21, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Citing sources

I've been using a standard format for citing sources, but another user has changed it to the APA format, which I prefer. Would it be worth it to add this format to the == references == section of the /Page Content subpage, just so everyone's on the same page? →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:53, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

please do. good idea! -eric 05:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - good idea, since APA's what Wikipedia's general citation guidelines suggest. I wasn't aware that your citations were in a standard format - which one? --Rlandmann 08:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's MLA. I learned it in sixth grade, and have been using it in all of my 'standard MLA' papers since, without being marked down for incorrect MLA style. So I assume it's MLA, but I'm not sure. (MLA, by the way, is M. Literary Association or something of the sort). →Iñgōlemo← talk 15:22, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
Modern Language Association. I think it's more common for literature writing; my history and sociology classes had me using the Chicago Manual of Style. They're all basically the same, anyway, just a matter of preference and whether they use inline citation. -eric 16:29, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
And you're spot on most of the time. However, details such as place of publication aren't just optional extras. Furthermore, while underlining titles is the norm for work submitted for assessment or for editing prior to publication (especially in manuscript), it's unusual in an actual publication. Actually, if you're following MLA style you shouldn't italicise at all - you should be underlining text for emphasis (which I think we agree wouldn't sit well with general Wikipedia style). --Rlandmann 04:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Airport

I've been trying to clean this mess of an article up for a while, but some odd edits keep getting made. the definition for airport, it seems, is far more specific to some than i believe it should be. I might be a minority here, but I think the article should focus more on the concept of an airport and less on specifics like 'military airports'. I'm going to split that section off into a separate article called Airbase and link to it.

Also, the latest Airport edit - Jetport? is that honestly common usage that deserves second mention? -eric 17:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you - "airport" should first and foremost address what the word means in common parlance; with any specialist requirements spelled out later. FWIW, in Australia, customs facilities are not a pre-requisite for an "airport", although they are for an "international airport". Perhaps these are part of the formal definition of an airport in other English-speaking countries though? Jetport gets 153,000 hits on Google, so is probably worth mentioning. Maybe you'd like to take this up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports though? (assuming it's still active...) --Rlandmann 05:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, a few weeks back I'd actually removed an edit claiming customs was necessary for any airport - only international airports in the US have customs, too. It was already mentioned in the body that intl airports had customs, so I feel that side of it is pretty well covered. I shifted jetport into what's becoming sort of a synonyms section. -eric 17:14, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard of a jetport, and i'm obviously not the only one, so I've removed it. -Lommer | talk 20:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, for reference, what I'm using as the basis for most of my claims/arguments here is the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations - FAR part 1.1 in particular has definitions including airport, which is generously generic:
Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.
I couldn't find an equivalent ICAO definition for airport, although I have a feeling it would agree. -eric 19:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed that legislators take a very broad view as to what constitutes an airport: Australia's Commonwealth Air Navigation Act 1920, sect 3(1) - "'airport' means an area of land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment situated in the area) intended for use either wholly or partly for the arrival, departure or movement of aircraft." I can't find a copy of the UK Civil Aviation Act 1982 online, but in the The Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, "'airport' means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and services and facilities for use in connection with the landing and departure of aircraft and includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically;" --Rlandmann 04:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For definitions, look for the word 'aerodrome'. The terms aerodrome and airport are used largely interchangeably throughout this [UK Government Department for Transport] document. ... The term ‘airport’, in legal parlance, has a similarly broad meaning [as aerodrome], also specifically encompassing the buildings and facilities on the aerodrome site. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_026247.pdf
  • According to a US document on the ICAO website, the ICAO definition of Aerodrome is an area on land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment) intended to be used for arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft. http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/met/divmtg/wp/wp019_en.pdf
  • A UK CAA reference says the ICAO definition of Aerodrome in Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago 1944) is: A defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations, and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft.
It goes on to say that the UK definition of Aerodrome is in section 105 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as: any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically.
It then says that the UK definition of Airport in section 82 of the airports Act 1986 says: the aggregate of the land, buildings and works comprised in an aerodrome within the meaning of the 1982 Act. http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=375&pagetype=90&pageid=1365 Bobblewik  (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mile: statute or nautical

Unfortunately the term 'mile' is ambiguous and could mean either 'statute mile' or 'nautical mile'. An non-specialist reader of Wikipedia (who may also be unfamiliar non-metric units) may assume that the term 'mile' is the distance of a statute mile. The specialist user may assume that 'mile' means nautical mile. Some articles are specific, others are not. There is even variation within the same article (this has affected the metric conversions of adjacent values). Does anyone else agree that it would be better if we specified the version of the mile in articles where it is ambiguous (e.g. aircraft, ships)? Bobblewik  (talk) 16:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. →Iñgōlemo← talk 18:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
i personally think we should just abbreviate them appropriately, getting rid of generic miles entirely. maybe the first time a wikilink to the definition, as is sometimes done with kg, would be appropriate; sm for statute, nm for nautical. it's conventional, it makes a lot more sense than mi, plus it gives a nice little popup 'title' tooltip. -eric 18:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
also, for speeds, i'm strongly of the opinion that we should use kts (or perhaps kts - mouse over for the difference) rather than mph. mph is for cars. -eric
Again, I agree, though I may be biased. As a Canadian, I've never flown an aircraft with the TAS indicator in anything other than knots (I've seen a double kph-kts line though). However, I hear that it's quite common to have TAS measured in mph in the U.S., and I assumed that was the reason for keeping it. If this is false, then absolutely change it right away. If it is true, then it will be difficult to justify changing, especially since in Europe they use kph. Perhaps the most acceptable compromise is one where speeds are listed in all three units? -Lommer | talk 02:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Only the oldest U.S. aircraft have indicators in mph - Piper and Cessna switched to kts in the mid 70s, if I recall. I would say the majority of GA, and everything commercial, uses knots, and the standard/assumed measurement used by atc is knots as well. -eric 04:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree — eric's suggestions are great too. -Lommer | talk 00:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is one of audience - nm and knots and far less meaningful than (statute) miles and mph to a non-specialist reader; which is why most non-specialist publications on aircraft tend to use these units and why I believe that we should too. I don't think it's likely that a specialist reader will take "mph" to mean knots, although I can see how they might assume "miles" to be nm.

Spelling out "statute miles" should both eliminate the ambiguity for the specialist, while still retaining the greatest meaning for the non-specialist. How widely recognised is "sm" in the US/UK? Would most US/UK readers immediately recognise this as "statute miles"? --Rlandmann 04:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'd recognize sm as statute miles right away, though I would if I thought about it and it wouldn't be a problem if the first instance was linked to statute mile. On your other point, I can see the non-specialist audience argument, but I see two things wrong with it: 1) I think most people are at least aware of the nautical mile unit, and would be able to work with it if given a link. 2) More importantly, who will be reading these articles the most? Is it really laymen, or will it mostly be people already interested in aviation for whom knots will be more meaningful? I suspect the latter... -Lommer | talk 05:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the readership - I agree - probably the latter. However, while knots and nm will be as familiar and meaningful as mph and sm to aviation professionals and recreational flyers in the US and UK, is it true to say that this is also the case for most people interested in aircraft and aviation? If so, then why do so many generalist aviation references use the latter? (To clarify - that's not rhetoric or sarcasm! Just a request for information) --Rlandmann 06:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not just Wikipedia that has this problem other publications have it too. You can sometimes see cumulative errors as source articles use each other and multiple conversions are done. Using 'sm' would not work for me and I can't see it being a policy that is long lived, widely used, or loved by readers. As far as speed is concerned, I am not worried because 'mph' and 'knots' seem adequate and are probably being used correctly. I think there are three problem areas:
  • 1. nautical mile interpreted as statute mile
I propose that (in all Wikipedia articles) the nautical mile is always written in such a way that will specify it as such. Some people already do this in a variety of ways e.g. 'nm', 'nmi', 'nautical mile'. I have my preferences but I don't think we should specify such detail. If a policy like this were taken up, it would solve most of the instances of ambiguity that I see.
  • 2. statute mile interpreted as nautical mile
I propose that where the domain (air, sea) commonly uses nautical miles, the statute mile is specified as such when it used.
  • 3. reader aware of both versions but cannot decide which was meant
Bobblewik  (talk) 11:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I favor SI units. They are well defined and suitable for calculations. I don't really care whether it's mph or kts as long as km/h (or m/s) is mentioned as well. I'd use whatever obscure units the specialists fancy and put SI units next to them for everyone else. Rl 21:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Unducted fan

As "Unducted Fan" / UDF appears to be a copyrighted GE product name, I'm hesitant about the propfan article redirecting to UDF. It should probably work the other way round, as UDF is a specific example. It's like if turbofan redirected to Rolls-Royce Trent. They're about equal in terms of google results, but propfan seems to generally include UDF, and not the other way around. Normally I'd go ahead and change this, but as this and the Antonov An-70 article already have seen some combinations I decided to bring it up. -eric 23:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Okay - according to this NASA history, General Electric began work on "a different kind of propfan known as the Unducted Fan or UDF* (*UDF is a trademark of General Electric Company)". I'm moving UDF back to Propfan, and adding a section on the UDF in particular to the article. Hopefully everyone's okay with my reasoning, James in particular. -eric 02:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

proposal for a tagging template

I've realized it's difficult to tell which articles are lacking specifications as opposed to being an honest stub article. Why don't we create a not-quite-stub template like {{aero-specs}} for incomplete articles of this type? it could go something like this:

This aircraft article is missing performance and other specifications. If you have a source, you can help Wikipedia by adding them.
''This [[aircraft]] article is missing performance and other [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content|specifications]]. If you have a source, you can [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|help]] Wikipedia by [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} adding them]''.[[Category:Aircraft without specifications]]

Anyway... I think this could really help us out. I don't know how the template gods work, and just tweaked a stub, so if someone's a little more knowledgable... -eric ✈ 04:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. There's nothing wrong with attempting to use a template to coordinate efforts to flesh out articles. Let's put this in motion! →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:07, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Well, two's not a majority by any shot, but I went ahead and created the template - aero-specs - and put a description in the category. -eric ✈ 19:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. What about doing a similar template for articles that need to be converted from the old table standard to the new specs standard? I know there's still some articles that others refuse to change but there's a lot out there that still need to be converted. -Lommer | talk 00:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense too. I'm mostly going to be tagging stuff with aero-stats for now, and writing copy for existing articles that I fancy. I'm really tempted to convert the Airbus A380 article to the new format, though. Really tempted. I'll see how long I can avoid scratching that itch. ;) -eric ✈ 01:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Photos of Dassault aircraft

To test the waters i requested permission to use Image:Dassault Mirage G8.jpg and recieved it. I didn't think to ask permission to use their entire Dassault Passion collection, but for future reference they might be willing to do so.

Also, I think I picked the wrong copyright tag, but the listing they've got here is a mess. Any help would be tops. -eric ✈ 14:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the copyright info, but one tag that might be applicable is {{permission}} :
This work is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use. For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license.
Images with this tag are meant to be used until a freer image can be found. We prefer not to use these kinds of photos because we cannot extend the same rights to our users as we received from the creators of the image. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:53, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

aero-stats inline specs

Could we remove the word "characteristics" from the first subheading? If it's not necessary for "Performance," then it's not needed for "General." ✈ James C. 06:06, 2005 May 1 (UTC) (sorry if this is wrong talk page for this sort of thing... i'm a bit confused by the WikiProject Aircraft pages)

I think it's more the fact that you'll talk about, say, a plane's performance - and that word means something pretty widely understood. You don't really hear someone talk about a plane's general, though. If anything was to be removed, it actually ought to be the 'general'. But overall, I think it's fine, unless, of course, you were talking about removing the 'general' in the first place and I misunderstood. -eric ✈ 06:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Russian airliners nav-box

Currently, Soviet/Russian airliners have a navbox at the bottom that looks like this:

Russian Civil Transport Aircraft
Design Bureau Antonov - Beriev - Ilyushin - Kamov - MiG- Mil - Lavochkin - Sukhoi - Tupolev - Yakovlev
Type Designation Tupolev Tu-124
NATO Codename Cookpot
Primary Designation Series Tu-70 -

Tu-104 - Tu-110 - Tu-114 - Tu-124 - Tu-134 - Tu-144 - Tu-154 - Tu-204 - Tu-214 - Tu-334
Comparable/Similar Aircraft BAC One-Eleven - Sud Aviation Caravelle

Since {{airfooter}}, a very similar template, has been changed to a new standard, I thought it might be worthwile to change the format of this one as well. A couple of points: the type designation is redundant, because that should (though it won't always be the case) be already obvious from the article. Ditto on the NATO codename. Comparable/Similar aircraft is redundant with the information given in {{airfooter}}.

What should be kept: Title, Design Bureau, Primary Designation series.

I would also like to propose using a layout more standard to navigation templates of this kind. Specifically, I would like the new footer (I don't think it has a template) to look like this:

Russian civil transport aircraft
Design Bureau

Antonov - Beriev - Ilyushin - Kamov - MiG - Mil - Lavochkin - Sukhoi - Tupolev - Yakovlev
Primary Designation Series

Tu-104 - Tu-114 - Tu-124 - Tu-134 - Tu-144 - Tu-154 - Tu-204 - Tu-214 - Tu-334

→Iñgōlemo← talk 19:32, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

These footers were developed by a contributor wishing to introduce a variant/rival to the then-standard navigational footer around 18 months ago. They only ever appeared on a handful of articles, and (as you point out) contain little that was not redundant to the standard footer and information that should have been included in the article anyway. With the implementation of the category system, they became even further redundant.
IMHO there's no reason to keep them at all. The "Primary Designation Series" is a purely arbitrary list that is not able to be consistently implemented across the WikiProject; and insisting that the Tupolev Tu-124 needs to link directly to a slew of unrelated OKBs is like insisting that the Boeing 707 needs to link directly to Martin Marietta. --Rlandmann 00:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I do like it though. The new version (which I have already implemented, because there hadn't been any response) eliminates the redundant information. The primary designation series (should be renamed) could link to all other airliners designed by the same OKB. Similar templates (such as Template:Foundation planets) are used to link together related articles with a nav-box. I say keep. It's not harming anything. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:47, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
The links to the other OKBs are pretty much irrelevant, and a category would be a much better way to link Tupolev airliners together, if it's really that important. Probably the last thing the project needs is people coming up with all kinds of (individually perfectly harmless) navboxes to sprinkle around the place. The current related content section evolved out of a need to devise internal navigation that would be applicable right across the project. --Rlandmann 03:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I realised this later, and I now have them link to nav templates for each OKB, so you can go directly from Tupolev airliners to Ilyushin airliners. It will also make the navboxes much easier to remove. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:01, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
FYI, if you decide to remove it, all the pages I added it to are linked in Template:Tu-civ-trans-text. By the way, many of these articles may be copyright violations (see [1], very similar to Tu-104, [2], very similar to Tu-114, [3], very similar to Tu-124). I am tempted, to believe that our articles are the originals, but there is no way to be sure without emailing the site. →Iñgōlemo← talk 01:03, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
Thanks for the spot. I'm familiar with the site in question and have next to no doubt that these are copyvios. Fortunately, the Tu-104 and -114 articles weren't copyvios from the start (giving us something to revert to), but it seems that the Tu-124 will have to go :(. Please list it you-know-where --Rlandmann 03:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Edwards Air Force Base

Hi all, I've been working on the Edwards Air Force Base article with the goal of it eventually becoming a FAC. Its almost there now so I'm getting ready to submit it to peer review. Before I do that, I thought I'd solicit the input of the aircraft and airport wikiprojects, as these both probably have a vested interest in the shape of this article. I'd appreciate any help with the article proper, but if you don't have time and notice something missing, I've created a todo list on the talk page as well. Thanks, -Lommer | talk 18:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

aircraft power

In line with the recent discussion of nautical vs. statute miles, I just noticed something about the specs table. When we specify power, should it be for each engine (multi-engine planes only) or total power? Either way it doesn't really matter, but we should probably make it clear. Thoughts? -Lommer | talk 20:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the old data tables give power as total power. All of the text-based specifications I've edited (the bulk of them!) give power per engine (since this is what most contributors seemed to be doing anyway). --Rlandmann 22:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
In all of the resources I've used for specs, none have given total power. Each one, without exception, cited power per engine. →Iñgōlemo← talk 01:55, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
I know I personnaly prefer power-per-engine to total power, but sometimes it looks weird when you get to doing power/mass ratios, and sometimes things get muddled up. Like I said above, it doesn't matter either way, I just think we ought to make it clear in the specs table -Lommer | talk 02:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority seems to give power/thrust-per-engine, so I modified Template:Airspec-imp and Template:Airspec-met to specifically indicate that it is power/thrust each. Hope I haven't done wrong. (I also changed the comma between the engine type and the power rating to a semicolon. Because power is usually four figures, you end up having the comma before the hundreds column be two or three characters away from the comma after the engines, which is visually confusing.) →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:23, 2005 May 31 (UTC)