Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AIR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

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–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  | Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  | Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  | Jan- ]

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]

WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
 
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review




Is a blended wing body aircraft a type of flying wing?[edit]

Personally, I think 'flying wing', 'blended wing body', 'lifting body', and conventional aircraft are different designs. However, someone apparently thinks that blended wing body aircraft are a type of flying wing, as he/she insists on the B-2 bomber (which is indisputably a blended wing body design) as the lead photo of the flying wing article. What do you guys say? Darx9url (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion related to this already started at Talk:Flying wing. Try discussing there first. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, this issue is bigger than just what lead photo to use on flying wing. This project should decide how 'flying wing', 'blended wing body', 'lifting body', and tailless aircraft are related to each other; and if any group is a subset of any other group. These relationships should then be made clear in the articles. E.g., if blended wing body is a type of flying wing, then say so in both the flying wing and blended wing body article. If flying wings are a type of tailless aircraft, then this should be mentioned in both the flying wing article and the tailess aircraft article. But first thing to do is to sort out the relationships, and have it written down somewhere. Maybe the tailess aircraft article? There's something here already, but it's not very clear.Blended_wing_body#History. Darx9url (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
So far there has been no sourcing to state the B2 is a blended wing, let alone "indisputably". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen the B-2 called a blended wing body aircraft, but I've seen it called a flying wing many times in reliable sources. As far is BWB being a type of flying wing, it's more of a hybrid between a flying wing and a conventional wing-and-fuselage aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Since Darx9url (talk · contribs) chooses not to follow Fnlayson's suggestion, let me repeat here what I wrote there on this very issue; "Structurally and visually a BWB has visibly distinct wings and fuselage and maybe even a tail plane, but with no clear dividing line. A flying wing is monolithic, generally 'looks like' a wing and is (strictly) tailless, although it may have pronounced bulges. A lifting body is also monolithic but looks more like a flattened carrot than a wing, and it may also have tail surfaces. Fundamentally, the distinctions are governed by the structure and the aerodynamics. Somewhere in the middle they all merge into a sleek organic double-delta hypersonic type form and when somebody makes one of those we'll all have a little brainstorm." A tailless type has only a single horizontal surface in planform with neither tailplane nor foreplane (nor tandem plane), though it may have vertical tail fins. These definitions are all made clear in the various article leads and again summarised in the article on wing configurations. If anyone thinks that further citations are needed, these articles can be tagged accordingly. If one wants to know how to classify a given model, such as the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, one must appeal to reliable sources (see WP:RS). In that particular case the sources appear unanimous that it is a flying wing. Accordingly I have corrected the recently-introduced error in that particular article and cited a couple of those sources. I should also like to thank my fellow editors who helped out with restoring the flying wing article to sensible form after my attempts were reverted. There is no structural issue for the Project to address here, just an overexcited editor in need of checking their facts properly and perhaps also of following good advice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [updated with tailless type 18:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)]

Frankly, I don't give 2 toots what the B2 is. What I want the people here to clarify is, how are flying wings, blended wing bodies, and lifting bodies related. And make it clear on those pages. Darx9url (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

After a bit of search I found this: "In general, there are four plane shapes: A tube with wings, a blended wing body, a hybrid wing, and a flying wing." from this article[1] on Extreme Tech. The issue of different body shapes and how they are related should be in some article somewhere. Darx9url (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So now you add the "hybrid wing" to your issues. A little more looking might have revealed the first cite given in the blended wing body article lead, and also perhaps this phsyics.org and this NASA reference to "the blended or hybrid wing body". Here is an Aviation Week reference to "pure flying-wing designs like the BWB". At first sight this supports the usage of the less-than-reliable Extreme Tech boyzone. However there are plenty of counter-examples which do have tail planes - the blended wing body article gives a good number of cited examples. Consequently the article follows the more authoritative and established usage and treats the two types as synonyms - with tails optional. As I have explained once already, the article on wing configurations gives the overall picture. Are you having trouble reading it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox aviation[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Infobox_aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Ibis_Aviation_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification on nomination for deletion of Template:Airreg[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 3#Template:Airreg. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the Tu-4 part of B-29 production run?[edit]

Bit of a disagreement at List of most-produced aircraft, should the Tupolev Tu-4 production be added to the Boeing B-29 production totals? I have started a request for comment if any project members have a view. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, because it has no commonality with its production. However it is still a B-29 variant. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Airbus templates[edit]

User:Ssolbergj has changed Template:Aircraft of the Airbus Group to a redirect to Template:Airbus Group, while I dont have a problem including the list of aircraft in that template it is not an appropriate template for use on aircraft articles. I have restored the aircraft template and also corrected the name to the more standard Template:Airbus Group aircraft per normally convention. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is inappropriate to just use a more comprehensive template for the articles of all aspects of this company, including those on its divisions and products. For comparison I think that Template:European Space Agency is used sensibly on the articles of the agency's projects. On a different note I would say that Template:Airbus Helicopters aircraft is completely redundant, and should be redirected to Template:Airbus Group aircraft (if the latter is to still exist separately). Helicopters are also aircraft, and Template:Airbus Group aircraft presents the different products in a more orderly manner, in that it separates between fixed-wink aircraft and helicopters and also clarifies what each division of the Airbus Group produces. -Ssolbergj (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The aircraft types templates are designed for use on aircraft articles which dont really need a big navbox related to the company, particularly when most of it is not relevant to some legacy products. We keep the legacy aircraft navboxes in most cases rather than roll them up into larger and larger groups. This is particularly true in this case for the helicopters which all have different pedigrees. Nothing wrong with a big navbox for the company articles but not to replace the aircraft and legacy boxes. I think we have called this the "British Aerospace Spitfire" or "Boeing DC-3" effect. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Concur. And I guess it would be the "BAE Systems Spitfire" now. - BilCat (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft needing ID[edit]

Cessna 310, Concrete, WA - Mears Field - Bolan & Son hangar 01.jpg

Beechcraft Baron? Piper Comanche? Something else? - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A400M Accident[edit]

Just for information an A400M has crashed on a test flight http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32673713 MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That could be significant! - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Appears to have been a Turkish aircraft (or would have been). MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It was on some sort of test flight, so that could be an indication of something with some lasting implications. I think this is the first crash of an A400M, so probably bears a mention in the type article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it is already there: Airbus A400M Atlas. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Now has its own article 2015 Seville A400M crash, bad as it is right now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems like any crash gets an article started before the dust has settled, like a news service. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly like a news service. - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you'd think Wikinews didn't exist. - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not finding an article about the A400M accident on En.Wikinews now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

check on Passenger capacity in specs[edit]

An ip editor has changed (Special:Contributions/98.242.185.106) the passenger capacity in about 18 articles. I've reverted one as the edit also removed the cite directly next to it, but I don't have the resources to confirm or positively reject the other edits. Could someone have a look over them? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

All undone now, on the basis that it is up to the editor to provide a source for the change - although a couple I checked did not agree with his/her edits anyway. Hopefully it isn't a dynamic IP. 08:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale[edit]

There's an IP on Dassault Rafale who keeps adding too much info into the infobox. I've gone over 3RR in my total edits, though on 2 different issues. Could some editors step in please, and see what they can do? Thanks. -BilCat (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Added to much info? I have deleted useless info, found the correct citation and translated it, and reformatted the info so it is easier to read. And the info box has yet to come close to filling the blank space that is left on that side of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.47.63 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does the unit cost range from $220 million to almost $300 million? The Egypt deal in particular includes a frigate as well, so why has the Rafale unit cost included the cost of the frigate in it? Not to mention the cost of missiles, training, etc, which should not be counted as part of the unit cost. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 21:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The now removed reference for India does not actually support "unit cost" just people making guesses based on the contract value and the number of aircraft, as Sp33dyphil has said you cant ignore training, logistics, simulators and offsets so it just look like very badly done original research. I also note that despite all the excitement from IPs India has not actually placed a contract yet so should not really be listed in "operators", it also means the final costs has not actually been agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Aérospatiale[edit]

A user has been changing Aérospatiale in that article to read "aeospatiale", uncapitalized and without an accent. Most reliable published sources use the capitalized and accented form. Any help settling this issue would be appreciated,especially from users fluent in French at Talk:Aérospatiale#aerospatiale without accent. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As it is a brand, it is not subject to translation or interpretations. "Aérospatiale" would be the only acceptable form. ScrpIronIV 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

True amphibians[edit]

Does anyone know the date of the first flight of a truly amphibious aircraft, that is one that could take-off from land and alight on water? I know the Curtiss A-2 could be fitted either with wheels or with floats but think it only got retractable wheels late in 1912. The records of the day, as is often the case pre-WWI, are not always quite clear. I'm interested in the question as I'm writing an article on the Caudron-Fabre, which was certainly fitted with floats (Fabre type) and wheels at the same time by March 1912 (Flight has an early April photo of it taking-off from a beach, having run from land into the sea). It may have had this arrangement when it first flew in July-August 1910. Could this be the first of its kind?TSRL (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)