Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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




BUAP[edit]

Which planes feature the BUAP? --Ysangkok (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by BUAP. I am guessing not BUAP. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Presumably the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot. I have added a disambig link at BUAP Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC) - corrected 18:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
BUAP still redirects to Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla currently. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see, you added a hatnote. Personally I would have made BUAP into a disambiguation page, but your call on that. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops, yes, BUAP itself is a redirect, sorry. There is currently a merge discussion over Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot and Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot - until that is settled, I'd hate to start thinking about any possible disambig page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Good Article reassessment[edit]

Boeing 787 Dreamliner, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Help from interested editors with this would be greatly appreciated. It may not pass GA review, but it can be readily improved using the review comments. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

PAK TA[edit]

PAK TA - not sure what to make of this !! MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly about as likely to be built as a nuclear-powered bomber, but the links seem to be genuine. I suspect it may be just a bit of fluff to try and con some investor or government department out of their money. Such vapour projects have always been common enough in aviation. Do we ever document them? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
We actually do have a standard for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability#Future_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

CASA C-295 Persuader[edit]

I just ran across CASA C-295 Persuader. I'm not sure it's really.significant enough for its own article. The Spanish version looks like mostly fluff. Should we redirect back to the parent article? - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish article has enough refs for some serious content, but it needs someone to make the effort to translate and transcribe. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's main difference is the CASA FITS electronic systems which the airframe is carrying, if I followed the translation correctly. I think a redirect would be sensible. Could we put the FITS system somewhere in the EN WP article? Or see also? Cheers Irondome (talk) 21:30, 29 April 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)