User talk:BilCat

NOT RETIRED

This user is somewhat active on Wikipedia, and limits his activities to a small range of pages and mostly non-contentious discussions. There may be periods in which the user is not active due to life issues.

Unified login: BilCat is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

About the recent confusions in Antonov An-12

Hello BilCat, sorry for the recent confusions in the article Antonov An-12.. Reverting your corrections wasn't my intention, rather it was just a carelessness on my part. And was caused when I clicked 'edit' at this diff. My bad. Cheers—UY Scuti ^Talk 04:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, things like that happen, no worries. Merry Christmas. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Rafales for Qatar

Hi, I see that you restored the Qatar order to the Dassault Rafale article, on the basis that once a firm order is made the user becomes noteworthy (even though no examples have yet been delivered, never mind worked up to operational status). I assume you know what you are doing, but would you feel able to point me to the guideline for that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and while I am here:

Season's greetings

All the best for the festive season and new year.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)As a complete aside I'm still utterly baffled at how after the wild success of the Mirage family Dassault has made such an utter hash of marketing Rafale... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Waning French national influence in the EU era? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Back on topic, I have now started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox and primary users. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a busy Saturday due to a family Christmas dinner. I've responded at WTAIR. As to BR's Rafale. question,there's probably not an easy answer. Part of it is the French habit of insisting its aircraft designs be selected in many European military competitions or development efforts, notably in the Fiat G.91 program. The French pulled out of the Eurofighter program primarily because Dassault's design was passed over in favor of basing the Eurofighter on the British Aerospace EAP. Partly, this was because the French Navy wanted a carrier-capable fighter design, and didn't want to buy a US design such as the F/A-18. So, in making the Rafale design able talk be adapted for carrier use, the Rafale is more expensive than the Typhoon, which puts Dassault at a disadvantage. The Mirages were relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated, which made them attractive to smaller nations, and comparative with Soviet fighters for the Third World market. I'm sure there are other factors too, but price is probably the big one.

No problems. Funnily enough I too was busy with dinner on Christmas day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

At risk of outstaying my welcome, in an off-wiki conversation it was pointed out to me that the Saab JAS 39 Gripen is, like the Mirage, single-engined. This makes it a lot cheaper even than Typhoon, never mind Rafale. It is also doing better in its export sales. Sounds a bit closer to the Mirage market. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the single engine is part of what made the Mirages relatively inexpensive and less complicated, and certainly applies to the Gripen also. - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Qaher-313

Actually there is preciously little evidence development ever started. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, as with most projects announced by Iran. Have you seen my parody on Iran's tendency to label "improvements" of American aircraft as new developments, and then deny that they made unlicensed upgrades? - BilCat (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"Aircrafts"... - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a "direct quote". - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. It has that scent of authenticity to it! - Ahunt (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed seem that the Q313 will go down in history as notable, but only for the dog-and-pony show surrounding it! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

True. My satire/parody was written about 8 years ago, but still fits the pattern quite well, as the Q-313 was revealed in 2013. I just need to "borrow" a few quotes to add "authenticity". - BilCat (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that does show that they are becoming far too predictable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Maiden flight R-4

Hello BilCat, about the date of the first flight of the R-4.

The official Sikorsky archives pages state that the first flight took place on January 14th, not 13th. http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S-47.php

So do various other rotary flight history pages. Example: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_r-4.php

Or the Smithonian news desk, http://newsdesk.si.edu/snapshot/sikorsky-xr-4-helicopter (The actual machine sits there in the Smithonian)

What is Your source for the 13th?

Best

prolaroid— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolaroid (talk • contribs)

I've found and added published reliable sources for the 14 January 1942 date. In the future, you need to actually cite your sources when making changes. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolaroid (talk • contribs)

Also, Aviastar isn't considered a reliable source, as it uses copyvio material and I'm not certain the Sikorsky Archives are considered reliable either, though it may be. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'd say that the Sikorsky Archives are probably "RS for factual statements, not for notability/qualatitive statements" akin to a primary source. As for the other matter, WP:AVIASTAR explains it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)