Talk:Experimental aircraft

Ekip - Tarielka

The Ekip-Tarielka is a series of experimental Russian aircraft built by the heroic Soviet military pilot & aircraft designer Lev Nikolaevich Schukin between 1978 & 1996. Ekip is an acronym for Ekologiya i Progres or Ecology & Progress, it was designed to carry heavy loads of over 100 tons very quickly over large distances for minimal costs. Due to its maximum use of the Coanda effect on its hull, it is the most efficient heavier than air craft in the world & its design features could easily be incorporated into a lighter than air hybrid vehicle for even greater efficiency. Dubbed the 'Russian Flying Saucer' the unusually rotund aircraft only uses short stubby wings but has a 'lifting body' with an 80% capacity & can take off on flat land or water with just 600 metres of runway. Its turbo-jet engines are contained within the aerodynamic body, providing both forward thrust & an air cushioning landing system similar to a hovercraft. Despite successful prototype development, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, funding for the project ceased but the concept has been kept alive by by enthusiasts such as Edward Isaev who believes the innovations started by the Ekip will only prove useful in the era of Peak Oil & global ecological awareness. http://www.ekip-aviation-concern.com/eng-b/0.shtmlPachakuti2012 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

References

omni medium transport

I think this phrase was coined by Buckminster Fuller in the 1930s to describe hybrid vehicles that can travel anywhere, in the air, on land, on & under the water. His Dymaxion Car was designed to be a prototype to test this theory but due to monetary limits it never actually flew. I wonder if this should be a Wikipedia category of its own? Besides the 'Flying Sub' from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea I don't know if this topic has really been discussed in great detail. Does anyone else know of any other flying submarine cars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachakuti2012 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not the place for info on individual aircraft or types. In addition, we cannot accept articles based primarily or totally on information from the company's own website. It needs to be based primarily on reliables published sources from aviation magazines, etc. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, I'm very new to this but where do you think I could add the info about the Ekip? It is a totally new type of flying vehicle & probably should be included somewhere as an entry in Wikipedia.Pachakuti2012 (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page or not

@Steelpillow: Would you be willing to discuss why you think this page should be a dab page? This article has existed in its current form for about ten years now, and changing it to a dab page means there's a large number of incoming links that would need to be re-pointed. (WP:TDD indicated there were 666 inbound links as of yesterday [1].)

@BilCat: You're the one who reverted the dab-ification, so you may be interested in participating in this discussion.

Thanks, Musashi1600 (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see this related discussion. I would add that this article contains nothing more substantial than a bad attempt at definition - and has done for a decade. That is not enough, see WP:NOTADICTIONARY. And no, we don't take longevity into account, that is a non-argument; see for example WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:CONTENTAGE. For what it's worth, I did the B bit BilCat the R bit and you started the important D bit here, so I am happy that WP:BRD is alive and well. If my action goads some decade-old sleeper to wake up and make a viable article of it, nobody will be happier than I. However, I would caution that the US certification was once covered but was moved to other articles, ahem, over ten years ago, so restoring that material may not prove to be a good way ahead.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC) [updated 13:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)]

Does anybody actually think this article should be kept? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

My point was that people have been free to link to this page for a long time now, meaning there's a large number of inbound links, and per MOS:LINK, disambiguation pages are generally not supposed to be directly linked from other pages. If this is to be a dab page, there's a substantial amount of work that would be needed to re-point/remove links, because even if a majority of the inbound links are being generated by navboxes like Template:McDonnell Douglas military aircraft and Template:Mikoyan-Gurevich aircraft, there are literally hundreds of other pages that would need updating. I'm not taking a position on whether or not this should be a dab page, but I find it particularly annoying that the only discussion that took place was on a completely separate (albeit related) page, when it should have been brought up on this talk page and on WP:AV at a minimum, and that there was apparently no consideration given as to the time that would be needed to update inbound links. I spent a half-hour doing updates that ended up all being reverted because the change to this page being a dab page was itself reverted.

If you think this shouldn't even be an article anymore, feel free to take it to AFD and see what happens. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)