Talk:List of aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:List of aircraft (R))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated List-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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

Why does List of Airliners redirect here? Lumbergh 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

GRAHAMUK wrote: Comment - this needs a re-org into decades or at least eras of aviation as well as types. For eras I'd suggest 1903-1919, 1920-1938, 1939-1945, 1946-1970, 1970+

I think that makes good sense. The list is going to get really long as time goes by. Assigning a particular date is going to be problematic in some cases, but then what classification scheme isn't? I doubt that we will come up with a better one. Tannin 13:07 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Most people are looking for a specific era of aircraft, not a alphabetical list. Also, we really should get the List of Military Aircraft list back. Jeremy Wang (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jeremy; that discussion was over nearly seven years ago... --Rlandmann (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, should I just go ahead and do it? Or does there need to be a consultation of some sort? I'm new here by the way - as if you couldn't tell. Is this the correct way to "talk"? Wasn't that obvious to me!!! Anyway thanks for the comment about TSR-2, my first attempt - if my IP seems familiar it's prolly just because it's dynamic and maybe some other contributor uses the same ISP?? dunno. Anyway, thanks for the welcome - I'm in Oz too, despite the 'UK' bit - I just emigrated. User:GRAHAMUK

Ahh! I'm from Ballarat. Welcome to Oz! Yup. The articles themselves for the "real thing"; talk pages for discussing the best way to improve the articles; your user talk page is for more personal and/or off-topic messages; and, by convention, your user page for anything you want to do with it. BTW, you can sign your posts (on talk pages, we don't sign articles) by typing 3 tildes in a row ~~~ or 4 in a row to add the date as well.

You'll have already noticed that it doesn't matter what you write here, someone is bound to come along and change it sooner or later. It takes a bit of getting used to, but the shock-horror wears off after a while and (mostly) the entries get better and better over time.

Sometimes it's best to just go ahead and do things, other times it's much wiser to consult before doing anything too radical and upsetting people. All depends. In this case, I'd say go right ahead. I don't think any of the other main aircraft people will object, and if they do, well, blame me. :) Tannin

sounds good to me. be bold! -- Tarquin 13:19 May 12, 2003 (UTC) and welcome to wikipedia! (you'll never leave... ;)
Leave? What's a "leave"? Tannin

Looking good Graham. One thing to bear in mind though - take care that we don't get into a situation where we have to manually update 5 pages seperately. (Wel, so far as it's possible, anyway.) Tannin

Yes, that is beginning to dawn on me... without a built-in indexing tool there's not going to be an easy way to avoid it. I put down the links for the other indexes but maybe that would be over the top and unnecessary - it's certainly proving to be quite a bit of work to build the initial table. GRAHAMUK 03:40 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


On Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft I have started a proposal for how lists of aircraft could be rationalised on wikipedia. If you're interested, let's discuss it there -- Cabalamat 03:05, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I changed "skynight" to "skyknight" because the latter name make more sense for a fighter and gets twice as many Google hits. Can anyone confirm the correct name? GreatWhiteNortherner 01:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

== 777 weight == 777 is good aircraft.

World fleet size[edit]

Is there a date for this data - otherwise it oughtn't be there GraemeLeggett 28 June 2005 15:56 (UTC)

List name[edit]

This really isn't so much a "list of aircraft" as it is a "list of aircraft by manufacturer". One would think the "list of aircraft" would be a "master list" of all aircraft for which Wikipedia has articles (an index, if you will) which contains all the common/popular names so that someone can quickly find the article of interest — and would also capture the other aircraft-related (sub)lists. (Or should this just be left to the search function and redirects?) Askari Mark | Talk 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

FLC[edit]

I've removed the FLC for this list because, as the poster above says, it is not much more than a "master list" in this state, and is not appropriate for FLC in its current format. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

References tag[edit]

I will remove the refere3nces tag as it is superfluous. This list holds no data other than the name of the aircraft. Once all aircraft have articles (or re-directs) any references will be found at the articles. A list of sources has been added but in-line citations are not required.Petebutt (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Centralizing Talk for the many "List of Aircraft ..." articles[edit]

I have recently learned that there is a supported method in Wikipedia to consolidate the discussion for a group of article pages that have been divided up by size, as the "List of Aircraft ..." articles have been because the list would be too large for a single article. The method is basically to select one page as the central Talk page for the group of articles, and then redirect the other Talk pages to that central page.

There is an example of how this might be done at Help talk:Cite errors — it uses {{central}} and {{editnotice central}} to implement the consolidation.

I propose we consolidate the Talk for all dozen or so "List of Aircraft ..." Talk pages to this page, Talk:List of aircraft. What do others think about this? N2e (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it may very well be that the Aviation WikiProject and/or its aircraft task force is already treated as such. I would mention this discussion at those talk pages before anything else.oknazevad (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Oknazevad. I just put up an invite to the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. N2e (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it seems the idea got unanimous and strong support over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, so I will try to start making the edits to consolidate the Talk pages in the next few days. N2e (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Consolidation of Talk Page discussion[edit]

I have completed making the edits to implement the Talk page consolidation. Per consensus, all of the following "List of aircraft ..." Talk pages REDIRECT here now for centralised discussion.

All previous Talk page discussions are archived on the relevant (separated) Talk pages; just click through the REDIR to get to the original page, then click on History, then select the relevant historical date to see any individual Talk page as it existed at any previous point in time. However, any editors who wish may of course copy relevant previous discussions onto this page, if you believe it would be useful to do so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

SOFIA[edit]

The SOFIA airborne observatory is a highly modified aircraft that may meet the criteria to be listed as a unique aircraft type in Wikipedia "List of aircraft." I don't know. I know the usual criteria is to "not generally include variants or subtypes of the aircraft themselves (although there is considerable difference among various manufacturers and designation systems as to what constitutes a new aircraft as opposed to a variant of an existing type." However, I know that quite a number of redlinked aircraft have been added to these lists when only a single aircraft model was built. After heavy modification of the base airframe, the SOFIA aircraft required a full airborne test flight program to ensure safe air performance in all parts of the aero-envelope, as well as a new FAA commercial certification so it can operate out of all commercial airfields. (Source: Dr. Sean Casey - Sunday, 12-12-10, interview [89:11] - The Space Show). SOFIA is well-sourced, and a really unique aircraft today. I'll leave it to others to determine if it is Wikipedia-worthy for this list article. N2e (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As it is a project in its own right there is no need for an aircraft entry as it is merely a variant of the 747 and should have an entry in that article or a list of 747 variants.188.65.183.51 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

References (again)[edit]

Although i don't agree with the instigator, i am trying to comply with his demands for references for all redlinks. My personal feelings have been documented, but when I try to comply with the demand for references the tags re-appear saying not specific enough. What does this person want an entry telling the reader to scroll down the page??? Rather than making people jump through hoops, wouldn't it be a good idea for this person to give an example of what he/she wants!!188.65.183.51 (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)wasn't logged inPetebutt (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Petebutt, I will most happily engage with you on what is wanted when I add a {{citation needed}} tag on a redlinked claim that has no source. Very simply: something that makes the claim verifiable and has a standard Wikipedia full citation. However, since we have discussed this previously, I will simply import BELOW (in the next section) a Talkpage section from the Talk that we had on the Talk:List of aircraft (B) page from 19 Nov 2010 through 12 Jan 2011. I think that pretty much covers it, and should answer your question. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: a couple of the other legacy Talk pages have conversations between N2e and other editors about getting the many redlinked claims in the various List of aircraft (...) articles cited. As noted in the Talk:List of aircraft#Consolidation of Talk Page discussion section above, anyone should feel free to import any of those discussions to this (now) consolidated Talk page if you wish.
Have had a go at them today, it seems i was using an out of date or inappropriate template, i hope the results from todays efforts are better. Thanks for being patient with a cranky editor.Petebutt (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the gracious response Petebutt! Yes, it is true that we will get much more done if we work together to improve the articles, and keep our discussion about the "content, and not the contributor."
I will be happy to help show you what is needed to have {{full}} citations on the redlinked claims. I was trying to do that on one or two of the dozen or so List of aircraft (...) pages a couple of weeks ago, and getting a little frustrated about how the Talk also went to a dozen different places so that it was difficult to have a meaningful dialog, when I learned that Talk pages for split articles could be consolidated. So I went to work on that problem. And now, voila, with unanimous consensus we have all the Talk going here, to this single Talk page.!
I think several examples I did of {{full}} citations were on the List of aircraft (B) article on 2010-01-12. You might look there to see what I did.
Of course, I will also be happy to iterate with you on just a few active citations you are working on, on a single page. This might also be a good way to work together to help you see what it is that I think WP standard citation policy is looking for, in order to leave a redlinked claim in place. Let me know how you want to proceed. I will be happy to work along side you to show you what I think would work for anyone who wants to retain the redlinked but unsourced claims. Cheers. Onward to a better encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, picked up on that but cannot resolve the date entry, any ideas where to find this info, as I have looked everywhere obvious to no avail. I have been sorting dis-ambiguations as well, but it is very slow going particularly adding citations for Aviafrance entries.Petebutt (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll help. Pick an example, several redlinked aircraft from just one of the WP List of aircraft (...) articles, and I will do a citation for it, and for a pile of a dozen or so other aircraft that I can confirm from the same aerofiles article. I think it best if we work slowly on the ideas and concepts before rolling out what may be an inadequate format to too many planes. (I'd like to leave Aviafrance as a followon task until after we get a consistent and high-quality aerofiles approach in place. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Never heard back from you Petebutt. I've gotten busy with other work so ping me on my talkpage if you want to Talk as this page may not be on my watchlist to see any comments you add to it. Thanks again for your work, and your efforts at sourcing this material. N2e (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed[edit]

Please be sure that all additions to the List of aircraft ... article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, many of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow some time for sources to be added.

For a fuller discussion of this topic, see Talk:List of aircraft (T-Z), where an editor recently asked a question about requests for citations on redlinked (therefore, no source at all) claims.

Initially, I am merely drawing attention to all the red-linked claims on this page that are totally unsourced. Unless citations are provided, then it would be appropriate per WP:BURDEN (a part of core Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFIABILITY), that after some time has passed, the unsourced claims should be removed until some editor who wants a claim retained finds a citation for each assertion made. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's all very well to quote this and that WP but common sense says that unless there is data there there is no need for a citation. Now does wikipedia deny the existence of Common Sense? Apart from that there is a long list of sources on each page (even that is not comprehensive), is that not enough? I am looking for a common sense answer!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Further to this I suggest that you read the link in the tag that you have placed. While it doesn't say that you shouldn't cite these enties it does state that challenges (which are what you have opened) should not be frivolous, which I believe they are. Before this develops into an all-out flame war I suggest that the issue is brought to an Administarator.Petebutt (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging in the discussion Petebutt. I tend to agree with you on the bluelinks, as long as no additional claims are made along side the Wikilink. However, for redlinks, where no information whatsoever exists in Wikipedia, I think the {{citation needed}} tag is quite appropriate. Wikipedia's policy of verifiability is not optional; it is a core policy. A citation needed tag in an article is a courtesy to those editors who care most about a particular article, or are perhaps are knowledgeable or expert about where the secondary literature might support the assertions being made. Unless someone who cares comes along to reliably support the unsourced claims with inline citations, they have no place in a quality encyclopedia.
But to your specific suggestion, that the issue be brought to an Administrator for their review. I wholeheartedly support your idea. Go ahead and initiate such a request. I think review by such a person could be quite useful. N2e (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Petebutt and Jackhammond, I appreciate that you guys have begun to provide source citations for some of the many redlinked aircraft in this article. And I appreciate that you have taken the Wikipedia citation policy seriously and have attempted to provide full citations to the source used. I have checked a few of the "aerofiles ba" claims today [in the List of aircraft (B) article] and (only slightly) updated the citations on the ones I looked at to update the correct date of the source material, and also update the date that the citation was actually confirmed (now, 11 January). I think I found maybe one or two where a minor change to the claim itself was also in order. Good luck in working to make the "List of aircraft ..." articles into C-Class{{Category:C-Class aviation articles}} or B-Class{{Category:B-Class aviation articles}} articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (P-Q)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (P-Q)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gray":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All fixed, just typos. Take your pickPetebutt (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

table of Contents[edit]

The TOC's listed at the top of the lists are missing the P-Q page i created the other day. It requires someone whom knows how to fix the template. I thought I had done on the home page but it didn't carry through to the rest.Petebutt (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay found it-donePetebutt (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks[edit]

Anyone want to venture a guess why we have a page full of wikilinks pointing to articles that DO NOT exist? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 11:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I will let others comment on why they exist. (I've seen some rationale on some talk pages somewhere, I'll just let others address it here, and defend it here.)
But I will make a note that I have been on a bit of a campaign to merely ask that IF a redlink to an aeroplane is to remain in these "List of aircraft ..." articles, the claim that the aircraft exists ought to have a verifiable citation for each claim. This met some resistance at first, but over time, a large number of redlinks now have sources. There are many more that still need sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
OK founders intent,we've been through this before. This list is used as a tool by editors to show articles that need to be written. We who edit it don't particularly care if the links are red, because it shows that an article needs to be written. Ergo this is a list of aircraft and NOT a list of articles, if the link is blue, great, if the link is red, search for a re-direct, change the entry or write the article, but under no circumstances delete an entry just because it is a red link!!!!!. As for references they are in progress, but not all red-links will get them as the origin of the entry may have been lost to time, and in any case the intent is for all entries to have articles, or at the very least, a re-direct to a relevant article. I hope this satisfies you.Petebutt (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
See WP:REDDEAL for why redlinks aren't bad for a list like this. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks oknazevad a common sense answer. So references are not required for redlinks after all. A great bonus as it is time consuming for no benefit.Petebutt (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the previous commenter's view that unsourced claims do not need reliable sources. The WP:REDDEAL piece seems to be a general guideline about the retention of existing redlinks ("Dealing with existing red links") in articles; it does not say that Wikipedia claims that happen to be redlinks (meaning no Wikipedia article yet exists) do not need to be supported by a source citation per the core Wikipedia policy in WP:V. So, citations are still required to support the claim that 'xyz aircraft' is an aircraft make/model that exists. However, it is fine that the links remain in these lists as redlinks. I have never had a problem with the latter, but have supported the concept that sources are required for the claims to remain in Wikipedia over the long term. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Editting guidelines[edit]

I propose that the following guidelines for editting the List of Aircraft articles:

  1. Pipes - Pipes are to be avoided in the aircraft entries, (use re-directs), but encouraged in the Manufacturer title to give the short version of the manufacturer / constructor and the full name of the company / constructor.
  2. Variants - All variants can be listed, within reason, but it is expected that appropriate re-directs are set-up when an article exists that covers the entry. At a later date the list will be editted to rationalise entries in any case, so please don't hold back.
  3. Red-links - Red-links are acceptable as per WP:REDDEAL and do not need references or any other justification. Rubbish entries will get weeded out soon enough.
  4. Editors - Anybody with a Wikipedia account is open to edit this list.
  5. naming convention - The entry in the list does not have to be exactly the same as any corresponding article. The entry should include the manufacturer, manufacturers designation and / or name:thus Avro 698 Vulcan or Bristol Type 142A Blenheim.
  6. Re-Directs - re-directs are positively encouraged to ensure that searches have the maximum potential for finding relevant articles quickly.
  7. Format - the entry format should follow these examples where possible.

Gallaudet[edit]

(Gallaudet Aircraft Corp.)

Germania[edit]

(Germania Flugzeug-Werke GmbH)

note: non english language is italicised where it is visible on the page.

That is about it.Does anybody else have anyides or discussion?Petebutt (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I object to #4. Anonymous editing is always allowed on Wikipedia, and that comes down from the foundation level. So there can be no requirement for a registered account. And we should not automatically revert anything just because it was from an IP editor. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, but I don'tsee why someone would want to remain anonymous in this instance. Do you want it removing or changing?Petebutt (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
People remain anonymous for all sorts of reasons; that's their business. But the key thing is that unless an ongoing issue leads to page semi-protection, which is an administrative action, anyone can edit the page anonymously. Even using the phrasing "with an account" is problematic, as it implies that onlyregustered users can edit it. (After all, anons don't have an account, or else they wouldn't be anons.) And theres really no need to specify that anyone can edit the lists anyway, as that's true for all of Wikipedia. So I'm just striking it. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
ConcurredPetebutt (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft entries[edit]

For interest sake there are approx 20,000 entries at present. I estimate that around 3% of these are duplicated entries, (different manuf., variants etc.).Petebutt (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

entry deletion[edit]

Somebody has been deleting entries willy-nilly. There are lots that should be there but are no longer. Whoever it is, desist!Petebutt (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

not me, but I've recently deleted a couple of (I thik) duplicates for Cody in 1909 & looking at 1910 there are five listings for what is one aircraft, and all redirect to the British Army Aerplane. Correct (single) entry should be 'Cody Michelin Cup biplane', I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talkcontribs) 13:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Auster AOP.3 - Auster AOP.9[edit]

With regard to the Auster AOP airplanes, which have recently been debated on page 0-A, this is link with the relevant section of The Encyclopedia of Aircraft pg45

It suggests that AOP.3, AOP.6, AOP.7, AOP.8 (not build, as MilborneOne pointed out), and AOP.9 existed.

Here is more material on the AOP.7 and images

As for the AOP.5, it's not clear if there was one (beyond the drawing board) G-AKSY has been variously cited as AOP.5 and mk.5

To be honest, I'm no expert on aircraft versioning so I won't make any further edits to the Auster AOP series

Duga3 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please try to add rather than subtract. In this case More is More and Less is less. It is only a list after all, but hopefully a comprehensive one, so every nuance needs exploring.Petebutt (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

UAVs also listed in List of aircraft?[edit]

Are UAVs generally also listed in List of aircraft? I have noticed some missing. For example, in [[Category:UAVs and drones of the United States]], the American Dynamics AD-150 seems to be missing. I'm not sure but there may be a way of automating a search through various UAV lists and finding UAVs that are, currently, not included amongst the aircraft in these large lists.

I don't know what the policy or practice is; just thought I would note it so more focused List of aircraft editors might think on the matter. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

At present UAV's have been listed, until such time as somebody starts up a List of UAV's page. Strictly speaking these lists of aircraft should be for manned aircraft.Petebutt (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Seek and ye shall find - List of unmanned aerial vehiclesPetebutt (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up tag[edit]

Somebody has put a clean-up tag on the U-Z page complaining that company links refer to the wrong articles. Ican't find any that are incorrect. Can the editor that placed the tag be more specific!!Petebutt (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'veremoved the tag,but if the editor wishes to replace it, please give more info.Petebutt (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

World's largest aircraft — 385-foot wingspan[edit]

New aircraft under development by Stratolaunch Systems, the largest ever with a 385 feet (117 m) wingspan, longer than a football field, powered by 6 747 engines. Was just announced today, with serious funding from Paul G. Allen, one of the co-founders of Microsoft, and a very credentialed design team of Scaled Composites designing and building the aircraft. Probably worth a look by the aircraft-interested editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: an aircraft article has been created by other editors at Stratolaunch Systems Carrier. However, I've not seen any source that indicates that the manufacturer has given the aircraft that particular name. So it would seem to this editor that, until the manufacturer actually names the aircraft, we ought to refer to it without the capital letters that would indicate a proper name. So, maybe just call it the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft for now, since it is merely a descriptive name created by a Wikipedia editor as a placeholder. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable models[edit]

There are clearly some experimental modles which are notable as part of the early development of heavier than air flight, such as Alphonse Penaud's planophore of 1871 (not in the list, but his rubber-driven helicopter is) & Tatin's machine, but where does the line get drawn, or should the list be confined to person-carriers?TheLongTone (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Models should not be included in the list, except where notable. A note to give more info with the entry would explain.Petebutt (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Really there are only a scant handful, & the notability guideline is clearly that they were important in the development of manned heavier than air flight: ie acheived a measure of success and were documented & therefore influential. There is an arguement that models don't belong in the list full stop: I was puzzled by the inclusion of Penaud's helicopter, significant only for the use of rubber as a propulsive force, and the omission of his much more important model aeroplane of the following year.TheLongTone (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

unverifiable information[edit]

I have removed this for the reasons given:

Camasco[edit]

(California Aero Mfg & Supply Co, 441 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco CA.)

Petebutt (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (D)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (D)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gunston":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 21:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

== Deletions== I have just checked two of the entries removed by N2E (over zealously enforcing policy IMHO) and one of them even had an article so why was the ntry removed? I shall re-instate them whether I can find a reference or not and will continue to revert any further removals (unless justified).Petebutt (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

List of UK designed aircraft which have seen service with the US armed forces (and vice versa)?[edit]

I could find neither a list nor a category covering this (admittedly very small) category of aircraft. The Canberra, the Harrier and the Short 330 spring to mind; there were probably a few more.

Does one exist? If not, would a list or a category (or both) be suitable for this?

There may also be room for the inverse list/category (much larger!). --TraceyR (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd go category if anything in the first place. Once identified, you could then graduate to a list with dates and numbers of aircraft plsu more context. Don't forget the Great War - Airco DH.9, Felixstowe flying boats would probably fit on the list, Spitfire, Mosquito, Beaufighter are WWII examples. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme. The name is rather unwieldy - can anyone suggest something more concise? I suppose there could be scope for many similar categories - Aircraft from country X operated by country Y - so a sensible title from the start would save renaming later.--TraceyR (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed from List of aircraft (E) as there is no reference or source information available:

EDO ANI[edit]

EDO Rotor[edit]

--Petebutt (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (E)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (E)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Keimel":

  • From List of gliders: Keimel, Reinhard (1980). Österreichs Luftfahrt in Einzeldarstellungen / Propeller-Luftfahrzeugkonstruktionen seit 1945 (in German) (1st ed.). Vienna: Weishaupt, H. ISBN 978-3900310028. 
  • From List of human-powered aircraft: Keimel, Reinhard (1980). Propeller-Luftfahrzeugkonstruktionen seit 1945 (1. Aufl. ed.). Graz: H. Weishaupt Verlag. ISBN 3-900310-02-5. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (B)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (B)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Keimel":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 06:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chieftan or Chieftain[edit]

Have you got the spelling right? Jodosma (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (P)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (P)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JAWA88-89":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (W)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (W)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JAWA88-89":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 11:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (0-A)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (0-A)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JAWA88-89":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 13:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (Z)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (Z)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JAWA88-89":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 07:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Defacement[edit]

Whoever edited the military aircraft directory has in fact de-faced the page. There were several valid entries on historical aircraft used by air forces around the world. All gone. The original list should be restored. As it was listed by nation, and was by no means complete, new entries are appropriate. The manner in which this was edited is, in my opinion, not appropriate at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.163.230 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (K)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (K)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JAWA1919":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 20:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (G)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (G)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JAWA1919":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 20:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of aircraft (L)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of aircraft (L)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JAWA1919":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 21:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft (C). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Silly Repetition & Mythical Airplanes[edit]

There seems to be a bunch of both on this list.

Let us consider Fairchild.

Alfred Gasser's great but few F 91 (design designations 942, XA-942A & XA-942B) for example. It is listed 5 times. As there were only 7 built this is at best overkill and actually is down right silly as the links show.

Fairchild 91 (A-942-A) Baby Clipper - which connects with the F 91 page.

Fairchild 91B (A-942-B) Jungle Clipper - which also connects to the F 91 page.

Fairchild LXF1 - which ALSO connects to the F 91 page

Fairchild LXF - You guessed it.

Fairchild Navy Experimental Type F Amphibious Transport - Yup.

There was the Fairchild design number X942 which was design XA-942-A (ATC 587) which contained the modifications for the Pratt & Whiney R-1690-S2EG, and XA-942-B (ATC 605) which contained the modifications for the Wright R-1820-F52. The two versions were usually referred to as designs A-942-A and A-942-B, dropping the X. They were marketed as the F 91. Fundamentally there was far more difference between the first XA-942-A (c/n 9401) which had retractable wing floats, and the second A-942A (c/n 9402) and all other F 91s which had fixes floats, than between c/n 9402 and c/n 9403, the first A-942-B (c/n 9403 was converted from a "A" to a "B").

LXF was the Japanese Navy's designation for the F 91. There were no differences between the civilian F 91 and the Fairchild Navy Experimental Type F Amphibious Transport. LXF1 was the first one purchased by Japan (c/n 9404) and LXF2 was the second (c/n 9406).

Having five entries for what was a single design with little difference between the "A" and "B" makes no sense. Two of the seven airplanes were highly modified for special purposes, Gar Wood's c/n 9405 which had a luxury interior and extra fuel tankage for more range, and Richard Arthbold's American Museum of Natural History first New Guinea expedition version (c/n 9407) which also had a highly modified passenger cabins and fuel tankage. That gave them somewhat different performance than other F 91s, far different than that between the A-942A and A-942B.

To differentiate between the Japanese Navy LXF, and itself LXF1, and the Fairchild Navy Experimental Type F Amphibious Transport is even more absurd. Three entries for two airplanes! At least there is no separate entry for LXF2

The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Directory of Airplanes Their Designers and Manufacturers list the Fairchild F 91 with all variants in Parentheses , which is historically correct.

Playing the appropriations nomenclature game.

Then there is the listing for a "C-128 Flying Boxcar." This was a temporary/alternate name for two very different C-119 versions. They were YC-119E with R-3350s (XC-128B); and YC-119D with a cargo pod and 3 wheeled landing gear (XC-182A). The latter eventually appeared as the much vaunted and spectacularly unsuccessful XC-120 correctly given an entirely different name for an entirely different airplane than the C-119..

"The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Directory of Airplanes Their Designers and Manufacturers" list the Fairchild YC-119D (C-128). It also lists the Fairchild YC-119E (C-128B).

Neither was built under any designation.

The R-3350 did appear in the YC-119F. The detachable pod appeared in the very different XC-120 Pack Plane.

The C-128 never was and at best was an alternate name proposed for quite different, already named C-119 variants. Neither of which was ever built.

The C-128 was an airplane that never existed except as an attempt to fool Congress that it was a new design instead of a version of an old one. Does a null, a great big shadowless nothing, belong on this list?

p.s. The term "Baby Clipper" was also used for the much more numerous S-43. Eventually the use of "Baby Clipper" was dropped for the surviving Panair F 91, which because of it's Amazonian run became known as the "Jungle Clipper."

p.p.s Richard Arbolt's NR-777 was, contrary to some sources, including the Wikipedia, was NEVER the "Jungle Clipper." He named it "Kono" which means Duck.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Missin in Action[edit]

I notice that clicking on 0-A, or B brings forth a blank page. I guess an airplanes as worthy as the Avro 504 or the Boeing 707 don't matter.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Canadair Mess[edit]

The Canadair section had duplicates and even triplicates. It also had a project that never flew, CL-15, a licensed never built Beech T-37 which was cancelled before any were completed.

I realize that some of the confusion comes from the Canadian armed forces practice of giving their own designations to aircraft. Thus the CL-44 and CC-106 Yukon are the same airplane. It becomes worse when the licensed production of US aircraft. Thus the Lockheed F-104 becomes the CL-90, CAF CF-104 (originally CF-111). Later it was the CF-201.

I am a big fan of Canadian aircraft and loved to see some Panamanian North Stars climbing out of MIA back around 1970. A much more satisfying (and louder) sound than a DC-4 or 6. I can see how easily someone could vacuum up designations and without research end up with triplicates CL-4, C-4, Argonaut for an example. On a more timely note it was a Twin Otter that made a mid-winter rescue flight to the South Pole and back, not C-130.

I have used as my guide "The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Directory of Airplanes Their Designers and Manufacturers" which was a project by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Archives Division. The objective was to list any man carrying heavier than air aircraft excluding drones, spacecraft lighter than air sand such. (ISBN 1-85367-490-7)

It is by far the most comprehensive list of aircraft, designers and manufacturers ever compiled.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

CANSA Mess[edit]

Trying to check the differences between other editors CANSA List against the Smithsonian list led to much additional research. Where the other editors research was well documented I cited their documentation. Much confusion exists over CANSA designations. The problem starts with Guseppe Gabardini and his various companies who's aircraft were generally called "Gabardini." Alas some civilianized aircraft also were called Gabardini as in I-AYAC which was registered as a Gabardini Ansaldo SVA 5.

Yes I checked the Italian registration in pursuit of Gabardinis.m There are a bunch of Gabardini designs c. WW I that didn't make the NASM book!

When Gabardini died in 1936 his company became CANSA for a few years then was taken over by FIAT. Some of CANSA's production from then to the end of WW II were called CANSA while most were FIAT, sometimes FIAT-CANSA!

So the NASM lists the CANSA FC.12 and the FIAT FC.12 . . .I'm glad the pros were as confused as I.

I have made a decision to only include in the CANSA list those designs which seem developed by CANSA between 1936 and 1939. For example the Gabardini Lictor 90 which continued in production after CANSA was organized seems best to be classified a Gabardini as when first prodded as that is how the NASM classifies it.

There is no evidence of any CANSA FC.11 and The CANSA GT.24 was a war time transport glider which was never constructed (that addresses the "Citations needed" requests.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Aerofiles WARNING[edit]

Aerofiles http://aerofiles.com seems to have a lot of data on many aircraft. Some of it is even correct. I have found MANY big errors.

For example the Fairchild F 91:

"91 (A-942-A) Baby Clipper 1935 (ATC 587) = 10pChwMAm; 750hp P&W Hornet; span: 56'0" length: 46'8" load: 3200# v: 173/155/63 range: 730. Alfred Gassner. $41,300-60,000, depending on extent of customizing; POP: 3 [NC14743 (prototype with retractable wing floats, and Zap flaps), NC14744=PPPAP, NC15952=PPPAT]. Most had engine conversions throughout their careers. 91-B (A-942-B) Jungle Clipper 1936 (ATC 605) = 10pChwMAm; 760hp Wright Cyclone; span: 56'0" length: 46'8" load: 3200# v: 175/155/63 range: 610-720. POP: 1 specially equipped for NYC Museum of Natural History [NR777]. Some data show POP: 3 Model 91 and 4 Model 91-B, likely explaining subsequent motor changes." - Aerofiles.

Lets take it piece by piece.

"POP: 3" - Aerofiles

The actual number of F 91s produced and given US registrations were seven:

NC-14743, A-942-A, c/n 9401, registered to Pan Am, retained by Fairchild as demonstrator, was sold to Spanish Loyalists, captured and flown by Nationalists W/O 1941.

NC-14744, A-942-A, c/n 9402, Panair PP-PAP (Pan Am) W/O 1943

NC-15952, A-842-A, c/n 9403, Panair PP-PAT(Pan Am) Scrapped 1945.

NC-16359, A-942-B, c/n 9404, to Japan as LXF1 W/O following landing accident

NC-16690, A-942-B, c/n 9405, Gar Wood Air Yacht, to RAF as HK832 W/?O 1943

NC-19130, A-942-B, c/n 9406, to Japan as LXF2

NR-777, A-942-B, c/n 9407, Used for NYMNH New Guinea expedition named "Kono" W/O 1937

Also note the Aerofiles author lists FOUR registrations NC14743, 14744, 15952, and NR777 without questioning his assertion that only 3 were built.

Source http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/reg_N47.html (US Registration list) Pgs. 3, 48, 51-52, 57. And: Noboru Jyoko, Fairchild F. 91 Flying-boat Type Amphibian, Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society, Spring 1984, pg 16 (Minor error in aircraft histories, misses LXH2 c/n 9402, which also went to the Japanese Navy)

"91-B (A-942-B) Jungle Clipper 1936 (ATC 605) = 10pChwMAm; 760hp Wright Cyclone; span: 56'0" length: 46'8" load: 3200# v: 175/155/63 range: 610-720. POP: 1 specially equipped for NYC Museum of Natural History [NR777]." - Areofiles

Wrong NR-777, c/n 9407 was called "Kono" not "Jungle Clipper." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Archbold#1936-37_expedition and http://ru-aviation.livejournal.com/2874187.html

The nickname "Jungle Clipper was given to NC15952 because of it's run which was up the Amazon. http://ru-aviation.livejournal.com/2867064.html

There was the appellation "Baby Clipper" which was briefly and unofficially attached to the F 91 but that nickname soon applied to the Sikorsky S-43 which indeed looked like a baby S-42.

"Most had engine conversions throughout their careers." - Aerofiles

Nope, only c/n 9403 was converted to the A-942-B version (Wright Cyclone) http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/reg_N50.html NC15952 Fairchild A-942-A > A-942-B 9403 NC15952 PP-PAT

" Some data show POP: 3 Model 91 and 4 Model 91-B, likely explaining subsequent motor changes." - Aerofiles.

The Aerofiles author assumed instead of finding out. Had it done something as basic as checking the registry it would have discovered 3 c/n 9401,9402 and 9403 were built as A-942-As and 9404, 9405, 9406, and 9407 were built as A-942-Bs. Only one was converted by an engine change.

Aerofiles entry for the F 91 was mostly twaddle and at best shows the author never bothered to check his source what ever that was.

To dig up the story of the F 91 takes a bit more than a single web hit. For starters:

Johnson, E.R., American Flying Boats and Amphibious Aircraft, McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina, ISBN 978-0-7864-3974-4

Noboru Jyoko, Fairchild F. 91 Flying-boat Type Amphibian, Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society, Spring 1984, pg 16

http://www.logbookmag.com/databases/articles.asp?ID=91&CatID=47 (Registration error)

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/reg_N47.html

http://www.rafcommands.com/serials/raf-serials-fa-fz-ha-hz/

http://www.buehlfield.info/aircraft-aviators/fairchild-model-91

http://airandspace.si.edu/research/arch/findaids/pdf/Fairchild_Finding_Aid.pdf

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/flyboat/f91.html

http://ru-aviation.livejournal.com/2867064.html

http://ru-aviation.livejournal.com/2874187.html

http://avianikitoss.livejournal.com/76185.html

http://avianikitoss.livejournal.com/72154.html

http://edsombra.com/des/?p=1896

http://generalaviationnews.com/2009/09/03/american-aircraft-in-the-spanish-civil-war/

https://tejales.wordpress.com/category/aviacion/page/2/

There are more, but you get the point. Unless the source is VERY reputable, one source is no source. Always check your sources.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference aerofiles_ca was invoked but never defined (see the help page).