User talk:TSRL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



/Archive 1


Great minds think alike? (Moynet Jupiter)[edit]

It looks like we both had the same idea Moynet Jupiter and Moynet M 360 Jupiter!Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's strange when that happens, like two aircraft, well away from an airport colliding. So much space, you'd think ... Yup, will have to merge. Not sure about the etiquette here (I've had one simultaneous creation job with MilbourneOne, after which we agreed to merge but as yet have not). So I guess we can take our time, but it might be easier when it's fresh in minds. Dare I suggest that since mine is the older (by a stunning 56 min!) and rather longer and more detailed in the text, that it should form the core? (I would say that, wouldn't I?). It's interesting that, whilst we each have 4 sources, only one is in common; yet our stories agree on a great deal. Encouraging! Actually, the one common source (1000photos) is the one I felt least comfortable with. I thought I'd settle down with the two versions side by side and also print out the Flight article you found ( I think Flight's search engine is second only to Wiki's in fussiness - I thought I'd found every ref) which looks good.. Your link to Moynet is interesting too; but I was especially keen to see what JAWA65 had to say, since my JAWA66 ed says that one covered the 360-4 in detail. For example, 1000 photos says the 460-6 was wider as well as longer; I have the -6 data, perhaps you have the -4. It would also be interesting to hear what JAWA65 has for length and span for the -4, to see if they agree with the OBA, I think the differences I quote are not quite the same as those in 1000photo, and a disagreement between those two 1960s sources might explain it. Probably we should use your variant list, having checked for self consistency (we seem to have slightly different takes on pressurisation), your categories and external sources as well. But that's a first glance reaction. Anyway, with a bit of collaboration we can produce a better article than either alone.
Thanks for intercepting my rocket powered Jupiter: it was indeed m/min, not m/s.TSRL (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the specifications in the 1965-66 Jane's which I used are also for the -6, it says the -4 was covered in the 64-65 edition - I think that there are some specs for the -4 in the Flight International flight test.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking again, that's what JAW66 says: -4 in 64, not 65. Pity; my error. A quick look at Lambert shows he has the same span for both, which is a bit odd unless ODA is up the creek. I'll have a long, hard look in the morning. In the meantime, I'll make a very small step to merger by importing "your" Cats, External and fr:into "mine". That's an improvement to the latter. I'll also add your phrases about "performance of a twin .. ease of handling" etc, an important point I'd missed.TSRL (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
All the dimensions from Lambert, JAWA65&66, OBA seem to agree (within a inch or so), except for Lambert's data table and text statements that the -4 and -6 had the same span. That was in 63-4; surely the later figures from JAWA are right for a year or two later, so maybe there was an extension. I'm sure that JAWA numbers are the best we'll get for the -6 and both editions agree on dimensions, with slight variations in the weights as you might expect. I'd stick with the latest, JAWA66 set. Be good to know more on the decision not to go to production: were they influenced by the low sales of the Skymaster, perhaps. I've seen nothing helpful.TSRL (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Lambert's article was June 64 and we know the -4 first flew on 17 Dec 63 from the other Flight article. Don't know when the -6 flew; 1000photos says May 63, which sounds silly, so it may have flown sometime after Lambert. It's no big deal, but looking at the g/a drawings for the two (in OBD, -4 and JAWA66, -6), it's clear that the wing has been extended at the tip, an easy place for second thoughts.TSRL (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
On that date: I've looked in JAWA66-7 at the list of first flights in the year from Aug 65 and there's nothing; anything in the JAWA65-6 list for the previous year?TSRL (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Jane's 65 has a first flight of 23 May 1965 for the -6, both in the individual aircraft article (p.60) and in the list of first flights (p.2).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that: I've added the date in (since there is misinfo about), also merged your variants section. One question: does Jane's 65 mention the 360-6P and the O-480 engine? I don't trust the 1000 photo site now (if before!); also Jane's 66 does not mention that type (or at least not the designation, it just says the 360-6 may be pressurised) nor that engine.TSRL (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It says for the -6P:"Generally similar to M 360-6 but with 480 hp Lycoming IGSO-480 engines and a pressurised cabin". Does the 66 Janes say anything about the Présidence? Nigel Ish (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a word. Given that Jane's65 says everything about the 360-6P, should we drop the other reference (7) for it? 1000photos is the only place the Présidence is mentioned, as far as I can see, so I guess it stays for that entry.TSRL (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems fair enough.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The company names are confusing. A couple of web sites mention the SOCATA M 360 Presidence - they seem to be a post 1968 subsdidiary of Sud. Nothing very helpful, though. One does say TIGO 541 engines.TSRL (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)The touring aircraft division. Makes sense.TSRL (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Airborne Forces Experimental Establishment (AFEE). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference section headers[edit]

Hi TSRL, I note in this edit that you quietly changed the header style to your own preferred format. Can I point to WP:CITE that explains the problem:Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. For more information see WP:Manual of Style#Consistency. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Evening Nimbus. I'm a quiet sort of person. But if those are the rules, I'll change it back. The reason was that it is one of those articles with a long list of refs, inevitably of variable relevance, and (I think) it is very helpful to pick out the ones cited from those whose flavour may have been added. I'll go there now and quietly return it to the earlier format.TSRL (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I understand what you were trying to achieve and I do it myself. The way that is recommended, I believe, is to move the unused books/source into a new level 2 'Further reading section' per WP:FURTHER, leaving the existing sub-headers intact. Some people don't like this but it is allowed (possibly even recommended) by the MOS and it does, to me, highlight the sources that were actually used. I have brought up a general question on style across the project at WT:AIR to see what opinions are. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Seem to recall a discussion along these lines a few months back (one MilborneOne's page??) where we looked at some options. As you say, there were strong views both ways on use of the 'Further reading section' heading, which may be coloured by folks' arts or science backgrounds: referencing styles between these groups differ a lot at the professional level. We were talking there about reference presentation styles for new articles. Would the guidelines have been breached if I had quietly introduced a 'Further reading section' into the P.1052 page?TSRL (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah! You've answered the question by doing it! Thanks.TSRL (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Yes, finished the job! On the last bit, not at all, it's just the same as adding a 'survivors' section or header that was not there before and either moving existing text into it or adding new text (does not disturb any other headers). It is unavoidable that we (all the project editors) have differing opinions, there are some style/content things that I don't agree with in aircraft articles but I quietly (that word again!) 'lump it'. What is more important is that we (as a project/bunch of like-minded editors) keep those opinions to ourselves or mildly state that we disagree with something (style-wise) and carry on. I can't edit articles with cite templates, which is a shame, I just see a page full of letters, numbers and dashes. It can cause problems higher up the assessment chain where reviewers note that something is amiss, can be changed of course but it makes more sense to get it right early on. Of course we can discuss and canvass for changes but I think the aircraft project has reached a level of stability where nothing dramatically new is going to happen. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I take it by cite templates (that are hard to read) you mean these list style book refs that seem to go on downwards forever. Agree entirely; they are horrible and should have a short single line ref to a linear Cite template in the bibliography. Such templates are useful here to keep things uniform and organised (but not the list style ones!) Don't think there's much difference between [1] and (say) the [2] style; I tend to use the latter to stop me getting the order wrong (and also having a link to the list for ease of location). Like you, I generally "lump it" in existing articles, unless it is one I started myself early last year, when I was very green. Just once or twice I've been frustrated by the Bibliography "book-dump" to split it, but I'll do that via other reading in the future. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the downward ones, whatever they are called. They make an absolute mess of the text in edit mode and it is very difficult to find the paragraphs between them. Because by the same guideline I can't change them (or add new information with a different style of cite) I move on to another article, wikipedia's loss I suppose in the end and I suspect other editors do the same. I did see something about all the coding being somewhere else or it was possibly a proposal to hide the cites in normal mode as they can take over as well. If you download an article in PDF form the inline cites don't appear and it becomes so much easier to read. Two articles that I nominated for FAC both passed without a single cite template being present. It's a wider problem that on glancing at the debates over the different cite styles is not going to be fixed easily. How about a single affidavit in an article to state that everything in it is accurate and verified to the best of a reviewers knowledge, added and reviewed at certain stages? Got to be an easier way than what we are enduring at the moment. The FA star is this in a way, not so easy lower down the scale though. All good fun (sometimes!), cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I just remembered that the Rolls-Royce R used to have a further reading section, until I bought all the books in it and cited them, moving them up one by one into 'bibliography'! Jimbo owes me a couple of quid for the books and some petrol money for the photos! There were a couple of very old (1950s) books left in it that nobody could trace so the section got binned at FAC as being of no use. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And a very fine anecdote too! On the vertical (column vector, if you do maths) templates: I'm sure they are only there by choice not necessity. I've just been playing in my sandbox with a ref in the inline the style I often use, which is quite compact but keeps me in order; the kernel looks like harvnb|Jones|1999|p=250, but I can write that vertically if I really want to annoy people. See my Sandbox if you are interested. It's actually fussier and uses more words to go vertical (need words like year=), so why would you? Likewise I could write the (for me) standard cite in the Bibliography

cite book|title=British Civil Aircraft 1919-59|last=Jackson|first=A.J.| year=1959|volume=1|publisher=Putnam Publishing |location=London

(a row vector, if you will and I think fairly readable) vertically, but why? So I'm pro-templates but anti column vectors. A row vector person!

On the need for refs: that's a huge issue, but I think in the early days of an article (and many of the very obscure aircraft I've been exhuming will only have early days) refs for pretty well everything are important. Vandals and vagabonds apart, I'm sure we have all at sometime written down something we've known to be true for a lifetime, only to find no positive support in the literature when stared at, or just been proved wrong. Certainly I have. Cheers.TSRL (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Combustor Comments[edit]

Hey! I really appreciate your comments on the Combustor article. Do you mind if I ask to take some of these comments to the peer review page? Not because I think they're inappropriate on the talk page, just because I'd like to eventually close out the peer review some day, and there need to be comments there for it to be closed out. Plus I'm kinda hoping that once someone starts adding comments there others will jump in. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Someone has to kick these things off! BTW, where does Wiki hide policy on issues like the chemical name vs symbol, or preferred units for temperature? Or are these choices made at the project level? Cheers, TSRL (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think most of those are on the project level. For example, it's a WP:AIR policy to lead with units of the country of origin (and have the others in () ). I.e., a US airplane would be in ft and lb, and a Russian airplane would be in m and kg. I'm guessing it's the same with chemical symbols. In the article I tried to write it out, and wikilink it, the first time with the symbol in (), and then just use the symbol from that point on. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Boulton Paul P.6[edit]

Just redirected "my" version to "yours" as you had far more content and I could not see anything new to add. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers,TSRL (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


I was about to do some research for that aircraft. Couple of questions: Is the Reagan film fiction? The picture of the plane in Sky Captain....was that a P-40? I know there was a fictional variant of the P-51 in it. I was thinking this photo from the commons might be a better one to use since 2 of the movies we cite it's use in depicts the actual Flying Tigers [1] What do you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in setting up Aircraft in fiction, so others might take a different view, but my initial response, for I had asked myself the same question was that that the Reagan film was fiction, albeit instructional. Why not post a query on the discussion page of Aircraft in fiction to get other opinions? I've no info on the other films yet, though I'll have a poke around for cites. All of this P-40 material was generated by others, and was originally under Popular culture on the P-40 page and I just moved in accord with current advice. The picture came with the text; need to have a proper look, but guess the nearer it is to the film, fiction, than to reality, the better. Again perhaps one for the discussion page. I have some concerns about the relevance of the Miller play (good stuff though it is) and will maybe put those there too.
Perhaps see you on that discussion page, but if I have any more thoughts I'll post here.TSRL (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll present some on the talk page. I asked you here because I was working under the idea that these were your entries and in deferrence to your other work on the article, I thought I'd discuss it here first. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that.TSRL (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For great work finding references for Aircraft in fiction and in the face of a clean-up deadline, too! Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind. Seems to me you've been doing the heavy lifting and have kept us pointing in the right direction. I started as a bit of a sceptic on this article, but am now persuaded, even if it does sometimes throw up some interesting problems of definition. Keep up the good work. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you are doing good work on this article - mostly I have been doing tagging and removing. I have probably deleted more stuff than I have added! Like you, I was originally thinking "AfD" when I first saw this article, but it really is successfully keeping the cruft out of the aircraft type articles and we seem to be keeping the article itself under control, more or less. More and better refs reduces the chances that the article will be deleted and that the cruft battles will be returned to the aircraft type articles. Your help in that regard is appreciated, so credit where due! - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Message on my talk page[edit]

Hi TSRL -- A new user has mistakenly left a message for you on my talk page -- you might want to take a look. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been back and offered advice and encouragement, but thanks for giving him lots of detailed advice. I think he is right in saying that starting in Wikipedia is hard, probably unnecessarily so; finding info is hard even if you know what you are looking for. There don't seem to be guidelines for folk within a particular project, with a modest set of questions. The cites business is messy, but we could say to newcomers: try this, then this first, then worry about subtleties. Likewise on inserting images, templates (what they? and how do I get one?), infoboxes (eh?), categories (what's available?), and so on. It's a pity and quite against the spirit of the enterprise to frighten people off. Of course, if you stay with it you realise there are a lot of helpful folk to assist you, but you have to be persistent. I'm a physicist, so the manual is where you look when all else has failed; and an amateur programmer, who learned by tweaking other people's programmes, but these old fashioned skills should not be needed to contribute to WikiP.
I hope your guidance will help him stay, particularly if he can get some images of these gliders in flight! Gliders seem to live to a great age.TSRL (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Max Plan PF.204[edit]

Hello TSRL! Thank you for your information on this one-off 'hangar queen' !! Both Aviafrance and Green's AoW refer to it as the PF.204. I really would not know any better - so followed them! I'm not well-off enough (or have the shelf space) to have a library of 'Janes', I'm afraid! The only printed reference I have is Green (1956) - partly, I think, because it seemed to be withdrawn before my next good reference book of 1965. The a/c has survived unairworthy at a Museum at Angers - but with 'restricted access' status. Re engines - I'm really weak on them, so again just used Green's info. He was a reliable author - very recently passed away. Regards RuthAS (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might be one of those happy WikiP aircraft contributors whose local library has the complete run: comments like "I will have to wait until the weekend to see JAWA98" etc make me green! Yes, he was well respected: sorry to hear he has died, though since he was writing books I got when I was little, I was surprised to hear his death was recent. Only 82.
You may have seen a query re variant from MilborneOne: I've replied to that, and raised another issue on the discussion page. See what you think. Cheers.TSRL (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

List of surviving Gloster Meteors[edit]

Just like to say some thanks for some good work on a new survivors article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Custer Channel Wings[edit]

Hello TSRL! I've just noticed the most amazing coincidence - we both started articles on these odd but interesting aircraft at the same time! Talk of two buses always coming together! How on earth did it happen!?

Your article concentrates on the CCW-5 and better covers the technical aspects, which I struggle with, as I'm non-technical and therefore I always try to cover the historical and operational aspects with more vigour. Have noticed Mr Hunt has added the images to yours, which is good. The CCW's are rather elusive 'hangar queens', which I just happen to have seen in my past US travels . . .

Wish I had a copy of Janes!

Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Morning Ruth! It is a shock when that happens: in just over a year starting articles, I've experienced three collisions. the closest (56 mins) with NigelIsh on the Moynet Jupiter, another obscure aircraft now illustrated out of your astonishing collection. See item 37 above. I almost gave you a call on CCW-5 pics ... There is a bit of a cluster of articles on Custer and his works: Willard Ray Custer, Channel wing, Custer Channel Wing and Custer CCW-5, so we may get a merge call. I think we have both managed to avoid the hype.
I've added a link to a Flight article from 1952 which has a somewhat sceptical tone, but has some god pics of the CCW-2 in flight and being tether tested. Remarkably little conventional wing on that one. There were hopes going around Christmas time that we might be able to use Flight images but I'm not sure where that has got to.
I'm about to start a discussion on the Custer Channel Wing page about nomenclature and and a ref to CCW-2 in Jane's 56, clearly not the Taylorcraft machine. BTW, if you need info from Jane's, I have the 38, 42 56 and 67 eds. They are good on technical data and fairly reliable, but do not usually do histories. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
One reference to the CCW-2 does show a completely different outline - but I think it's a drawing by Custer of a planned (but unexecuted) development. The image from the Flight link was good. Also the Youtube clip of the man himself and sequence of slow flying. The reference to CCW-3/4 by the Channel wing article is, I believe, wrong. He jumped from CCW-2 to CCW-5 (for five seats). However, I dont have the ability to amend tables without messing things up! Despite the possible duplication, I think the various Custer articles all 'add value' and dont duplicate overmuch. If you have a need for an image do ask - but the chances are always 50/50, at best. My resource is not inexhaustible! Regards RuthAS (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Removed!TSRL (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunne aircraft[edit]

Moved to Talk:John William Dunne#Dunne aircraft -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dunne D.8[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunne letter[edit]

Copy of letter and related reference: To the Editor of the Times

Sir, May I as that among those whose names we honour for their in laying the foundations of the Royal Air Force the name of John Dunne be not forgotten ? In 1910, Colonel (now Major-General) Capper built an aircraft on Dunne's model which was soon surprising its inventor. Dunne wrote in January, 1911, to my husband (who chairman of a small company formed to finance the "Dunne") that it had started at a pace which even amazed him, yet she was so steady that he could have made tea in her. She also appeared to be faster then any other plane at the time at Sheerness.

These included a "Gnome" Bleriot and a small biplane doing 60 miles and hour. a French officer flew her across the Channel in 1912, and two "Burgess Dunnes," were used for training purposes in the American Navy during the First World War.

Yours faithfully

Katherine Atholl 89, Iverna Court, W.8

Ref {{Cite newspaper The Times |articlename=AIR PIONEERS |author=Katherine Atholl |section= |day_of_week=Friday |date=18 Dec 1953 |page_number=9 |page_numbers= |issue=52808 |column=D }}

Hope this helps MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,TSRL (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Grace[edit]

Just found we didnt have an article on Cecil Grace (Aviators Certificate No.4) so I have started one appreciate if you could have a look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit about the memorial window at Eastchurch church. I looked him up in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but he's not in. Did the Times do an obit? It might give us a bit more on his life. How do you get to these Times records? There are quite a lot of refs in Flight, but it will take a little while to put the snippets into some sort of narrative.
He was obviously a man of means, like so many of them, for in about 18 months from March 1909 he ordered four [oops, 3 - didn't realise Shorts gave c/ns to spares] different aircraft from Shorts.TSRL (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I get online access to the Times through being a member of the local library, I just type in my library card number. Not sure all UK local libraries are in the scheme. Couldnt find an obituary but I will have another look. Despite being well connected we dont have a lot about him online. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at many of the Flight articles. They are interesting, following him around several meetings and back to base at Eastchurch in a busy year when he flew his Short-Wright, Farman B, a Bleriot and Short S.29. Perhaps worth a line or two, but they don't really open a window on his life. At Dublin, he was well received as coming from an old Queen's County family. Apparently County Laois, where his uncle and presumably his father was born, was called Queen's County before the end of British rule in 1921. TSRL (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Don't forget to add your comments about the Dyott plane to Flickr Commons. The Library of Congress posts photos every Friday. Here is the link to the Dyott image: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to i/d this machine. I briefly thought it was the Dyott, but a GIMP-up shows that whilst it has some features in common the cowling, tail/rudder and u/c ara all different. It's not his Deperdussin, either. Any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dunne D.6[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking to files without displaying the image[edit]

I've fixed the link you posted on Milborne One's talk page. To prevent an image from displaying simply put a : before the word File or Image. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!TSRL (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for George Miller Dyott[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dyott monoplane[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it.TSRL (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Moon[edit]

Thanks for the additions to this article. Only this morning, I was looking for something about the circumstances of his death, so your contribution was very timely. I have listed the article for DYK at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 31 - can you find a better/more interesting hook? Cheers. - Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

'twas TraceyR that found the Flight article, for the 1914 certificate list. I just acted as middleman. Can't find out what flying boat type it was. No, I think the hook is fine. It might have been nice to remind readers that Southampton AP was Eastleigh AP (first place I flew from) and make the Spitfire link in passing, since that name catches the eye; but it is not in the article. Is the DYK making progress?TSRL (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Like most DYKs, it will probably take a week before someone passes it to move to the next stage. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cecil Grace[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello again, TSRL! Thanks for your improvements to this new article. There is not much published on the firm and its aircraft - hence I thought it best to 'roll-it all up' in one piece. I had noticed that aviafrance had referred to the FB.30 as made by Bassou and used the name 'Rubis'. However, they omit the postwar FB.41 which I believe was the true 'Rubis'. I prefer to follow the late A.J.Jackson, who I think was very sound in his research. Andre Bassou was founder of SCAL, and I believe that it was that firm which built the aircraft. However, I'm very happy for you to modify the external links, in particular, as you see fit, as I'm not as competent in that area of work! Regards Ruth RuthAS (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

PS - the film clip surely is worth adding to the srticle - but I would not know how to do that! It shows the second FB.30 after flying to the UK but before re-registration as G-AFCD. RuthAS (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi TSRL - you have certainly carried out some most helpful sleuthing-in-depth! Will add reference to an airworthy example in 1954. Its registration in the F-P series indicates a postwar rebuild by an amateur. I hazard that it was based on the first FB.30/31 as it is unlikely that anyone would carry out a postwar new build of this ungainly type. I would regard the FB.31 as being a 'subtype' of the FB.30 - linked to a different engine installation. I do not have a DGAC register so cannot check the fates of the French examples. A comprehensive recent Air-Britain register does not include any SCALs; neither does Ogden's opus on European preserved aircraft. Will await your further comments before carrying out a merging of your information into the article. RuthAS (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Have now added a distillation of the new material re the SCAL/Bassous. Am happy for you to amend/improve as you see fit!! RuthAS (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for link to Trait Union discussion. The French group seem to conclude there were two FB.30/31 with just a vague reference to an unidentified FB.31 No.3 with a Salmson. On balance prefer to take the 'two FB.30/31 and one FB.41' route! Pity there's not more out there on the FB.41! I'm conscious that a Wiki article should not go into excessive detail on a relatively obscure type. I therefore leave it to you to add the link to the discussion, if you feel it's relevant to the 'average Wiki reader'. Will amend de-registration date to 1977 - well spotted! RuthAS (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

SIPA S.251[edit]

Hello TSRL! Sorry - have only just seen your message re this attractive one-off type. Yes - I have a colour slide of the aircraft at the 1965 Paris Air Salon, equipped with a three-blade propellor. The only problem is that I do not know how to scan slides. Would be willing to post to you if you are master of the relevant technique! Ruth. RuthAS (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

TSRL - thank you for your kind offer and details. Have edited out, as requested! Will mail the 35 mm slide with return details. Will upload, but with slight delay as I will be away for just over a week - so no hurry! I can cope with scanning & photoshoppeing B&W and colour prints - but not slides or negatives - a step too far for me at present! I'm OK at uploading to Wiki Commons - says me! I mainly took slides 1962-1980 with B&W prints before that and colour prints since. I took up (colour) digital photography only in 2007 - always slow on the uptake! Regards. Ruth RuthAS (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
TSRL - have now added the image of the Antilope that you kindly processed; also added details of the aircraft's current location. Regards RuthAS (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, TSRL, dont know whether for flight or static display - would guess the latter - but that's only my speculation. RuthAS (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

SIAI-Marchetti FN.333 Riviera[edit]

Have improved the article on the SIAI-Marchetti FN.333 Riviera but cannot get the specs and peformance to show up - please could you spot my error? Thank you! Regards RuthAS (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, once again, for sorting out technical snags! From what you say, I would not have stood a chance! The layout that you have used looks just fine. Regards RuthAS (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank yo for the explanation - I can follow it to a degree - but as an 'old technophobe' I'm sure that I'll hit problems with Specs/Performance from time to time. I'm not too bad at the rest of Wiki procedures! Will continue to add material as the urge takes me - Try not to be a 'Wiki Slave'. Regards RuthAS (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton H-47[edit]

Re DYK - good idea - but I do not know how to put it forward. Very happy for you to do so. "The team" has worked well to facelift this article in recent days! I was just fortunate to have Davies's fine book in my home library and to see the a/c at Oshkosh the other week. Co-incidence, really! RuthAS (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello TSRL! Have been away for a few days. I'm impressed with the level of detail of your research on this type and its family - benefitting from your ownership of the relevant Janes. I do not have any of these pricey volumes, I'm afraid. Cannot add anything useful to your new information - in particular I have no French register which shows that F-BSQL may have had other i/d's. I just have a few French registers from 1964 and these do not cover this type's short subsequent history. Have checked Ogden's book on preserved aircraft in Europe and no G-V type is listed. I would be happy for you to add a distillation of your researches, with linked references to supporting sources. RuthAS (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thought that I should check the current European registers. The only G-V's included are -

GV-1031 No. 01 F-PPZI ex F-WPZI and GV-1031 No. 02 F-PSSX ex F-WSSX - the latter is said to be stored dismantled. No details of owners or locations are available. Hope that helps. RuthAS (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The information above on the G-Vs on the French Register came from a 2009 Air-Britain publication reproducing the official Register as at early 2009. The note re storage presumably came from a member who had observed No. 02 recently.
Sorry - I do not have an image of a CFM. Saw two at the Sywell Rally last Saturday, but amongst over 500 aircraft present, could not photo them all. I tend to have less interest in modern ultralights of relatively unattractive design, I'm afraid! RuthAS (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Payen Katy[edit]

Have been away for a few days. The Katy image was near the top of a pile on my desk for a new Wiki article. Have now placed it in the infobox. Leave it to you to decide which of the two museum images should remain. RuthAS (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nicollier Menestrel[edit]

Yes - I have a reasonable image of F-PECQ HN434 Super Menestrel II taken at Sywell a few weeks ago. Tell me when you need it and I will then add it to Wiki Commons. RuthAS (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello TSRL! I've read your draft article on the Menestrel and learned much more about this family of aircraft, as I'd not read Simpson's article in his 'Airlife's World Aircraft' - which I've now perused. Surprised he did not include it in his later 'General Aviation Handbook'. I can very add little to your good 'Sandbox'. Just to suggest that you rationalise the use of Ministrel and Ministral. You explain the two - but suggest that you otherwise use the French version throughout your article. There are one or two other typos to eliminate. Have just uploaded the image of the HN.434 Super Menestrel to Wikipedia Commons for you to use as a header photo - it's come out quite well. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC).
Glad you liked the Menestrel image - helped by the type being rather an attractive design!! RuthAS (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Have added an image of a HN700 Menestrel II which I've just discovered in my files. Perhaps it helps your narrative on the variants of this design? Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Nice looking little chopper. I noticed there's an article on Marcello Gandini - I think I'll get around to expanding this tomorrow and see if I can't work it into a two-in-one DYK nomination! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Worth a go! He certainly produced a stylish look, though the two seater looks a bit snug.TSRL (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't get Gandini expanded enough - but I did find enough to make a DYK-size article on Augusto Cicaré. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Heli-Sport CH-7[edit]

Orlady (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dream Tundra[edit]

Thanks for starting this article! I had the redlink "watched" as I knew I had some photos of the prototypes. I have a bunch more photos shot at several locations at different times, but the ones I added seemed to be the best showing the two layouts and small differences. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoyed seeing the photos posted: they do show the Tundra generally, and the differences between the first two, very well. If you've got pics of Tundras with either trike or float u/cs, they would be good. I still have several things I'd like to know: eg how widely are the hps used as model numbers and how formally? The Canadian reg has 9 Ts on it, three of which have numbers attached (180, 200 and 210 (?)). I've seen a 235 somewhere. Does the final part of the serial number (-FTN-XY) tell us about details like engine type, which don't appear on the Canadian or US reg, and/or u/c type etc? I guess the c/n is 3yz in DR-TN-3yz-FTN-XY. Do you know if any Tundras, apart from C-GAGH have the fin without the fillet? Of the 8 other Canadians and 3 USasians I know about, 8 have fillets and 3 (N710JK, C-FZRM and C-GDYX) do not seem to have pics up on the web. Small stuff! Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here, you have obviously done lots of research on this design! Their serial numbering system as seen on the Civil Aircraft Register is a bit odd, I can't make any sense of it, neither of the number groups seem to relate to anything I can see. The 11 photos I have taken are all of the same two aircraft, C-GIPN and C-GAGH, and all on taildragger wheeled gear, but at several different places and events: the Canadian Aviation Expo 2004, Les Faucheurs de Marguerites 2006 and at Bromont QC 2006. The latter were the ones I added to the article. The aircraft all look the same in all three sets of photos, IPN always has the filet and a smaller vertical tail and AGH lacks the fillet, but has a bigger tail. Other than the fin area it adds I am sure the filet is just decorative as those are hard to render in sheet aluminum. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Williams Texas-Temple Sportsman[edit]

Hello again, TSRL! Thank you for improving the FAA link in this article. I'd tried to make it specific but stumbled somewhere! Some person has added a number of tags which surprise me. Past links to Aerofiles have been readily accepted - also to FAA. What do you think justifies the tags in this case? How does one get the mattered cleared up? Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Magni M-16 Tandem Trainer[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry[edit]

Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


DYK for Saynor & Bell Canadian Club[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Supermarine 545[edit]

Hello TSRL - and best wishes for 2011! Have added an article on the Supermarine 545, with Image, but it needs more detail. Do any of your mid/late 1950s Janes have any more information that you could add? Regards RuthAS (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Farman F.480 Alizé[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Supermarine 545 & Funk[edit]

Hello TSRL! THank you for looking through Janes for anything on this elusive aircraft. Others have access to Morgan, which I do not have, and added details. Sorry, do not have any of the Funk photos you requested. RuthAS (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Farman F.280[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th[edit]

DYK for B&F Fk9[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for B&F Fk12[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bölkow Phoebus[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nuri Demirağ Nu D.38[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for I.S.T. XL-14 Maya[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors[edit]

I saw your recent contributions at DYK and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gaunt biplane no.2[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Farman Moustique[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Farman Sport[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Iannotta Glider[edit]

I'm afraid that I do not have a photo of this elusive type - I have never seen of heard of it - sheer ignorance, of course! Cannot think of where you might find one. I suppose that you've made a Google search? Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Sorry TSRL - you're way ahead of me with your latest projects. Again - I've not heard of or seen one of these. Will be interested to see an image if you find one elsewhere! Regards RuthAS (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Iannotta San Francesco[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Wikiwings2.png Wikiwings
For great work expanding and carefully referencing Remos GX. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I'd been doing some copying from JAWA 2010/11, which proved useful. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you deserve the recognition for that! - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

IAR 36 proposed for deletion[edit]

An editor has attempted to propose for deletion IAR 36, an article you originally created under another name. The proposal was misformatted. It refers to ICAR Comercial. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello TSRL. Have been away for a week so just read your message. However, I'm sorry that I cannot help with the Ibis - again, a type I've not seen or heard of! I'm stronger in obscure vintage types really! And being of 'a certain age', I tend to prefer traditionally designed types! Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Twin Navion[edit]

The Twin Navion in the CAMAIR wiki is a regular at airshows. I was pleased to see there is a twin navion site, and the airframe can be identified by the T55 logo on the tail. There is a full page description of it at Since it is a TEMCO, it should be on a new wikipedia page which I havn't got around to yet.FlugKerl (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Max/Yves Gardan[edit]

Hello TSRL. Had only heard of Yves Gardan before your note. I would stick to that name. Unfortunately, I did not come across the SIPA S300 in my earlier visits to France. It was not at the 1957 Paris Air Show. The image on the Aviafrance website could usefully be linked in to your planned article. RuthAS (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FFA Diamant photo[edit]

Hi TSRL: I noted that you added this photo that you took of G-DCGD just recently to this article and another editor removed it. I checked the G-INFO register and it is registered as a Diamant 18, but is is definitely not a Diamant 18! If you check here and here you will see that the Diamant 18 has T-tail instead of a low-tail, much slimmer rear fuselage and a lower-mounted and longer-span wing than the aircraft in your photo. Despite the CAA thinking it is a Diamant 18 it is something else, perhaps even a BG-12. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't rely on anyone these days! G-INFO was my source. I have a contact at the D&L GC who might shed light. Meanwhile I'll have a poke about. It was a good rally and generated lots of pics. Thanks,TSRL (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully you can find out what it really is and then just change the captioning on the image file and use it in the appropriate article. If you run into the owner perhaps he can be convinced to set the CAA straight?- Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(pardon me) G-DCGD is as SCHLEICHER KA 6E according to G-INFO. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
MB: Thanks for solving that. When I checked G-INFO earlier today it said "Diamant 18", which was what TSRL got and obviously not right. Maybe they fixed it today? - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
My finger problem! The photo is of CGD, which is a KA 6. I searched G-INFO on CDG, which is the Diamant. I'll sort the caption out in the morning. WikiCommons seems to lack the move option of WikiP.TSRL (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


I noticed that you have a lot of empty or blanked sandboxes that you used before moving articles to mainspace. Do you want these deleted or are you saving them for something? MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I wondered what happened to these after the move. No, they can go. Is there any way I can do this? Be better if I could tidy my own mess! CheersTSRL (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You cant delete them yourself it has to be done by an admin, normally you could tag the article with Template:Db-u1 and an admin will come along and delete the page but I can just go through any blank/no content ones and delete them for you if you are happy with that. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try the template for future sandboxes.TSRL (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Good evening. I've just done a little edit on this page(linking something) & (as edit note) thought that a table for aircraft types & engines. would be better. Rather than just drop it in without so much as an excuse me, I thought I ought to run it by you before I did anything. its in User:TheLongTone/Sandbox, at the bottom.TheLongTone (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Always good to be asked! Table's fine: I think I'd read WP is not keen on them, on the basis that some browsers don't handle them well but this article already has a table and I've had no complaints. I've just added the smaller type engine to the Wright, following your earlier comment. All the other information comes from a single source (Tagg) but this came from Goodhall and Tagg (solo Tagg just says F), so the table should make that clear as the list (now) does. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Well it seems to me that a table is better, since it's more readily editable. You can make the display of data as is misbehave if you're viewing it in an odd shped window, as I was doing in order to cross-chech between two windows. I'll drop it in in a mo.TheLongTone (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Your man Piffard interests me. Lewis only has two aircraft to his name, both biplanes & one a floatplane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talkcontribs) 23:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Goodall & Taggg have pieces on 4 Piffards, with photos of each. They were all pusher biplanes powered by the ENV; the last two were floatplanes ("hydrobiplanes"). No.2 managed some straight flights. I'll add No.s 3 & 4 to the table.TSRL (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely if there are photos of 4 different aircraft he deserves 4 entries. I had a v. quick look at Flight, & there was something abour the 1909 machine having been replaced for 1910 rather than rebuilt but with these early machines its often difficult to decide what is a legitimade new type and what is is a radical rebuild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talkcontribs) 10:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to going back to the original separate listing. There are 4 photos: the aircraft are of a kind but distinguishable. 1 and 2 are quite similar but differ markedly from 3 and 4; 3 and 4 are also easily distinguished from each other. In later times they might have made a type with variations; they worried less about labels in those days than getting things to fly and it's probably best to think in terms of aircraft number N. I guess these numbers may be retrospective, but as WP editors we just follow what our sources say!
The photo in Lewis illustrating the hydro-biplane is certainly the one G&T call no.4 (their text description is clear though the captions are muddled). The two photos are different but must have been taken within a few minutes of each other. The biplane in Lewis seems to be the no.2 before the ailerons were moved to the trailing edges from between the wings. G&T's picture of no.1, though is poor and it's hard to be sure. The biplane in Lewis lacks at least one feature of no.1 but it might not have been quite complete in the shed.TSRL (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
You obviously have better reference...but I think my opinion is that if you keep the wings its usually the same aircraft. Its a minefield, and as you say much of the nomenclature is entirely retrospective.TheLongTone (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bernard 80[edit]

Can you confirm that Les Avions Bernard uses a space between the number and mission designator, as other references do not use a space, across the board, for French inter-war aircraft.Petebutt (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A closer look finds about half and half. Probably better to standardise on with space, your thoughts?Petebutt (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Liron makes a consistent distinction between SIMB and SAB usage. He puts no space in the former, e.g. AB 3M but includes a space in the SABs, e.g. 18 T Bis, 80 GR and 200 TS. On the basis that he probably spent longer staring at the Bernard records than most, I've followed him.TSRL (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello TSRL! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TSRL. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Radlock Trainer.
Message added 20:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 20:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Turns out I'd missed a ref to my main source for first two sentences of that section: it's in now.TSRL (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Radlock Trainer[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Scott Viking 1[edit]

Orlady (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Scott Viking 1[edit]

Hello TSRL! Have added a little further information, sourced from Sturtivant. I struggle with the required format of sophisticated references - and the Sturtivant reference is not working. Would you please be able to sort it out? Thanks. Regards RuthAS (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for new info.TSRL (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Supermarine 525[edit]

Hello TSRL! Have just got round to adding an article on this elusive aircraft type. Have added the few specifications that I have, but the article needs more. Do any of the Jane's, to which you have access, help at all? Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nav box[edit]

Hi TSRL: I noticed that you recently wrote a copy of articles about UL-Jih aircraft. I made up and added a new nav box to them: Template:UL-Jih aircraft. I just wanted to point it out, in case you decide to tackle the remaining two types the company offers, in which case you can use the box! - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and for sorting out my typos. There's a lot of confusion over these chaps (who has the rights, who designed them, performance details, kit vs. complete etc) out there (and at TSRL's!). Even Jane's struggles (and partly fails) to hold a consistent line. They do say that Fascination and Evolution were Jaroslav Sedláĉek designed (implication: not Dallach); they don't have an article on the Sunrise or Sunwheel in the current edition. Simpson's Airlife's Worlds Aircraft has the two Suns: he says these are Dallach designs and puts them under that name. He does not do that with the Fascination. So I was not sure if these two are better titled as Dallach D.1 and D.2 rather than UL-Jih.
BTW, any thoughts on my more general copyright Q? Perhaps I should put it on the Project Aircraft page - i'd not realised your page was watched. It was prompted by my acquisition of Tim Mason's book British Flight Testing (a history of the Martlesham work up to 1939) which has over 100 Crown Copyright images of aircraft on which we have articles without images. Scanning them in would be a serious but worthwhile undertaking but only, of course, if legal!TSRL (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply here. Glad the nav box and the copy-editing was helpful. Feel free to add/subtract from that nav box, I just thought it would help reader navigation. The design mess is pretty typical in the lighter end of the aviation world, where people steal designs and then build their own version. See this item for one example. As far as the copyright images goes, it sounds like a great idea as long as the copyrights have expired. I wish I understood copyright dates better, but the best person to check with is Milbourne as he seems to be a UK copyright expert, although he is on sabbatical right now. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

An apology[edit]

I'm currently doing some a bit of expansion to the Bleriot stuff, & while editing the biography I severely edited the caption of the photo showing the XI in its original state, with the little cabane fin. On subsequent reading of the talk page, I discovered that you had done a deal of agonising over idenifying the picture, so I thought I'd just tell you that the full caption/info will certainly find it's way into the Bleriot Aeronautique & Type XI articles. BTW I admire the articles on aircraft you've written, there are too many articles with hardly any technical description of the type, and yours are certainly not among themTheLongTone (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all! The other two articles are the best place for detail, especially the Type XI one. You'll find (or already noticed) I also agonised over the exact engine used cross-channel; got dangerously close to serious OR at one point but pulled back. These early types and their motors particularly are often hard to pin down, so keep up the good work and thanks for pat on back! The Louis B article was ripe for a bit of an overhaul. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd noticed the agonising over the engine used. This is actually a case where the truth should be ascertainable, since the aircraft was never flown after the channel crossing & is in the French aircraft museum. I think journalistic sloppiness, not at all unknown in early copies of Flight', is to blame. If the motors are more problematic thn the airframes I really don't want anything' to do with them. It's true that I am dilatory but in all seriousness I have been attempting to assemble an article on the Deperdussin Type A for about three months and the more I find out, the less I know. There are more names than aircraft, and the names are randomly applied to any one as the author sees fit. I was weaned on the Putnam books, and the lack of anything remotely up to their standard regarding early French stuff was a horrible shock. oh well, c'est la vie & vive la difference and all that.TheLongTone (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
If it helps you sleep at night, Brian Elliot's biog of Bleriot, which has the general air of being properly researched, says the cross channel engine had a capacity of 3,377 cc, a bore of 105mm and a stroke of 130mm. Of course you could pop over to Paris with a vernier...TheLongTone (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


Wikiwings2.png Wikiwings
For taking on the technically demanding job of tackling the Akaflieg Darmstadt series of historically important sailplanes and creating articles so complete and well done that I can't find anything to fix in them! With efforts like this WikiProject Aircraft will one day have articles on every aircraft type that has been built. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you: appreciated. They are (there are a few more to come) an interesting and instructive series of cutting edge designs, pushing both aerodynamics and materials to the limits of their time, developments begun on gliders but transferred to heavy stuff. Simons's books provide a very valuable base. If anyone has info on AKD's powered aircraft, do fill in the gaps. It might be fun to look at the Akaflieg products of other Universities.TSRL (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been reading them as you post them, definitely interesting and worth covering. You are doing a great job there! - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Akaflieg Darmstadt D-28 Windspiel[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Akaflieg Darmstadt D-28 Windspiel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Akaflieg Darmstadt D-28 Windspiel[edit]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinan Reis[edit]

Hello TSRL, my DYK article, which you reviewed, seems to have gotten bogged down by another reviewer. I fear that while well-meaning, the changes that they would have done constitute original synthesis of information. Thanks, Aslbsl (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Breguet gliders[edit]

Nice articles!! nuf said

DYK for Raab Doppelraab[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


I'm glad that my photo was helpful for very nice article that you have made. Fell free to use and edit any of my photos. Kos93 (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Phantom sentinel[edit]

Thank you for your reinforcement of the Aereon WASP cancellation. I was wondering if you could research the Phantom Sentinel UAV. My previous edit to the article about no new info was taken out for not having a source. It would be good to write the thing is cancelled, but I need something to say it. If you find it, you should write it in directly. (America789 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC))


Wikiwings2.png Wikiwings
For creating Drag Polar - remarkably well done! - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Drag Polar diagram[edit]

Hello, I changed the title to that above before reading past the first sentence, realising that you had written about Lift / Drag polars. Similar things I know, but you haven't made clear the differences. Can you fix it and change the title to reflect this. I'd rather not bludgeon my way through the article which in most respects is quite good.Petebutt (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the lead para to make it clear the article is about the Cl, Cd relationship; the first full para makes it clear the article is not about lift or drag curves which show Cl vs angle of attack, ditto drag curves (though I've not named these types). The revised lead also makes it clear that the drag polar may be either a plot or an equation, so drag polar (funny name, but it has historical roots as explained) is the proper name, used by writers on aerodynamics (not colloquially) and have reverted the title name.TSRL (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wing loading[edit]

I am curios as to why you have left off the wing loading from all the specs of your Itford glider articles. Particularly as wing loading is quite important as a gauge of glider performance.Petebutt (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I am sure that a year ago there was a reason, but have completely forgotten it! Maybe I was in minimalist mode: why include a number anyone can work out, as the wing area and AUW are there? If that was my thinking then, I'm less hard line now and include it. I'm not convinced it should be in the performance section, though; rather, it's a performance determiner like aspect ratio etc. Perhaps after the weights.TSRL (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better placed in the general section but my previous experience of messing with these templates did not have a good outcome. A request on the Aviation or Aircraft talk page might yield results.Petebutt (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cameron D-96[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cameron D-38[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ciani Crib[edit]

Rather inconsistent with the naming. I can only find Ciani EC.41/64 Cribbio, which actally translates from Italian as Gosh, but all the other names in the article do not. Would i be correst in assuming that you meant Cribbio?--Petebutt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The name worried me, as I had seen Cribbio somewhere; but the Italian book Italian Vintage Aircraft calls it the Crib throughout, with no suggestion it's a contraction, so Crib is what I used. I think that's the best name we have unless someone can find an equally authoritative source for Cribbio. I've only got a little Italian dictionary (and Google) and could not find Crib; but Ciani tended to jokey names, sometimes from the Milanese dialect like Urendo, so who knows? Pedrelli does not attempt to explain it as he often does with other aircraft. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Club and Carib were both misprints; clearly had a bad half-hour! Think I've sorted them all.TSRL (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is atranslation of Cribbio

cribbio {interjection}

crikey {interj.} [obs.]
blimey {interj.} [obs.]
gosh {interj.}

In the light of Cianis sense of humour in naming his gliders I think it is more likely that the aircrafdt was named Cribbio, but i still can't prove it conclusively.--Petebutt (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just received the following from the author.
Hello Pete,
I had a look at the EC 41/64 references I have :
* Vincenzo Pedrielli book "Alianti italiani d'epoca" 
) : name "Crib"
* Vittorio Pajno in "Alianti italiani" 
) just says "Ciani EC 41/64"
* Francis Humblet, an historian from the VGC has "EC 41 Crib" in his 
sailplane list.
So the name "Cribbio" appears nowhere and is probably wrong. I think we 
can trust Vincenzo !
In our database J2mcL-Planeurs ( 
) I changed the name in "Crib".
Thank you for helping us correcting our database.
Best regards
J2mcL-Planeurs :
I have a query regfarding the Ciani EC 41/64 Cribbio. Do you have any proof of the name because i HAVE A DISPUTE      WITH ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA EDITIOR, ( the author of the article on the Ciani EC 41/64). He has a reference that gives       Crib, but you give Cribbio. Can you give me a reference to prove it one way or the other? Thanks

So it looks like the best bet is Crib, but I still have reservations.--Petebutt (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S.the caps is not shouting just a caps lock mishit

SA 103[edit]

I notice you are developing this article. If you do not have specs I hace access to limited specs from Hardys Gliders and Sailplanes of te World:

  • span 41 ft 2 1/2 in
  • length 20ft 11in
  • area178.6 sqft
  • empty 260lb
  • max 385lb
  • Normal gliding speed (sic) 36mph

looking good so far--Petebutt (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the data. What is really holding me up is a lack of history; in particular I'd like to know how close it was to the Grunau Baby? Is it really just a variant of that, one of several such built in different countries postwar? Did Arsenal design or just build the 103? They seem to have made changes in the 104 design. I have some notes but need to refrash my memory after running out of data on Fiat motors.TSRL (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep going![edit]

Writer's barnstar.png The Writer's Barnstar
Awarded for an excellent set of well researched and written Fiat aero engine articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Top job, I assume you are going to finish the navbox! All the best and Merry Christmas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the trouble you took to carefully transfer all the images to Commons, it's hard work that is not often noticed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm afraid I'm out of source material unless there are any more Flight etc articles. The one on the AN.1 engine was particularly helpful. JAWA 38 says several Fiat engines have been covered before but pre 38 JAWAs seem quite rare on the second hand market, so much so that I don't even know if prices are silly. The British library has a set, I think, certainly those from the 20s and a librarian friend has just found me another (complete?) set at IWM. I'll chase these, though I don't often get to the smoke these days. I also have a copy of Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWI in the post, which may have some engine material. Suspect there are quite a lot of Fiat engines that are not in the navbox.
It's always a pleasure to add pictures to the Commons; I've always felt that their absence was one of the greatest weaknesses of WP articles on aircraft and their engines, though I understand the copyright sensitivity. So whenever a new, usable source comes up I'm happy to muck in. I spent several happy hours digitising another editor's colour slides, bravely sent through the post, to add to the collection. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New aircraft articles[edit]

I just wanted to congratulate you on a very successful 2012 for creating new aircraft type articles! The fact that it is starting to get hard to find new types to write about shows me that we are slowing getting the job of writing articles on every type flown done! See you in the funny pages next year. - Ahunt (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gabardini monoplane[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bristol Boxkite[edit]

I've just done a small expansion to the section of this article on the Magnificent Men replicas, & am a bit puzzled by the exact identity of the engines used: a RR Continental of 65 then 90 hp, according to Clive Barnes. The 65 hp is a bit of a mystery to me. The only source on modern aero-engines I have is WP, I'd appreciate it if you could have look & see if you could identify/link these engines. Ta.TheLongTone (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

These will be the A65 and the C90, built by RR on a licence acquired in October 1960 to supply the UK and mainland Europe. They are covered in Jane's 1956/7, 59/8, 60/1, 63/4 and 66/7, so probably in those between. I've not been able immediately to understand the A to C notation change but the A is (unsurprisingly) earlier, used as long ago as 1931. I also don't know what differences there were, if any, between the US and UK variants. I took a photo ( at Farnborough 1962, where foreign aircraft were allowed only if they used British engines. These were RR Continentals in Druines. I'll keep poking around.TSRL (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. MilbourneOne got to one first, but thats the other sorted.TheLongTone (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Carley C.12[edit]

Hello, excellent article, but can you give the Dutch original names for the companies involved, Ta!--Petebutt (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point - done.One name, Carley's Aeroplanes sounds English but is how it appears in the wholly Dutch text.TSRL (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Spijker V.2[edit]

Hi ! In the article Spijker V.2 there is an error:

  • Number built: 78
  • 58 (LVA) + 18 (MLD) + 6 (KNI) = 82

What is the correct number ?--Midnight bird (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted! Should be 78, according to Wesselink (who I thought I was quoting!) there were just 2 for the KNIL, hence 78. So he and the Orange Skies book (I have only seen the Google snippet containing the number, which seems to originate in the 1919 Jane's, another I've not got) agree. I've corrected my error - thanks.TSRL (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Naglo D.II[edit]

Hello TSRL Enjoyed the article on the Naglo, but i have a few doubts about accuracy

Grays German Aircraft of the First World War has a slightly different story: Grädig

Green and Swansborough (G&S) say Gnädig, so the article is accurate in the WP sense of being true to source; which name is right is not obvious. There is a more recent account (German and Austrian aircraft of ....) which I have not seen but which I think is in my county library. I'll try looking in there.
For what it's worth, G&S are consistent in their spelling, for they give the same name in the Albatros DI design team.TSRL

(talk) 09:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Treadwells German & Austrian Aircraft .... doesn't have any info on Naglo other than the full name and location of the company.--Petebutt (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Treadwell report - saved me a task. What name does Gray's book give for (one of) the Albatros D.I's designer? The WP article has Gnädig, citing Cheeseman, which is an independent vote for that form as that book is very early.TSRL (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

2.still working for Albatroswerke and was sacked as a result

G&S say only the first part

3.type test 24 May 1918

G&S agree; my error, now corrected

4.rejected at Aldershof at the request of a man called Schubert from Albatroswerke

No mention in G&S

5.No mention of results or whether requested to be re-submitted

G&S say the results were that the D.II was reported well built but needed improvements in "flight characteristics", as the article says. They also say "no performance figures have survived." Nothing on what happened next. I wonder where these reports were published.TSRL (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Gray's book is a bit long in the tooth but are the differences REALLY down to new information or just differing interpretations of the same material?--Petebutt (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No reason why the extra info (2.(ii) and 4.) should not be incorporated, with Gray as new ref.TSRL (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hispano-Suiza 8 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wibault 9[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

LFG V 52[edit]

Hello, TSRL, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on LFG V 52, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, LFG V 40. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on LFG V 52 at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There were similarities between the four LFG monoplanes of 1925, and they all took part in the Round Germany competition of that year, hence the common sources. I've been writing them up, hence the common features in the initial and incomplete draft of the V 52 article. Text to follow will emphasise the differences. I'm sure MadmanBot does good work, but suggest it should avoid drafts in sandboxes and wait until articles are uploaded. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I've realised what happened. The V 52 piece was not in my sand box as I intended but was being drafted as an article (i'd missed out the /), so MadmanBot was not being nosey! I think its OK now.TSRL (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Custer CCW-5[edit]

Since you started this article could you have a look at recent edits to see if you think they add any value to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albatros L 59 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |produced=4 (bothe variants

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Aeronatica Lombarda AL-3[edit]

Hi. I normally delete your U1s without a second glance, but this time I am confused. You actually tagged this article with U1, but instead I have redirected it to Aeronatica Lombarda AL3 (no hyphen), where I see the actual text is. Is that the right way round? I see that the references in the text of the article all have the hyphen.

Congratulations, by the way, on your indefatigable work on glider articles. I read them nostalgically; many years ago, I was one of a syndicate who built one of these from a kit. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What happened was that I got distracted when moving and saved it as User:Aeronautica Lombarda AL-3 (with hyphen). To try again I used AL3 (as some authers do, rather sporadically) but I prefer AL-3. So if you have the knowledge to call it Aeronautica Lombarda AL-3, I'd be very happy. At the moment this name is a redirect.
The gliders are fun to write up, peaceful with no engine and no guns but aerodynamically and (often) structurally advanced. Pedrelli's book, though inspired by Martin Simon's set and endorsed by MS, is not of the same quality. There are some confused and contradictary passages, which Martin would have skirted. Nonetheless, must be grateful to the historians. Is your Swallow still about? I go up to Camphill each year when the VGC are here, to view the old timers, (aircraft and pilots) both.Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I have switched them so that the article is at AL-3 and AL3 redirects to it. Our Swallow was eventually sold abroad, and I don't know what became of it. It was slightly non-standard: we persuaded Slingsby to give it a cockpit canopy from (I think) a Skylark 3, with a larger perspex area giving a better view down to the side. I didn't know about the VGC, I might try to get there some time. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting me out. Must concentrate.TSRL (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Poeschel P-300 Equator[edit]

Hello TSRL. I noticed yesterday that there was no image of the P-300 in your article. I have found my slide taken at the 1973 Paris Air Show and have scanned and added it to the article, which clearly benefitted from your access to Janes. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Hi TSRL I did attend the Cranfield PFA Rally in 1989 - but did not see your 'Elephantine' aircraft the day I was there, I'm afraid. RuthAS (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

RFB X-113[edit]

Hello TSRL. Have lost your email address - hence this routing. I have unearthed my slide of the RFB X-113 at Paris in 1973. This oddity is listed in the Wiki list by manufacturers, but with no linked article. If you would be prepared to create an article, using your access to Janes etc, I would be happy to add the image and any modest additional notes. Best wishes. RuthAS (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Boxkite photos[edit]

Really nice pictures you added: I think one should replace the existing in the infobox. (I've tried to photograph the one in Bristol, but it's nigh on impossible to improve significantly on what's there. Not only is it a replica, but it has a very dodgy engine installation)TheLongTone (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

...And the Avro picture is good, (even if the union jack is a bit camp), but you put it in the wrong article! TheLongTone (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Well spotted. I've moved it, flag and all, to its proper place. I don't know how faithful a replica (engine apart) it is. I wonder when the type numbering came into use? HP, for example, named/renamed its early types after WWI, but I don't know about Avro. Jackson seems not to mention thi issue. On Edwardian types, I'm thinking about a Deperdussin 1910 Monoplane article, enthused by some shots I got whilst at the Uncovered day. It did not fly (hops, is how one of the guys who pilot it described its flights) but was out in then open. I notice Shuttleworth describe it by year; Deperdussin typing seems to be contentious, more classes of sub-variants than well defined types. I guess its loosely a Type A, based on year and its single seat, though it has the later triangular kingposts/cabane rather than the two verticals mention by Opdyke. It's close to one described in detail, including 3-views, in Flight 19 August 1911. This has a larger span, but it looks as if the Shuttleworth version has clipped tips and its measured span is close to that of the one in Flight, cut back to the final rib. No type number given by Flight, of course! I'm inclined to stick with Shuttleworth's name, for they must have thought about it. What do you think?
I've since noted that John Dibbs' book on the collection refers to the Deperdussin as a "school or Popular" version, though neither term/name is used by Opdyke. I can see why folk have not rushed in to write these aircraft up, historically important though they are.TSRL (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Early Deperdussins are a nightmare. See User:TheLongTone/Deperdussin Type A Monoplane: it's nigh on impossible to talk of type numbers. There's a whinge on my user page on the subject. Opdycke is as much use as a hole in the head. IMO, apart from the monococoque, two basic types: the early ones with a very shallow fuselage and a external control yoke and the 1912 type, with a deeper shell underside to the fuselage & internal yoke. All built with a variety of engines and wingspans & detail variations. Type, Type B, Sporting, &c &c. Mucking about with the cabane config is also a Deperdussin thing: all the monococoques vary. Essentially they were handbuilt things rather than mass production artefacts: some' like the 'British Deperdussins' that were at Larkhill, seem to have been one-offs. After looking at a lot of pictures and reading all I can find, I've a murky picture which is essentially OR, because there is no 'reliable source'. All the early French stuff is similar: the Breguet IV or whatever, the pre-war Caudrons. I've started articles on several, but its like knitting soup. Long whinge on the subject on my userpage. BTW the avro picture thing wasn't my catch, an IP had commented & it's on my watchlist. As far as I know the Magnificent Men replicas are pretty kosher, apart from the prop and engine & slightly beefier wheels.TheLongTone (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


Was looking at the Balanced rudder article & noticed you'd given it a bit of a makeover: thought this curiosity might amuse you, if you havn't seen it before. 13:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. New to me. Not sure I understand how it works; it's a bit like a spade, but was it really a passive device or should one think of it as a servo rather than a balance? Thinking Blériot, the XI is perhaps the first aircraft to have a horn balanced rudder, though I've read the view that B did not understand the idea. Since it seems one has to turn this design with the rudder, not its ailerons which roll reverse, perhaps he did appreciate a lowering of stick forces even at his low speeds.TSRL (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There is something on the upper wing of the Blériot 115 lower pic that might be such a device but the image is far too low resolution to be helpful.TSRL (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
On my browser it's too low-res to see owt... however I've come across a photo of the thing without the mechanism, so I assume they were not successful. I also assume that they work as a normal aerodynamic balance, the balance surface working via bell cranks & cables rather than the much simpler dirct attachment. The only advantage I can see is that a smaller area would be sufficient becaouse of the moment produced by the long arm, but it seems like a needless complication to me.TheLongTone (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Caudron were working on aileron balance even earlier on their C.25. I wonder who was the first to try.TSRL (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand what problem they were trying to solve. The Caudron looks like a reversion to the days of trying to avoid Wright patents...the Caudron Type A had mid gap ailerons.TheLongTone (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
My reading is they were trying to what what an offset hinged aileron balance does: put a small area in front so the airstream assists the control input. The drawing shows the mid plane is almost (its a bit hard to see exactly) ahead of the aileron hinge line, so it behaves in the same way as the nose of the offset aileron, joined to both upper and lower ailerons by the two pairs of three links. If you go back a page, you'll see the midplanes are small and short span. The article claims that the three sources are, together, in balance, without saying quite what they mean.
On the history: an unsystematic search has found the Fokker D.V of Sept 1916 had overhung ailerons but they probably go back further.TSRL (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand control balance, it just seems an involved way to do it. Historically, balanced rudders {as you point out) go back at least as far as Bleriot & of course the idea comes from shibuilding. (I'm responsible for the claim that Brunel originated the idea in the balance article) Transferring the idea to the other surfaces does not seem a huge leap...maybe it was done when aircraft became fast & heavy enough for stick force to be a problem. interesting that the earliest occurrence you've found is a Fokker: from what I've read Fokker rarely made flights lasting more than a few minutes and had little appreciation of the needs of pilots who spent hours in the air.TheLongTone (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Flight in 1911 has an article which rather indirctly suggests balanced ailerons would be a good thing. like (existing) balanced rudders. Talk, though, not implementation.
Ah, the splendid Mervyn O'Gorman - yet another of my unfinished projects. In fact there were already aircraft with balanced ailerons, those using wingtip such as the Goupy II & the Bleriot IIIX, although I assume more by accident than design.TheLongTone (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Phenix Phenix[edit]

Hi TSRL: I was just looking at your new article here and I think we have a problem!! I had previously started Phenix Aviation Phenix!! - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Evening Ahunt. Argh! It's one of those possibilities that always worry one - I'm just working on a Speedtwin article but find it hard believe there's not one out there already. I've been all over Google and there's no sign, but ... I thought I had covered this one, too, but Google did not turn yours up. Anyway, you obviously have priority on the Phenix. Perhaps one of us should compare the two carefully and merge them, based on your article with any additional stuff from mine added, then get rid of mine. Do you know how to delete, or would we need a hand from the good Milborne2? Cheers, TSRL (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay I can take care of merging those! No need to delete your article, it should have been a redirect in the first place when I wrote the first one. That would have saved you the trouble! - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, see what you think and feel free to adjust! - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Well done!TSRL (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Glad that works for you! I made the Phenix Phenix page into a redirect, too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Time off Wikipedia[edit]

Enjoy your time away! Hope to see you back in a week or two - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As above...hope it's for pleasure not to cope with a crisis.TheLongTone (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for both the above kind messages. Not so much a crisis, more a long term necessity. Couple of heart valve repairs, which would be a lot less trouble if we had evolved an access panel. Not fun, but better done whilst still fit. I hope to be out in a week or two, though it will be longer before I am happily lugging JAWAs about. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Geez, that sounds serious! Get well soon! - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Access panels or not, at least they don't have to take your head off! Hope all goes well & a speedy recovery.TheLongTone (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Date revised to 5th December.TSRL (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Good to see you back, and Happy Christmas.TheLongTone (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like you are still with us! Good stuff! - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good to be back, though not quite warmed up yet. Thanks for the interest: Happy Christmas and a good New Year to you both!TSRL (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you have a good Christmas as well. Rest up! - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

DGTL ofr DTGL[edit]

Hi TSRL, these sources have it as DTGL which would make sense as DELLA TORRE, Gian Luigi.

Liens WEB: Site : Scale Soaring UK . Par Matteo Guzzi. Photos + plan original détaillé. (2012-04-23 CL)

  • Livres: Ali Misteriose, Teichfuss e Pavullo : oggi si vola a vela, RINALDI, Rino (1994) [p. 144. Mention + photo]
Alianti italiani, Rassegna tecnica e storica degli alianti italiani progettati e costruiti dal 1923 al 2000, PAJNO, Vittorio (2000) [p. 195, 196, 214. Photo +3-vues + specs]
Alianti Italiani d'Epoca, Italian vintage sailplanes, PEDRIELLI, Vincenzo (2011) [p. 206-207, 264. Note + 3 photos + plan 3 vues + specs]
I shall make the move, assuming it was just a typo on your part.--Petebutt (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it was, thanks.TSRL (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Project banner[edit]

Hi TSRL, Thought you might like to know where to find a template for the project banner:

Template:WikiProject Aviation

It makes it a lot easier for those that come after you to assess the article.--Petebutt (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; will do.TSRL (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Romeo Ro.35[edit]

The Romeo bit is the colloquial name of the manufacturer - IMAM / Meridionali. Sorted now. Excellent articles- Thanks.--Petebutt (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Schempp-Hirth Hi 21[edit]

Not sure you meant to create Schempp-Hirth Hi 21 in mainspace as it is a bit incomplete draft from what I can see, I have added a Template:New page to it to protect it for deletion for the time being. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd missed out the /. I've copied into by Sandbox but am not sure how to remove the mainspace version.TSRL (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem I have deleted the mainspace version for now. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!TSRL (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Article Grunau ESG 31[edit]

Hello. I've undid the edit on the article above because the Schneider Grunau Baby's full name is Schneider Grunau ESG31 Baby, and I believed the redirect page existed as an alternative spelling. However, if you believe that the redirect should not exist, please nominate it for deletion instead of blanking the page. Thanks! KJ click here 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There is a redirect form Schneider Grunau ESG31 Baby to Schneider Grunau Baby, as there should be. However, as Martin Simons spells out in Sailplanes 1920-1945, pp.85-7 makes clear, the Schneider ESG 31, or Schneider Grunau ESG 31, was a very different aircraft. It's true that there is a mention of it in the Baby article, though it could do with tweaking, but I think the ESG 31 warrants a piece of its own. One way forward would be to replace the redirect with such an article. If there's no objection I'll do that in a few days. Edmund Schneider's naming convention at the time (ESG+last two year digits) was tailor made to cause confusion. From what Simons says, these two may not be the only Schneider pairs built in the same year and therefore carrying the same number! CheersTSRL (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello, TSRL. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Daimler L15[edit]

The majority of references have the Daimler company designations without full stops but variously with or without a space. As most of the Daimler articles use no space or full stop I suggest that This article be brought into line with the others. --Petebutt (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No strong feelings on this, though the only contemporary article I've seen (Flight) uses L.15. It's certainly true that the Deutsche Museum report drops the .. Whatever,TSRL (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

von Loessl[edit]

In case you miss my reply!

I have looked a bit deeper , but am now even more confused. The Father was 'Ernst Johann Ludwig Ritter und Edler von Loessl (b. Rio Grande do Sul, 12.06.1865, d. Bad Neuenahr, 06.10.1931), who had four sons:-

  • Ernst von Loessl b 14.04.1894 Killed on the Western Front in 1917
  • Eugen von Loessl b 1895 Killed in 1920 on the Wasserkuppe

married Margarethe Mohn

  • Ottmar Hans Julius von Loessl b 20.08.1897 died at Köln, 08.07.1983

married Anna Luise Strack

  • Ulrich Bernhard Adolf von Loessl b 17.09.1910 died Bad Neuenahr, 07.11.1961

married Lini Diener

The question is, was Ernst the father also building / designing gliders?--Petebutt (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/MMPL Kanpur at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of MMPL Kanpur[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of MMPL Kanpur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for MMPL Kanpur[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 03:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LeO H.10.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:LeO H.10.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall unorphan it shortly, probably today. It's currently in my sandbox as I like to have the image(s) in place as I write. It should say non-replaceable in the description - perhaps I missed it out. I'll check. The use of Flight images has been OK'd by the editor, Michael Targett. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Potez 28[edit]

There are issues with what is known about this aircraft. I have started a discussion at Talk:Potez 28--Petebutt (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange article[edit]

G'day, what's the go with SWDFSWDF RGRGrg? Is it a test? YSSYguy (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Saved without renaming; marked for rapid del.TSRL (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

SNCAC NC.3021 Belphégor[edit]

Hi, Another excellent article. One niggle is that you quote the origin as the NC.3200. This doesn't seem correct, though the French designation systems were sometimes anarchic, Gaillard quotes the NC.3020, so i suspect you have introducesd a typo. I shall fix it.--Petebutt (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Morning, Well spotted. You're quite right, it should have been NC.3020, not NC.3200 which was my typo.TSRL (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Writer's barnstar.png The Writer's Barnstar
Awarded for the recent contributions of well researched and written French aircraft and aero engine articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't sit idle and watch you do all the work! Well done! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded - well earned! - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both - appreciated. France is always rich territory for aircraft and I was fortunate to get hold of all of Gaillard's post-war coverage. If I have to go to non-English sources, French is best (have a smattering). Happily, my partner did French and German at Uni. She's much more effective than Google translate, which is fairly pathetic; it could do with a slice of that $148bn thrown at it. Good editing - keep at it!TSRL (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

G'day from Oz, just wanted to congratulate you for your work on creating the Renault 6Q article. It's an article I had wanted to write since 2011 but I could never find enough sources to do it. Well done. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. The two Jane's were helpful but I'd like to have a bit of detail on the later subtypes - there was nothing on that in the post-war Jane's. I hope the numbers are right; they are those given by Hauptmann, who is not always right. Thanks also for the image; I'd be inclined to swap them round and put yours in the infobox since it shows more engine. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Briffaud aircraft[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Briffaud aircraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 21:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I see you've just put up Caudron C.67, and noticed that you referenced a French book on Caudron aircraft. There isa serious lack of Wikipedia articles on pre-WW1 caudron aircraft if you feel like dong a good deed in a naughty world: I've started User:TheLongTone/Caudron G.2 but ran into the familiar problem of accurate sourcing for the type number. You are welcome to swipe what I've started if you can use any of it and reliably source it to a specific type.TheLongTone (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Working on't. I may be some time ... TSRL (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC) I'm now sure the Flight machine is not the G.2. It has the early, rectangular rudders, whereas the G.2 had the near triangular that that first appeared on the type F. It may be the Flight job is a type D but I'm not yet certain. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected a typo in the draft. I still cannot find a Caudron in Hauet's book that fits the Flight data, even allowing for the usual spread. It's smaller than most. Still, perhaps I should stop worrying about the Flight machine, for Hauet does have an article on the G.2, your original target. Even here I have a concern, as he says the data comes from Jane's 1913. I have this and it doesn't!TSRL (talk)
Sense and early French aircraft types dont go together, but reason would point to the rectangular-ruddered ac bein the G2 & the later shape the G3. Oh well. But these machines are pretty important, and it's a shame that there does not seem to be enough reliable info.TheLongTone (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a Flight article about the G.2, at least in its floatplane form, here. This does not contain the G.2 designation, though the three-view says G; however, the photo of it taking-off is reproduced in Hauet's book in the G.2 article. Other photos show the nacelle on the lower wing; this is a characteristic of the G types which contrasts the earlier models with their suspended suspended nacelles. The earlier Flight article in your draft shows an example of the latter. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Wikiwings2.png Wikiwings
For amazing research and writing on Caudron aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm working backwards through Hauet's vol 1, thus starting at 1932, having guessed it was going to get increasingly hard to get the stories consistent with sources in the pre-WWI period. I was right, and had to heavily edit the N&M piece several times. But it's fun digging in the contemporary mags, mostly Flight and l'Aérophile. Slowing down now. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, splendid work....all that is needed now are come nice pictures!TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Strictly the G and G.2 remain to be done. That will complete all types for which Hauet has dug out enough martial for a WikiP article. There are comments and photos of the P and some of the Rs missing from WikiP but no dimension, specs etc. Pictures are a real problem; yes, you guess that this long ago they are out of copyright, but are you sure? Then you've got to be certain about i/d (I recently came across a pic of an R (conventional fuselage]] that the IWM, no less, had labelled as a G. (twin boom). Mislabelled in the IWM collection, I should say, but not their fault, except perhaps someone someone should have spotted it. Unless the image is in a citable article it's hard to be sure and of course the contemporary sources didn't do types. Plus a lot of Caudron types look very similar ... I'm taking a short time out on the Euler Hydro-Triplane (1913)!TSRL (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Avimeta AVM 132[edit]

Hello TSRL,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Avimeta AVM 132 for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Les Mureaux 3.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Les Mureaux 3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Villiers 31.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Villiers 31.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Omission corrected.TSRL (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


Wikiwings2.png Wikiwings
For all your methodical work on the Villiers series of aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are all I could find; lot of gaps in the numbers but 8 types in 7 years sounds enough. They don't knock 'em out like that any more. All sums done on mechanical calculators, slide rules or paper. No wonder quite a lot of their earlier models look rather similar.

I've got a Bréguet-Wibault in the hanger! Chhers,TSRL (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It is all great work, credit well earned! We need that sort of "completionism" here on the Aircraft Project. All you need to do now is write an article about the company! - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A rather gassy looking beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for the Buscaylet-de Monge 7-4, another curiosity...btw how are you getting on with the new btf website? I don't seem to be able to make it work, otherwise I'd be at the recently created article on the Coupe Deutsche de la Meurthe. TheLongTone (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and good health! The de Monge 7-5 is ready for a final polish in the morning before its move. I've got used to the new interface now and think it's better (though I've tried to forget the old one). I did curse initially at the similarity of move around the paper and zoom but am now relaxed. I find I don't need to break the search into as many pieces as before and I often start by searching all Gallica. If that gets too may hits and I know the year roughly, I'll work through L'Aérophile, L'Aéronautique and Les Ailes. Being able to see so much contemporary material, rather than the accumulated errors of interlinked web sites is a great reward; not easily done by anyone, even serious researchers, pre c.2005. Have you got any particular problem areas that are holding you back? With something like the CdM I'd go year by year; de la Meurthe on its own reaches a lot of unwanted stuff on the family etc.TSRL (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I simply can't read the pages. They load at an illegible size, & the 'zoom' function simply causes the page to reload with no change. Shame, apart from anything else my French vocabulary was improving. TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
After clicking the zoom button on the sidebar, you should have a new, horizontal bar with a set of buttons including +. That produces the zoom, up a bit with successive clicks; otherwise you can use the mouse scroll wheel, though that can be a bit fast zooming. It's as well to locate the article you want so you can keep it central whilst zooming, though the little yellow mark resulting from a search can be a bit hard to stop without any zooming, I find. Hope this helps, cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've just realized that you can get into zoom (etc) mode by double-clicking on the page.TSRL (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I hope yours was full of the best. Since I seem to have been asleep re talk page through January, here's to an excellent Easter! Easter eggs are coming into the shops and, for mysterious reasons, hot-cross buns have been around for a while. Still two months to go. Being a tidy chap, I'd like to see the date nailed down as they do in the Greek Orthodox (or the Russian?) church calendar.

Bessard-Millevoye Moineau[edit]

Hi TSRL, I see your point, but looking into the guidance for the specs template shows that only one engine should be used in the power-plant section. So we both need our bottoms spanking, Fnaar! Fnaar!--Petebutt (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair cop! I've put the Train 4T in, as that is the only one of the three to have an article; I've also moved the note into the Powerplant section. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of [[{{{1}}}]][edit]

Hello, TSRL. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, [[{{{1}}}]], for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on [[Talk:{{{1}}}|the article's talk page]]. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vinod 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete it (or I will). It escaped prematurely from my sandbox!TSRL (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Caudron 570[edit]

G'day; go your hardest, as we say in this part of the world. Here is what I found that might be useful to you:

  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4] May not be a Reliable Source
  • [5] possibly non-RS website but it states its data is sourced from Janes of 1936 and 1937
  • [6] and [7]

I have seen Caudron R.570, Caudron-Renault C.570, Caudron C.570 (which is how it's listed in the Caudron article) and C-570 as well. Good luck! Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply and the refs - I'll bash on then. I'd been thinking about getting Hauet book 2 (got book 1) but copies are not cheap. I'd missed the Flight article, which could be useful for those, like me, with weak French - I like to use such contemporary articles where they exist, as they are less likely to have gathered myth and mistakes. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adfgafaf agfbsafgfa[edit]

Hello TSRL,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Adfgafaf agfbsafgfa for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ name date year page
  2. ^ name & date year