Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

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

WikiProject Aircraft talk — archives

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  [ Jan-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2017  [ Jan- ]

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]

WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review
Peer review 
Fresno Yosemite International Airport

Curtiss Thrush

Template update?[edit]

I noticed that {{civairnd}} should probably be updated to include "2010s" in its first sequence.

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon[edit]

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Members of this WP are encouraged to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Dassault Falcon 50 Attack Version[edit]

A section on the Attack version of the Dassault Falcon 50 takes up a lot of the Dassault Falcon 50 but appears to be mainly bollox and the single source doesnt appear to work. It has also been repeated on the USS Stark page. Anybody have any reliable sources that this is not just made up stuff and they really armed a Falcon with Exocet missiles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a working link to the source used. Seems a pretty suspect story, does this website count as RS? Loopy30 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
War Is Boring is notorious for publishing what amounts to fringe theories as fact. In my opinion, it should treated as a blog site, and not as a reliable source. Perhaps one sentence or a short paragraph on the theory could be mentioned in the Falcon 50 article, but not a whole section presented as fact. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear lord have mercy, that site? Isn't that the one Sparky runs? That place ought to be outright blacklisted. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Sparky?? - BilCat (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think his actual name is Mike Sparks, but in military discussion circles nobody calls him anything but "Sparky". He's the guy who is the single point from which the whole "name the M113 'Gavin'" came from (a la H-45, anything you see claiming that as a legitimate thing is from Sparky having made it up one day). He's also...well, let's put it this way: when it comes to anything military, "bless his heart, he's special". Given that apparently in all earnestness (I hesitate to use the term "seriousness") he once suggested flying M113s to shoot down MiGs, and no I am not kidding... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
As a footnote, having managed to look it up without risking any braincells, it's CombatReform that is his bin of madness, not WarIsBoring, although IIRC he does write for the latter and both get a reliablity rating of F-. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
here is a forum discussion, with a couple of images, which suggests that a Falcon 50 was converted for target towing and possibly attack pilot training, but is unable to fathom the USS Stark story. There is said to be an article about the converted plane in the French magazine Fana de l'Aviation for January 2009. Overall, the thread suggest to me that the USS Stark incident and the "attack" version of the Falcon 50 lack RS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
First impression is the image is similar to a Falcon 20 Mirage Systems Trainer, which has a Mirage radar in the nose although I cant find an image of one on the net. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna go one step beyond and say "outright WP:HOAX. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This certainly sounds like bollocks, and all the sources I've seen attribute this to a Mirage F1. Integrating sophisticated guided missiles onto aircraft is a complex and expensive affair, as is training aircrew to use them properly, and it makes no sense for a light passenger plane to have been converted to this role when Iraq had the highly capable Mirages for this role. I note that the link given in the article (to the rather uneven War is Boring) is now dead. 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I have removed the section from Falcon 50 and tweaked the Stark article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Watch the language...[edit]

Motivated by noting this edit: assuming we include Cyrillic versions of the name, should Antonovs include Ukrainian, or Russian, as their "native language" name in articles? Since the vast majority of them were built Back in the U.S.S.R., but the company is based in Kiev (and is thus, post-'91, Ukranian)... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Although the Ukranians will not like it they are a product of the Soviet Union and would have been named in Russian, strange though the "Антонов Ан-10" is correct in both Russian and Ukrainian. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Airbus A318 - GA or C-class, or both?[edit]

How is the Airbus 318 a GA by Engineering and Technology while still a C-class in the aircraft project? David notMD (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

GA and FA are Wikipedia-wide ratings and out-rank project level ratings. The project banners should all list GA, but keep any B-class checklists in case the GA rating in lost/taken away. -Finlayson (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Still a jolt to see GA and C-class. Interestingly, for vitamin C, all eight checklists went to GA. I am guessing linked, somehow. David notMD (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)