Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

G.91Y image on it.wiki

There is a nice image of an Italian Air Force G.91Y (the twin engine variant) at it:Immagine:G-91Y al museo di Vigna di Valle 01.jpg. It appears to have been donated to WP by the museum exclusively for WP, and as such cannot be posted to Commons. However, I cannot tell if the image is licensed it.wiki alone, as I don't read Italian. Could someone look into this and see if it is transferrable to en.wiki? I am working (very slowly) on an article for the G.91Y, and this is the best image that I have been able to find of the aircraft. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not usable here on en because the licence is for non-commercial use only and therefore non-free. En stopped allowing this sort of image back in 2005. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. That's what I need to know. Anyone going to Italy soon? :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We (the Italian Wikiproject aviation members I mean) live in Italy. Unfortunately it is not a matter of having opportunities to take photos of VdV G91Y, but the problem is we cannot release them in the public domain due to a clear museum notice which forbids it. In truth, we asked for a way for publishing our photos made as normal visitors for educational use (in Italy we have no “fair use” or "free view rights" at all) and we only obtained this “half permission” from the museum director. We faced this situation this way, invoking it.wiki EDP rules, as there are no so well preserved G91Y around anymore and we have apparently no other way to obtain free images. Anyway, always feel free to contact it.wiki aviation project talk page where there are for sure people eager to give an hand to our English speaking colleagues (as far as we can). --EH101 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors

Had a go at finding a better format for the survivors articles as the current presentation is a bit fan boyish and uses lots of acronym/abbreviations and external links. Please look at B-47 Stratojet survivors comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the format looks good - the tables are a helpful way to display the information and reduces clutter considerably. The only concern I have is that the images, because they don't fit in with the tables, create a lot of excess whitespace. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the images inside the table, looks better. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have my user preferences set to 300px (so I always see the "worst case" when working on articles) and it really stretches the table a bit. How forcing the thumbnails to the normal default of 180 px so that the table always works well, regardless of user preferences? - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK tried another tweak. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks really good now! I like it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me too. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zlin/Morovan aircraft

As you may have noticed, Moravan Otrokovice Z 43 has just survived this AFD, with the comment that the articles covering the Z 40 series (i.e. Z 42, Z 142 and Z 242 two seaters, and Z 43 and Z 143 two seaters are a mess, and proposing some sort of merger. Having looked at them, they certainly appear to be in a bit of a state, with inconsistant article names, format and coverage with lots of overlapping and duplication between the articles.There certainly seems to be milage for a merger between the Z 43 and Z 143 articles, and possibly between the articles for the two and four seater aircraft as they are closely related. We also could do with deciding what to name the articles - are they Morovan Otrokovice Z xx, Zlin Z xx or Morovan Zlin Z xx?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Zlin Trener and Zlin Trener & Akrobat should probably be merged (and improved drastically!).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-war Zlin firm (located at Otrokovice) was renamed Moravan Narodni Podnik in 1949. However, the aircraft themselves continued to be called Zlin (as explicitly noted by Mondey's New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft under both the "Zlin" and "Moravan" entries). The continued usage of the name "Zlin" for the aircraft themselves can be found in various Jane's All the World's Aircraft over the years, and indeed the company website. I don't think there can really be any choice other than "Zlin Z 26" "Zlin Z 43" etc. I'm still trying to find out how the article cam to be PRODded, but while all the various Google searches cited in the PROD template all drew exactly zero hits for "Moravan Otrokovice Z 43" they all came up with a healthy number of hits for "Zlin Z 43". I'll get onto this now. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Siddeley engines

Working through the {{ASaeroengines}} navbox there is one redlink that I can not find any information on, the Armstrong Siddeley Cougar, the only page I found on the net was this [1] which lists this engine but also the Armstrong Siddeley Nimbus, a phantom engine that was discussed here and prodded due to non-existance. The Cougar should appear in Lumsden's book if it flew, if it existed but did not fly then it is probably non-notable. The Deerhound and Ounce did exist and fly, will produce articles for them in time. Cross checking the list of aircraft engines the 'Cougar' is there and curiously a 'Gipsy' and 'Hornet' (DH Moths, must be a gremlin?). So I am just checking if anyone has any info on the 'Cougar' before I remove the redlink from the navbox. Thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have looked in the Flight archive! [2], also found it in Janes. Maybe it did not fly? If that's the case then I just want to check if it is notable enough for an article (I would say that it is due to it's departure from traditional AS designs). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines on usage of nicknames and code names

Over time, we’ve been evolving a general consensus regarding “non-official” names – nicknames, code names, etc. – but it’s not captured in our style, page content or naming convention guidelines. Here’s a rough first pass I’d like to offer up for discussion:

Use of aircraft nicknames and code names: Officially assigned nicknames (e.g., F-22 Raptor) are treated as part of the full name of an aircraft; accordingly, they should be used in the article name (in accordance with specific guidance per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)), and may be used – preferably sparingly – throughout the article. Commonly used, but unofficial nicknames (e.g., "Warthog" for the A-10 Thunderbolt II) should be identified in the introduction, but rarely used in the main text.

Code names, most notably WWII wartime cryptonyms assigned to Japanese aircraft and NATO reporting names for Soviet and Chinese aircraft, should never be used in the article name, as they are not part of the proper, official name of the aircraft; they were often assigned because the actual designation was unknown; uncertain or unwieldy. They should, however, be identified in the introduction, for the sake of historical reference, and in the section on variants, if relevant.

Also, I’m unsure whether this should be added, since there are several places that make some sort of sense: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide – which involves all of aviation, not just aircraft; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) – although this goes beyond just naming; or Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content – either as a subheader under “Name” or “Body” or perhaps as a separate section.

Thoughts on wording and placement are appreciated. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal sounds good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK perhaps part one should go in the naming convention and both parts in the style guide. Is it worth adding that official names should not be placed in quotes for example P-51 "Mustang" as these sometime appear when editors dont know the difference between official and unofficial/nicknames. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Mil! I'd meant to include that, but I keep getting interrupted by "honey-do's". BTW, I'd also meant to suggest some further distinguishing treatment: I’ve been NATO code names in single quotes so they’ll stand out as something different from a name, but not a nickname (which I place in double quotes, if unofficial). I'd further like to recommend leaving the code names outside of wikilinks to the article (i.e., as straight "black" text). Askari Mark (Talk) 19:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mil helicopter series lists the NATO reporting name in parentheses using double quotation marks (e.g. Mil Mi-8). Under the WP:LEAD style guideline, additional names should be bolded on first occurrence. Under the Mil articles, it seems that has been applied solely to designations and not to nicknames. --Born2flie (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born2flie raises a good point. Since the code names are not "real" names – or even normal nicknames – should they be bolded at first mention as well? Generally, I've noticed that editors have not been bolding them. (I haven't.) Thoughts/opinions? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the NATO reporting names should be bolded and possibly used in the infobox name (but not in the article title). There is a certain age generation of 'Cold War defenders' that will remember the name more than the type number. (including myself!). Often wondered if the Russian aircraft had their own names (instead of just numbers), can't think of one. A new navbox for NATO reporting names would be very useful (talked myself into a job there!) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that NATO reporting names should be treated cautiously and that more preference should be given the names and nicknames of the operating services or country of origin, rather than those by NATO, for NPOV sake. Hip and Hind are easily recognizable, but Hook, Hoplite, Hound, etc. are not so well known these days. There was also an apparently short lived or else obscure guideline for lead sections where additional names of an article's subject were italicized, and this may be more appropriate or at least more palatable for highlighting nicknames and codenames without seeming to elevate them to the same status as the country/manufacturer designation. --Born2flie (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand caution about using the NATO names, this line is from the article: 'Perhaps for reasons of morale, NATO nicknames are weak or laughable eg: Soviet fighter aircraft: 'flogger', 'fishbed' & 'frogfoot' - compared to Nato fighter names such as 'Eagle' 'Lightning' 'Tornado' etc.' I note that the statement is unreferenced and probably should not be in the article. My perception of the system was that it was intended as an easy way to cover all the types and never thought of it as being derogatory, although some of the names were strange. Many of the Soviet aircraft articles already have the reporting name in the lead (and bolded), if the finalised guideline is not to mention the NATO name then we would strictly have to remove it from articles. Not fussed either way, I can see that the goal here is to get consistency across the project.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with not including the NATO name. I mean, for goodness sake, how many English-speaking countries are members or allies of NATO? This being the English Wikipedia, the exclusion of NATO names will be 1) immediately recognized, and 2) initiate endless reversions of editors trying to insert the NATO reporting name back into the article. They're already in the articles. Our project should probably come up with an opinion and discuss with WPMILHIST to establish a unified guideline. I think the opinions are

The reporting name is an additional name and should be bolded according to the WP:LEAD guideline.
The reporting name can be controversial and should not be treated as equal to primary designations, so italics may be used.
The reporting name should not be highlighted by bolding or italics at all, and quotations should be used to establish the name outside of giving preference to any POV.

Given what I've seen regarding the discussion, I think #3 is the best option as I've seen in the Mil helicopter articles, but arguments for #1 will be hard to defeat since the MOS is often used to trump project guidelines, no matter what the logic is behind the deviation from the MOS. NATO reporting names were originally given according to the type of aircraft: B — bomber (Bear, Badger, Blinder); C — cargo (Cub, Condor, Cossack); H — helicopter (Hip, Hind, Havoc, Hokum); F — fighter (Fishbed, Fulcrum, Flogger, Foxbat). I'm not sure if that is still true. --Born2flie (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)I think I was getting my wires slightly crossed, Mark's proposal was not to mention the NATO name (or any nickname) in the article title (which I agree with), I read it as 'not to be included in the text' which was wrong. Certainly worth clarifying how these names are to be handled in the text. Is an official nickname actually an official name?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have been going around in circles the original post from Askari Mark simply suggests that unofficial names (includes NATO codenames) shouldnt be used in the article titles or in the body of the text to describe the aircraft apart from a mention in variants to relate codenames to different variants and any nicknames and codenames are mentioned in the lead/introduction. The POV point was that the codenames were being used in descriptive text and tables as if they were real names, which they are not. I think the only bit of contention is should they be bolded or in italics.MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's make it clear. I'm not at all recommending eliminating NATO code names. That's been proposed and discussed, and the consensus has been to include them in the intro but not the title of an aircraft article. I'm merely trying to codify a way to highlight them while also distinguishing them format-wise from official names (e.g., Sukhoi Su-25), historical nicknames (e.g., "Grach"), and NATO cryptonyms (e.g., 'Frogfoot') so that they’re consistent and clear what they are “at a glance”. Thus we would have, format-wise, something along the line of “Sukhoi Su-25 Shturmovik, nicknamed "Grach" ("Rook" or "Crow"), (NATO reporting name 'Frogfoot')” – if the Russians had actually given it that name formally – as what you might find in an introduction; only the formal designation and name (if any) should appear as the article name. Of course, this is part of also capturing the current consensus on this element of naming, per se.

Regarding NATO’s selection of cryptonyms being intentionally derogatory, this is a long-standing myth. It generally stems from the use of ‘Fagot’ for the MiG-15 and the ignorance of its original meaning as a bundle of sticks – the usual and most widespread meaning in those days. I’ll remove the one Nimbus pointed out, but they should be eradicated wherever found. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's a pretty much perfect formulation. The only thing missing from the example is a case where the "official" nickname (in this case, "Shturmovik") is immediately followed by a translation. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend the translation follow parenthetically, as done for Grach. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I was just noting that it's the one element absent from the example (and I don't think that "Shturmovik" is such a good example, unless there's a more literal translation than "Attack aircraft" that I'm not aware of). It would be nice to come up with a "canonical" example with all the elements in place that we could then document as a model. Can anyone think of an example of an aircraft that had an official name in a language other than English and a nickname in a language other than English and a (NATO/Allied/other) reporting name? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Shturmovik was an artificial example; in fact, it was an unofficial nickname for the Su-25, as well as the class. As for your question, off the top of my head, the closest I can come right now is perhaps "A6M, Rei shiki Kanjo sentoki (Type 0 Carrier Fighter), nicknamed "Zero", "Zero-sen", and "Rei-sen", (Allied code name 'Zeke')"? Frankly, the difficulty in coming up with an example that covers all the bases is reassuring in that there won't be too many occasions with excessive nomenclature clutter – which can usually be handled in those rare cases by not doctrinarily stuffing them all in the same sentence. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-3 Sentry specifications

Hi to all. I'm an aero-wiki-translate-writer from it.wiki (with my usual problem of limited vocabulary). Ihe work I'm doing now is removing POV from a few pages in it.wiki and to see your E-3 Sentry Royal Air Force/Royal Saudi Air Force/French Air Force specifications I suspect a misunderstanding. The loaded weight is 335,000 lb (152,090 kg) but is major than max takeoff weight, 334,000 lb (151,636 kg). It's a mistake? I await your response, thanks :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, MTOW is 347,000 pounds (156,150 kilograms) according to http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=98.~~ Actually NATO lists the MTOW even lower (147,429 kg / 325,000 lb). I can't find the loaded weight in their documents, but it's not impossible for the loaded weight to be higher than the MTOW since they support aerial refueling. - Berkoet (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the figures are correct because many aircraft have a 'Maximum Ramp Weight' which is higher than the MTOW to allow for fuel burn during start-up and taxi, the specifications of the Gulfstream G550 show this as an example. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Good flies--Threecharlie (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specs template issue

Template {{Aircraft specifications}} currently has a format flaw. The Armament bolded label does not start on a new line like it should in some cases. See Sukhoi Su-34, Eurofighter Typhoon, and AH-1 Cobra for examples. It seems to work OK if the gun, missile & rocket fields are used instead such as with A-10 Thunderbolt II. I tried one fix and Nigel Ish did also without much luck. Maybe people that understands the template code better than me can help with this. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could just use {{aerospecs}} ! MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It worked OK until recently, revert to earlier version?GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the benighted thing. :P --Rlandmann (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super! Thank you. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License-built

Many aircraft engines are built under license in other countries, probably more so than aircraft. What if we added a "Licensee" field to Template:Infobox Aircraft Engine? Any thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about |other_manufacturer= (use it in the same style as aircraft Infobox parameter |other_users= ie no more than three. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a better approach; not all copies are licenced copies, and sometimes our sources don't explicitly say that a licence was obtained and we shouldn't simply assume that. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions; I'm fine with them. - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Aircraft Directory

The British Aircraft Directory website [3] appears to have gone offline and has been offline for a few days now. It is used frequently as an external link for British aircraft types (particularly the more obscure ones) and occasionally as a reference. We may need to see if we can find replacements for where it is used as a reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the site doesn't appear to qualify as reliable, instances where it's been used as a reference should be replaced if possible in any case. The domain is still registered - maybe the owner has just not paid his hosting fee or has exceeded his bandwidth allowance? We should probably wait at least a couple of weeks before starting to remove External links. After that time, instances were it's been used as a reference and which can't be quickly replaced might be redirected to pages in the archived version of the site. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life magazine photo archive

I read earlier today that the photo archive of 'Life' magazine is now hosted on Google, I forgot about it until now when someone just sent sent me a link [4] of a selection of F-104 photos from the archive. Not sure if their archive photos can be used on WP but they are certainly interesting, must be thousands in there. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Links to redirects

Something strange on Slingsby Aviation, a User has created articles from all the redlinks that then redirect back to Slingsby Aviation. He/She then removed all the (now blue) links from the article. I reverted the removal of links then realised I have added back the circular links! so I have self reverted for the moment. If all the red links are changed into redirects it does make it difficult to see what needs to be created. One minor point is all the redirects dont meet the article naming convention anyhow (Slingsby T.42 Eagle instead of Slingsby Eagle). Any thoughts should it be stopped before it spreads to other aircraft articles? MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politely explain to the user what they are doing and how it affects our work? One of the problems is the inability to undo the creation of the redirect - something has to in its place hence a couple of stubby Slingsby aircraft articles I'v just created.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a couple of points. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Milborne's point, but I see no problem with redirects being created which use all manner of variations of an aircraft's name. The point of having a redirect is that if someone is looking for the article and they don't know the WP naming convention and enter a different variation, they'll still get there. As for removing a bad redirect, you can always tag it for CSD or drop a note to me or one of the other admins in the project. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you say Akradecki but my main point is the loss of the redlink (to whatever variant of the name) gives a false impression that the article has been created. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I fully agree with that...having a reasonable number of redlinks is a good thing. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree that if specific redlinks have been turned blue by redirecting them to the company then they should be made red again, I have not looked closely at what has been happening, I've added an image to Slingsby T.21. I have taken some photos of the T30 Prefect, T49 Capstan and T51 Dart today if articles get started (not fantastic as they are all stuck in the hangar at this time of year). On naming conventions for Slingsby gliders, Janes give the full name and number i.e. 'Slingsby T.31 Tandem Tutor' etc., or just the manufacturer and number (Slingsby T.21B). Martin Simons in his book titles the chapters 'Type 31 Tandem Tutor' and abbreviates the types with a hyphen instead of a dot (T-31 etc). A quick glance at a Slingsby generic repair manual treats the later types at least as T59, T65 etc. (no dot or hyphen). Some types on the field are almost always known by their name Vega or their number T21. Probably doesn't help much but it's some info. The Slingsby Aviation section at List of gliders has type numbers in the wiki code but uses a piped name in most cases. The code in Slingsby Aviation lists them slightly differently so there is currently some scope for confusion, perhaps the redlinks in the list and the company article should be aligned to reflect the project naming convention. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion - Raj Hamsa Ultralights

The WikiProject article on this fairly prominent aircraft manufacturer has been nominated for deletion on the basis that it lacks non-company refs and therefore does not meet notability requirements. Please feel free to add your comments one way or the other or, better yet, add some refs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts too. Thank you to everyone who dived in - we dodged that bullet. - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T53 image requests

I've been working on the Lycoming T53 page, and found a display cutaway engine. However, I've not been able to find an under-the-cowl pic of a T53 so far. The article is long enough for at least one more image, so it would be nice to find one in a Huey or AH-1 if possible, but any other type would work to, including an OV-1. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Lady

I proded Lethal Lady with the comment Does not appear to be notable every aircraft type has one aircraft that has the most hours it appears not to have done anything else of note, at the most a one liner in the F-16 article. The prod was removed without comment. Next step would be either request a merge with F-16 or take it to AfD. Any opinions please. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that at best this should be a paragraph in the F-16 article - I would recommend merging it into the F-16 article and making Lethal Lady a simple redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly notable. I'd actually just delete it unless it's vastly exceeding the expected hours for the airframe. SDY (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft specifications: More parameters

A user has just introduced a couple of new parameters to {{aircraft specifications}} – lift-to-drag ratio and fuel consumption. Since these belong to a level of detail that are inconsistent with what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article describing an aircraft type, I removed them, asking that s/he get consensus here first, but s/he simply reverted the edit.

Can anyone recall seeing these specifications reported in an encyclopedia or encyclopedia-type work? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you about being to detailed they dont appear in the general works I have. Not sure how you could reliably measure fuel consumption with so many different variables. I would suggest they are not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'm not used to seeing them as a "table" type of data, only in discussion. Both vary widely depending on how the plane is used. "Lift-to-drag ratio and fuel consumption at cruising speed and altitude" might be of interest, particularly fuel consumption for airliners, but they would have to be caveated (not a word) to specific conditions of use. Reheat kinda changes fuel consumption... SDY (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're just supposed to give you a general idea about the aircraft, and they, like everything else in the wikipedia are supposed to be referenced to a reputable source.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've seen either in a spec listing in any books or magazines. But lift to drag seems reasonable and might could be used by gliders and powered gliders. In any event the more general/more performance fields in the template can handle these extra specs as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. If you don't at least have the attribute then it will be added inconsistently throughout the wikipedia. Then it's harder to find, and you can't decide policy centrally. There's a difference between having the attribute and whether it appears or not. You're claiming it's a good idea to have it and have no central control over it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two new fields do seem rather OTT - they are not the sort of thing normally listed in specifications for most of the aircraft we have articles for, even in references like Jane's All the World's Aircraft. They are also the sort of data that as SDT says would need to be very heavily caveated (for example at what weight, at what speed etc).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of this discussion makes much sense to me. There was already maybe two dozen or more articles that listed lift to drag ratios in their tables, and I found a few also that listed fuel consumption, and I wasn't really looking. And all I did was add optional parameters to simplify the markup; the articles already had it. Some notable aircraft have interesting L/D ratios, like Concorde, some of the fighters, Valkyrie etc. etc. I even found that the Cessna 150 had an unusually low L/D. I must stress that it's an optional parameter and not one that we would be insisting or expecting people to add to most articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these aren't constant values, and if we're reporting them in the specs, they have to be listed with the conditions where they apply. I don't know if there's a standard way of expressing this that's used for comparison in aviation, but I don't see how it can be cut down to a single number when it isn't given in a consistent and rigorously defined context. MTOW and other parameters listed have robust definitions and when people are comparing an A380 and a SPAD they have some comfort that they are comparing apples and apples. SDY (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a 'reference' isn't it? If the reference is any good it will specify conditions. And if the editor is any good he will copy them into the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are tons of specs that you could add, but those are POH type items and not found in general references books, so unlikely to be completed by anyone who doesn't have the POH handy. Too much detail for an encyclopedia, I say remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this, then I'm seriously asking when you intend to remove the table in lift-to-drag ratio. After all, that kind of information is only found in POH right? And nobody could ever want to know it otherwise? Are you going to AFD the article or shall I???? p.s. where do I find the POH of a tern? ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]