Talk:Aermacchi MB-326/Archive 1

Untitled
Tannin appears to prefer this version of a part of a sentence:


 * Flight testing showed that the type had spirited performance and viceless handling characteristics

while I prefer


 * Flight testing showed that the type had good performance and handling characteristics.

I argue that "spirited" and "viceless" are not merely descriptive words, but are POV. I don't even know what "spirited" would mean in the context of aircraft performance. Perhaps we could come up with a compromise that is clear and NPOV but gets across what you would like to say? moink 23:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not think that "spirited" and "viceless" are particularly less NPOV than "good". Neutral doesn't mean flat and lifeless, and I think that's what you're pushing here.  After all, even "good" is an opinion.  In this case, we are reporting an opinion explicitly -- that of the Italian Air Force and its test pilots, which led to them deciding to buy the aircraft.  &mdash;Morven 02:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, if what they called it was "spirited" a quote would be great. I guess you're right that good is also an opinion... although at least I can find graphs that show "good" handling qualities as a purely mathematical function of frequency and damping ratio of the natural modes.  At least I understand what "viceless" means, though it's an odd word, but I don't even know what one would mean in terms of "spirited" performance.  moink 02:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Agile, nimble, "hot". I suspect if you wanted to, this could probably be expressed as a range of wing loadings and thrust-to-weight ratios. However, "spirited" is a descriptive term, not an engineering one. I agree that NPOV doesn't necessarily mean using the "flattest" term possible. --Rlandmann 02:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Both terms are colorful descriptive terms, rather than engineering/scientific terms, which I think is the issue. I suspect moink, as one studying engineering according to their user page, has the scientist's/engineer's propensity for using, indeed, the 'flattest' term possible because it's the one most likely to have no unintended shadings of meaning.  However, we're not writing for such an audience; we're writing a general encyclopedia, and I submit that for that audience, using more 'colorful' words helps make articles livelier and more readable.


 * I've seen the words 'viceless' and 'spirited' being used to describe aircraft before, and I don't find the usages unusual. The only issue I have with them at all is that they're a little over-used in the enthusiast press; hard to find a trainer that's not described as 'viceless'. &mdash;Morven 07:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I was agreeing with you - just re-read my comment and realised that may not have been clear! :) --Rlandmann 12:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... you have a good point about my POV. I certainly couldn't put those kinds of words in any report I could write.  But I have to point out, while the audience is not my professors, it is also not the same as the readers of enthusiast magazines.  And of course, those magazines (I've read a few articles, but not many... I find them... errr... imprecise :) are not bound by NPOV policy or anything like it.  I like "agile."  That at least is something I understand.  Does spirited performance maybe mean the aircraft is agile and powerful?  I would be happy with that.  moink 21:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Agile and powerful would do fine. And yes, aircraft enthusiast magazines are notable for their enthusiasm over their accuracy ... as in all fields. &mdash;Morven 22:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I don't see how "agile" is any more precise (or less POV) than "spirited". I just googled the phrase "spirited performance" and threw in the word "engine" to make sure I was confining results to vehicles. This particlar combo returned 2,400 hits, mostly about cars but showing that this word is indeed in common usage when describing machinery --Rlandmann 00:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New edits
Although I am tempted to simply revert the whole textdump, can other editors look at this work and help improve it. FWIW Bzuk 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Hi Bill, just effecting a few quick fixes for the time being, but there is a great deal to go through and understand before a more in-depth rework of some of the information and grammar. As with other articles that have had the same "treatment", it can get a bit tedious and easy to lose interest. --Red Sunset 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * R, I have now resigned myself to simply marking articles for improvement. If you or any army of editors tried to get a handle on these overwleming number of submissions, you would run out of lifespan. [:¬∆ FWIW Bzuk 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Bill, it's already taken years from me! (My wife is checking out the life-insurance policies as we speak!) --Red Sunset 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's time for the RFC. He is not even TRYING! - BillCJ 23:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stay calm.--Stefanomencarelli 12:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After giving this article sufficient time to be looked at, isn't it time for a complete revamp, especially the first development section that reads like pulp fiction. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC).

After reading the Primary Users section, I can´t understand why the Brazilian Air Force was not included. According this article´s own Operators list, Brazil has the second largest fleet of these aircraft, manufactured there under license by Embraer, with 182 aircraft, of which 167 were for the Brazilian Air Force. Compare to 125 with the Italian Air Force, 97 with the Royal Australian Air Force and 19 with the Argentine Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.0.94 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Operational History
The Argentine Navy used this plane from fields on the islands during the Falkland War to attack targets on the ground and at sea. This should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.97.42 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Requirements
This article is a mess. Somebody, (not me - I've just spent most of the evening on it !), needs to look at other aircraft articles and see how it should be done. Improvements should include:


 * 1. Imperial measurements needed in the first part of the article, (behind the SI ones).
 * 2. A lot of information in the 'Operational History' section seems to be repeated in the 'Variants' section and again in the 'Operators' section. Is this necessary ?
 * 3. The US is only mentioned in the 'Operators' section.

RASAM (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

CT 4
RAAF pilot training in 1985 consisted of 60 hours pre-selection on CAC Winjeels, 150 hours medium and another 75 hours advanced training on MB-326s,

I'm certain that the Winjeel was not in use in 1985, it was replaced by the CT4 in August 1975. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonturnham (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands
It was not an MB326 to hit the british frigate "Argonaut" in San Carlos Waters during the 1982 war. Teniente Crippa was flying a MB339, and hit the frigate by gunfire. The ref here is not correct; see "One hundred days" also for details. Pigr8 Melius esse quam videri  10:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Crippa flew a MB-339 according to Falklands: The Air War by Burden et al of the British Air Research Group, and as included in the MB-339 article. MB-326s were not deployed to the islands during the war.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)