Talk:Aero L-39 Albatros/Archive 1

lithuanian air force...
there's a strange inconsistency in the list of users... the lithuanian air force is mentioned twice with two different sets of aircraft... i suppose the latter one is correct but this is just a hunch... - Blueshade 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

specification format question
I wanted to make some changes, but I have noticed that most pages about airplanes have a certain format (giving only certain information) so I wonder if that is part of some project or..? (I am quite new on wikipedia). Data I wanted to add/change is: Dimensiones
 * Length overall: 12.13 m (39 ft 9½ in)
 * Height overall: 4.77 m (15 ft 7¾ in)
 * Wingspan: 9.46 m (31 ft 0½ in)
 * Wing chord (mean): 2.15 m (7 ft 0½ in)
 * Tilplane span: 4.40 m (14 ft 5 in)

Areas
 * Wings (gross): 18.80 m² (202.36 ft²)
 * Ailerons (total): 1.23 m² (13.26 ft²)
 * Airbrakes (total): 0.50 m² (5.38 ft²)
 * Vertical tail surfaces: 3.51 m² (37.78 ft²)
 * Tailplane: 3.93 m² (42.30 ft²)

Weights and Loadings and some more - Icemaja 13:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weight empty, equipped:
 * C 3,459 kg (7,625 lb)
 * ZO 3,488 kg (7,690 lb)
 * ZA 3,656 kg (8,060 lb)
 * Maximum take-off weight:
 * C 4,700 kg (10,362 lb)
 * ZO and ZA 5,600 kg (12,346 lb)
 * Fuel load:
 * fuselage tanks 824 kg (1,816 lb)
 * wingtip tanks 156 kg (344 lb)
 * Maximum wing loading:
 * C 250.0 kg/m² (51.23 lb/ft²)
 * ZO and ZA 297.9 kg/m² (61.01 lb/ft²)


 * All aircraft articles are under Wikiproject Aircraft. See WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content for recommended layout. WP:Air is currently using a template to generate specifications. However, you can add specifications beyond what is in the template -- the template page explains how to do it. The specifications in the template are the result of a consensus among project members. A question to ask of yourself is whether the extra specifications you want to add will significantly contribute to helping the reader understand the aircraft. Wikipedia is not a flight manual and including every tiny parameter may be excessive. If you wish to use unconventional parameters C, ZO, and ZA parameters (whatever they are), you must explain to the readers what they mean and why they are significant by making them wikilinks and writing wikipages about them. Thanks for contributing! - Emt147 Burninate!  17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a prompt answer. I just read the article and I see that rules are still quite loose, but I also prefere articles to be standardised to a certain degree. However I must say that I do prefere the old table standard to this, mostly 'cause it is more informative and easyer to view. Also I would like to have more information than this format supposes. I believe that people visiting these pages are truley interested in airplanes. On the other side I am an aircraft engineer so for me every information is valuable, but I must say that what I wrote above is a standard piece of information about any aircraft.
 * p.s. The C, ZO, and ZA are aircraft versions mentioned earlier in the text. - Icemaja 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The table vs in-line specs has been discussed back and forth. The problem with the table is that it takes up a large amount of space even at high screen resolutions. Regardless, we are in the process of converting all specs to a template so the layout can be quickly changed across all pages if it comes to that. As far as C, ZO, and ZA, as you've read, the consensus is to present one most representative version. Differences between versions can be elucidated in the Variants section of the article.

The issue with too many specs is that 99% of the aircraft will not have things like tailplane span and aileron area available. Hence, it's easier to write them in manually than to include them in the template which most of the time would simply generate an unnecessary load on the servers. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I scrolled hrough the text last night so I didn't even opet the airtemp page. Ups! So thanks for converting it and I'll be sure to use the template from now on. One thing though, it would be better to use another way to mark new lines (those not in the template) other than with (*) since now it looks like those lines are connected to the line above them... - Icemaja 11:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The way to work around the template indentation issue is to end your alt line with ) and start a new, fully-formatted line with .


 * This page WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content has instructions on how to quickly insert the template or even create an entire new pre-filled page for aircraft. - Emt147 Burninate!  18:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Advertising ?
Does external link to "Pride Aircraft" meet "Advertising and conflicts of interest" [] policy requirements ?

In my opinion, yes. --Woodp5 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)