Talk:List of most-produced aircraft

Po-2
According to the Polikarpov Po-2 Wiki, it is the most produced airplane at 40,000+ 68.94.48.103 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages --Jklamo 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I modified the entry to reflect this. However, as I noted earlier, we need to do a better job of sourcing. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is important, but as i mentioned before, it will be better to request sources in corresponding articles than there. --Jklamo 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AN-2
Most An-2 were built in Poland.
 * How many were built in each country? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

109
I edited the Bf/Me-109 row to show that production under license continued until 1956 in Czechslovakia and Spain. (UTC?)

Piper PA-28
I added in the PA-28 and PA-32 in the table. Now, the latter is a stretched version of the former, and the former is full of rather varied aircraft. I figure it's reasonable to split along the PA-28 and PA-32 lines, though someone more knowledgeable about the various ins and outs of the family would know better. (C-172 flier myself)75.177.89.4 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yak-9
Yak-1, 3 and 9 with all subvariants are essentially the same type of aircraft in a way all versions of Spitfire or Bf-109 are. Maybe it would be more accurate to put a sum of all these next to Yak-1 to 9 family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.243 (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

MiG-21 and -17
The MiG-21 and -17 were developed solely in the Soviet Union and their production numbers reflect those produced by the USSR and not by any other country. The PRC developed derivative aircraft of the -21 and -17 and it is inaccurate to list PRC as co-developer of these aircraft. List J-7 and J-5 separately if need be. --Incidious (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire total
I corrected an apparent typing error on the Spitfire total. The number in Supermarine Spitfire agrees with several apparently dependable sites that I found on Google, and agrees with the previous number in this wikipage except for one digit (22,351 vs 20,351). If somebody has more reliable data, he may correct this page, but should also correct the Spitfire page. Thanks.Raymondwinn (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

150/152
Shouldn't the 150 and 152 totals be together? One is a modernized version of the other. Other aircraft on this is are similarly grouped together. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem reasonable to combine them since the FAA certified them as one type under one type certificate 3A19. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted
The article has undergone some recent changes, which in my opinion are just AWFUL! The previous version was far simpler, and flags aren't to be used as decorations. I've reverted per WP:Bold/revert/discuss, so please discuss and gain a consensus before reverting back. Also, I've not attempted to restore the minor changes made during that time, as even normal tables are difficult for me to edit. There's no prejucice to updating those items, but I can't do it myself. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree the flags made the article hard to read and are not really needed they are just being used for unwanted decoration. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks cleaner without the flags, I'm tempted to advance a similar position for List of fighter aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dispensing with the flags makes the page larger as the tags get replaced with a lot more characters - a major issue with the fighter aircraft page, and it helps force consistency where multiple names have been used, while providing a visual cue as to the nationality. Plus I think it looks better. If there is clutter, it is from having an overly large comments field that needs to be narrowed down to just the relevant information.NiD.29 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Need for two sections?
I'm wondering if there is any need for the article to be in two sections, or if a single table would suffice? It was put into a single table in 2010, along with other changes which cluttered the article up, and when those changes were reverted, so was the single table. Thoughts? --Nick Moss (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A single table makes much more sense to me - when it was just a list, breaking it into sections made sense, but tables work better when all the data is together as it allows the sort function to work properly, it forces consistency, and the column widths don't need to be set to get each of the tables to look similar. I am all for merging them.NiD.29 (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Beechcraft Bonanza??
Why there isn't the Beech Bonanza (>17,000 produced according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza)??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.20.111 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No one has stated a reason why the Bonanza should not be in the list, so I've added it.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cessna design commonality: 150, 172, 182, etc
What constitutes a modification of one design versus a completely new design is often a blurred boundary. This list, for example, combines the Cessna 120 and 140. But it is straightforward to observe that many of the Cessna distinct model numbers are simply evolutionary modifications to the same basic single-engine high-wing design. Here is the statement that was added today, but got quickly reverted:


 * By far the most prolific aircraft is the Cessna 172. And if the Cessna models 120 through 210 were counted collectively as modifications of the same basic design, then that total would be more than 133,000 airframes produced.

The edit included this hidden note to state how the total was arrived at:
 * Note: The total 133,824 comes from adding the counts provided in the nine lines of the table from this article: models 120 and 140, 150, 152, 170, 172, 180, 182, 206, 210.

This does not even include the radial 190 and 195, let alone others. The primary point is that just because the manufacturer decides to increment the model number, this does not necessarily mean that the design should be counted as completely separate. The list already makes groupings of non-identical model numbers. The proposed comment would serve to make the point that where this line is drawn is not always distinct. It is easily conceivable that the manufacturer could have stayed with the same model number throughout (and just ran through the alphabet to distinguish the changes). The reason for not doing this is often a marketing decision, not for engineering distinction.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are going to lump related aircraft together you need a reference for that. Otherwise its synthesis.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly not the same aircraft as they have different type certificates, also as User:GraemeLeggett says if the reliable sources dont lump unconnected aircraft types together then we shouldnt. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No one was saying that they are the same aircraft. The point stands that all of these models are similar enough in design to warrant a comment regarding their aggregate total production.--Concord hioz (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Are these the same aircraft?

Clearly 'no'. Yet our list lumps them ALL together under the one row "Boeing 737", without so much as a comment regarding the distinctions between variants. This article should be presenting info in a consistent neutral form, not hoodwinking the reader by conforming to the whims of marketing decisions regarding model numbers.--Concord hioz (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly lumping types together because they look the same is not the way to go, being built by Cessna with a high-wing and one-engine doesnt make them the same aircraft, the company doesnt treat them as the same the authorities dont treat them as the same so we shouldnt. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the 737 has to do with this as a Boeing 737 is a Boeing 737, a Cessna 150 is not a Cessna 210 by any reckoning. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote from the Cessna 210 article:
 * "The early Cessna 210 (210 and 210A) had four seats with a Continental IO-470 engine of 260 hp (190 kW). It was essentially a Cessna 182B to which was added a retractable landing gear, swept tail, and a new wing."


 * That's reason for grouping the 210 with the 182. Then go to the 180 article and you find this:


 * "In 1956, a tricycle gear version of this design was introduced as the Cessna 182, which came to bear the name Skylane. Additionally, in 1960, Cessna introduced a heavier, more powerful sibling to the 180, the conventional gear Cessna 185. For a time, all three versions of the design were in production."


 * So you see, it is not me who is the one making some arbitrary aggregation. The commonality between these Cessna types is widely known and well recognized.--Concord hioz (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"If you are going to lump related aircraft together you need a reference for that." -GraemeLeggett (posted above) Everyone here is in agreement that aggregation, to be done properly, needs to be supported by references. I have posted quotes that support the proposed change to include a comment regarding commonality pointing to the basic design. In the diagram above it has been pointed out that a 46% change can be made to the length of a 737, and it is still a 737 of the same fundamental design. All of this taken together constitute justification for making the changes to the article that acknowledge commonality in design.

There has been plenty of time here for anyone in opposition to these changes to support their position with references. A quote that would help your case might look like this: (Hypothetical) "The Cessna 210 was a substantially distinct design from the Cessna 182." (Hypothetical) I have never seen anyone make such a statement, and it is clear to me that there is no basis for such a position. The strongest counter fact that I have seen presented thus far is that such Cessna models are regulated under separate FAA certificates. I see that point to be totally negated when we have the clear fact that Boeing can lengthen their design by nearly 50% and the FAA will bookkeep all of those variants on the same certificate. It is clear that a manufacturer can make HUGE changes to a design, and the certificate is the same. And a manufacturer can make very small changes to a design (eg tail wheel switched to a nose wheel) and if the model number gets incremented, then the FAA appears to go along with the change and issue a separate certificate to an aircraft that is the same basic design. The 737 example stands as a clear illustration of how the certificate objection holds no water. If anyone has any substantial references they would like to cite, then please post them. It is clear that there are more editors here that have voiced opposition than there are who have voiced support for the aggregation changes. But Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not resolve disagreements based on a majority vote. Our guidelines direct us to go along with the positions that can be properly supported. I have posted solid quotes that give factual support in favor of making these changes. I await references that support the position of all of those who have voiced objection.--Concord hioz (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In the absence (to date) of references that support opposition, I expect people here have an awareness that there are a WEALTH of quotes that support aggregation. Here are some more. From the 172 article:
 * "The Cessna 172 started life as a tricycle landing gear variant of the taildragger Cessna 170..." (read:  same basic design)
 * "Early 172s were similar in appearance to the 170s..." (read:  same basic design)

From the 182 article:
 * "The Cessna 182 was introduced in 1956 as a tricycle gear variant of the 180."

From the 150 article:
 * "The main changes in the 150 design were the use of tricycle landing gear, which is easier to learn to use than the tailwheel landing gear of the Cessna 140, and replacing the rounded wingtips and horizontal and vertical stabilizers with more modern, squared-off profiles. In addition, the narrow, hinged wing flaps of the 140 were replaced by larger, far more effective Fowler flaps."

These distinctions between the 140 and the 150 are modifications, not any fundamental changes in basic design.
 * "The 150 was succeeded in the summer of 1977 by the closely related Cessna 152."

Why is it so straightforward for each of these separate Wikipedia articles on Cessna models to recognize and acknowledge that they are the same basic design, yet people here freak out when a note gets added to state this similarity/commonality? Notice that I did not combine the separate lines in the table, even though a strong argument can be made to say that they should. All I did was add a note that would serve to clue in the reader that those Cessna model numbers are the same basic design. Descriptions from the sources and references prolifically use the words variant and version when explaining the differences. Those are words used to describe tweaks made to the same basic design. Again, if anyone would like to support your opposition with a reference that "the Cessna 172 was a radical departure from the 170's design" (HYPOTHETICAL, no evidence yet presented that such a reference exists) then please do.--Concord hioz (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Here. I took to Google. And it was very easy to find this quote that would argue for combining all of those Cessna lines into one line on the table: "The same basic design philosophy has been applied to all eleven of the single-engine models in the line, from the 2-place, 1,500-pound Model 150, to the 6-place Model 205, whick takes off at 3,300 pounds." (source)

That's the same type of statement that can be made about the 737, when its evolution has undergone a near 50% stretch in its fuselage length between the -100 and the -900. No one freaks out that those variants are counted on the same line. Commonality is readily recognized by reliable sources in both cases, Cessna & Boeing. And the astute reader here will take note that I have not been advocating combining these lines. I've only been recommending the one comment.--Concord hioz (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see you dont have a consensus to add the comment so perhaps time to close this. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)




 * I will restate policy: This is not a democracy.  One voice with many verifiable references carries far more weight than a thousand voices that come up short when attempting to support their position.
 * But there is certainly agreement that it is "time to close this."
 * Ahunt's rationale for reverting last Wednesday was that the edit was "Unsourced editorializing".
 * In the days since that critique, I have posted a wealth of references that show that these Cessna designs have so much commonality that the different model numbers are variants and different versions of the same basic design. The quotes posted in this section constitute far more than what is needed to support the proposed comment.  What they constitute is grounds for combining an aggregate Cessna line in the table.  Because of the strength of the last reference that was found yesterday (quoted in bold above)...


 * I am now upgrading the proposal to do just that.


 * This is not a proposal to eliminate any lines from the table, but to add one aggregate Cessna line combining the model numbers listed.
 * What this would end up looking like would be similar to those tables about country statistics, such as GDP, where the EU is given a line with an asterisk, while the separate European countries still are listed in the table in their own lines. The asterisk for our table here would explain how the various Cessna's are separate model numbers with minor changes from one to another, but as the last reference so clearly indicates, they are all the same basic design.


 * If anyone would like to maintain a stand in objection, the proper way to give weight to such a position would be to support it with at least one reliable reference.
 * To say, "Hey look, these dozen-something other editors feel the same way I do" ...falls short. Wikipedia policy is very clear:  What can be supported by the references goes into our articles.  Positions that lack support take a back seat.--Concord hioz (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also...
 * For the newly proposed aggregate Cessna line, I suggest the Name:
 * Cessna 120/140/150/152/170/172/180/182/190/195/206/210
 * Each model number will link to each respective model where a reader can see for themselves how that article explains commonality between the other models. But the clearest explanation I've yet seen was written up in that Flying Magazine reference (May 1963), and that will be the reference provided in the comments section.  I should explain that the reason why the new proposal is now adding in the radial 190/195 is because it appears that that is what Flying Magazine did.--Concord hioz (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

At least one editor is maintaining an objection to this proposed change. I suggest that we give this discussion a fresh start in the new section below, here.

Design commonality: B-29, B-50, Tu-4
Very similar to the Cessna discussion above, there is extreme design commonality between the Boeing B-29, the Boeing B-50, and the Tupolev Tu-4. With the total production being 3,970, 370 and 847 respectively, this would put the aggregate total at 5,187, which is enough to make the list. There are plenty of references that speak to how these three models were essentially the same airframe design. The Wikipedia articles already have that fact thoroughly covered.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It may help to post quotes from those articles:
 * "...the Soviet Union produced an unlicensed reverse-engineered copy as the Tupolev Tu-4. The B-29 was the progenitor of a series of Boeing-built bombers, transports, tankers, reconnaissance aircraft and trainers including the B-50 Superfortress (the first aircraft to fly around the world non-stop) which was essentially a re-engined B-29."
 * "The Boeing B-50 Superfortress strategic bomber was a post–World War II revision of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, fitted with more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 radial engines, stronger structure, a taller fin, and other improvements."
 * "The Tupolev Tu-4... was a reverse-engineered copy of the U.S.-made Boeing B-29 Superfortress."

So the proposal is to add this design toward the bottom of the list.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You cant really consider the Tu-4 together with the B-29 in a list of production, it may look the same but clearly not. If it was licenced production from Boeing drawings and techniques then you may have a case but the Tu-4 is not. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is one more quote from the Tu-4 article:
 * "The engineers and suppliers of components were under pressure from Tupolev, Stalin, and the government to create an exact clone of the original B-29 to facilitate production..."


 * I see the point regarding licensing to be a legal technicality that has little bearing on the information that the table is striving to present. The Soviet's lack of license is worthy of a note.--Concord hioz (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But a Tu-4 is not a Boeing B-29, it may look like one but it is not one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ...and a Boeing 737-900 is not a Boeing 737-100. Way more difference between those two airframes than between a Tu-4 and a B-29, yet that fact does not keep us from lumping the -900 with the -100 in our table.--Concord hioz (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A Boeing 737-100 is a Boeing 737 made by Boeing, a Boeing 737-900 is a Boeing 737 made by Boeing, have a look at TCDS A16WE so I dont see what your problem with that is. This is a list of most produced aircraft, not the most produced variant. A Tu-4 is not a variant of a B-29. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well the Boeing 747 and 737 are really just the same as the Boeing 707, with more or fewer seats and engines, which is itself just a version of the Boeing 247, stretched and with four jets in place of the two radials. Actually all powered airplanes are really just versions of the Wright Flyer, with minor changes for number of seats, engines etc. All kidding aside though, it is not up to us to group aircraft in any manner, we need reliable sources that do this, which is why I reverted the text added as "editorializing". Fortunately we have those, both in the form of Aircraft Type Certificates which show that regulatory authorities accept some aircraft variants as being of the same type and we also have manufacturer's model numbers, which show which aircraft they consider to be sub-types of their same basic aircraft type.- Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually no - the Boeing 247 is a pre-war piston engine airliner, and the 747 was an entirely new design. The 737 may have shared some fuselage parts, but had a new wing and tail. You are thinking of the Boeing 367 which evolved from the Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter into the 707 - but with no major components making the leap as they progressively replaced everything.NiD.29 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The point made early on here is that the delineation between mods versus types is often very hazy. Manufacturers are faced with where to draw this line.  Customers (such as the Air Force) are faced with where to draw this line.  And regulators too are faced with the same decision.  The point that all 737s have the same FAA Aircraft Type Certificates merely demonstrates that the regulating body has gone along with the arbitrary decision made by the marketing folk within the manufacturer's company.  It hardly constitutes proof that the design is not substantially distinct.


 * It is clear to me that the smartest approach to upholding NPOV for this article is to categorize the designs from an engineering perspective, regardless of what any marketing department might prefer to tell us.
 * (And to be clear, my reason for highlighting the 737 is not out of any desire to see its manufacturing numbers broken out by variant. It was to show that there is much greater engineering variation between airframes counted as the same type versus Cessna models that have huge commonality, yet counted as different types.  There are at least 6 separate Wikipedia articles on different variations of the 737, and our table here counts them all in the same one row.  I am fine with that.)--Concord hioz (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Well the Boeing 747 and 737 are really just the same as the Boeing 707, with more or fewer seats and engines, which is itself just a version of the Boeing 247..."
 * You laugh, but actually, the C-97/KC-97 and the Boeing 377 are very similar to the B-29/B-50/Tu-4. And along with those, there is also the Guppy, the Mini Guppy and the Super Guppy.
 * A solid argument could be made to count all 8 together (which I was not doing).--Concord hioz (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "A Boeing 737-100 is a Boeing 737 made by Boeing, a Boeing 737-900 is a Boeing 737 made by Boeing..."
 * There are B-24s that were made by Consolidated. And there were even more B-24s made by Ford.  They used the same design.  They are the same aircraft.
 * There are B-29s made by Boeing. And there are aircraft made in the Soviet Union that used precisely the same design.  I fail to see why they should then be considered as categorically separate aircraft.
 * I agree with your statement that the Tu-4 is not a variant of the B-29. What it is is a copy of the B-29.--Concord hioz (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Tu-4 was more than just a straight copy of the B-29 - aside from the obvious changes related to new engines, weapons and communications equipment, the Soviets completely re-engineered the whole aircraft so as to build it out of metric gauge metal rather than the imperial gauges available to the US. This means that no structural component will have the same dimensions and it is unlikely any major components are even interchangeable. A lot of Cold War propaganda surrounds the Tu-4 - it was not a slavish copy, and the frequently used quote above meant only that changes had be authorized from a higher level than may have been normal, as is consistent with a high priority emergency development program. Had the basic design not been proven already, then more changes than could be handled at that level would have been needed and greater delegation of authority would have been needed. Too many high ranking necks were on the line for decisions to be made locally. Similarly, the B-50 wasn't just a re-engined B-29, as installing the heavier more powerful R-4360s would have meant the wing skins and spar would have been beefed up, as well as the undercarriage, at a minimum (not to mention a new fin and rudder, and probably a larger tailplane).
 * If one follows this argument then the Manchester, Lancaster and Lincoln are all one design as the Lincoln was originally the Lancaster Mk.IV, and the first Lancasters were modified Manchesters. The lines need to be drawn somewhere. NiD.29 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All designs are influenced by things that came before. The entire issue being highlighted here is exactly like you say:  "The lines need to be drawn somewhere."
 * And the position I am promoting is that we do that in the smartest, most logical way possible, which is encapsulated by the concept of NPOV.
 * Does it make sense that the line is drawn between the fact that airframes came from different plants? If the design is the same, then 'no'.
 * Does it matter that one factory built the airframes under license, while another didn't? I would say 'no'.  But certainly might warrant a note.
 * Does it matter that one factory used metric gauges while the others used English? It is clear to me that the thickness of the skin does nothing to change the fact that both aircraft are being built to the same basic design.


 * A P-51 can undergo an evolution where the engine undergoes a radical change, the canopy undergoes a radical change, aero features undergo major changes ...and all of these airframes are tallied together as the same basic design. (The line here is drawn when the fuselage is duplicated into a twin design, and that is understood to be a fundamentally distinct design.)
 * Your example of the Lancaster Mk IV is another case of a design evolving, and then someone makes an arbitrary decision to draw a line where none had been drawn before. It might have been Avro who pushed for that.  It might have been the RAF.  Or it might have been someone else.  I don't know.  But the point remains that the list in the article is NOT best served by simply going along with arbitrary decisions made by managers, etc.


 * If Cessna moves a tail wheel to a nose wheel, and absolutely nothing else changes, would it then make sense for this article's table to categorize that as a fundamentally different design simply because the manufacturer also changed the model number? Well did the aerodynamics change?  Not much.  Hmm, the weight & balance shifted?  Well a load of suitcases will do that.


 * The basic issue has been clearly laid out. And please be clear that I am not suggesting that we start up a project of original research to determine that certain designs are close enough to be considered to be the same fundamental design.
 * The INFO regarding commonality is already documented in the respective articles. I have pulled quotes to show that.  Yet the vocal majority here wish to ignore those commonalities.  It is clear to me that such an approach is a disservice to the NPOV aspect of this table, and pollutes the info being presented.
 * I see it to be much smarter to build upon the strategy that has already been implemented in the line regarding the Spitfire/Seafire:
 * Give the reader clear info that certain designs are so close that they are not only widely considered to be the same basic design, there are cases where they are the exact same airframe that has undergone a non-radical modification.


 * Certainly there were differences between the Tu-4 and the B-29. But there were also differences between the P-51A/D.  Or consider the planform changes between Spitfire mods that are tallied as the same basic plane.  The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the articles about these aircraft have already given us plenty of info regarding the proper place to draw those lines.  And where those lines can be disputed, that's where those differences can be documented in the notes.
 * Example: B-29/B-50/Tu-4 (Tu-4 reverse engineered and unlicensed.)
 * Then the discussion on the Talk page here would be far more productive to come to a consensus regarding how much needs to be said about "metric gauge", or whatever. Is that point really important?  When we editors here acknowledge far more difference between 737 variants or P-51 variants or Spitfire variants or whatever, THEN we will be reaching a healthy level of NPOV in how this article's table is built.--Concord hioz (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By the same logic you could add Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 together, it is not our place to re-define or group types that reliable sources treat as separate types. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look back to the message I've been highlighting, you'll see that we are in total agreement that it would not be proper for any editor here to apply their own reasoning to group different aircraft. Is there any reference that says that the Tu-144 was a clone of the Concorde?  I'm not aware of any.  And a quick scan of that article makes it perfectly clear that the two have distinctly different design aspects.
 * Contrast that now with the articles on the B-29, B-50 and Tu-4. All three of these articles make it very clear that these aircraft are the same basic design.
 * Switching to the closest matching metric gauge of aluminum does not constitute a change in design. What that does is affect the plane's weight.  (Loading bombs onboard has a similar effect.)--Concord hioz (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

So if you reject manufacturer's model numbers and type certificate data as indicating common models then what do you propose we use to group models together? - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not outright reject model numbers and type certificates. Those make for a great starting point.
 * What I have been voicing objection to is the treatment of model numbers and type certificates as gospel.
 * I thought I have been clear about what can be a very smart approach to presenting the best table:
 * Use information that has already been established by reliable sources that clearly tell us that certain model numbers are the same basic aircraft design.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Over on the Cessna Commonality section, it has been suggested that it is time to close out the discussion. I'd like to suggest that for this section here. If anyone has any source that states that the Tu-4 or the B-50 was a substantially distinct design from the B-29, now would be a good time to post a quote. The totality of this section clearly indicates that all three model numbers are the same basic design. The most I've seen regarding opposition is that the Soviets used metric gauge skins. The clear counter to that is that the closest metric gauge to English does not constitute a design change.

Unless a substantial reference is provided to the contrary, I suggest that it is time to close this one out. What the new line would look like is: B-29/B-50/Tu-4, with a boiled down explanation in the comment column on how all three types are the same basic design. The reader will be able to click on the link to each of the three articles for a complete explanation (as has been posted here in this section).--Concord hioz (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Even more references to support
Has anyone produced any references to support the position that the Tu-4 was a distinctly ''different design from the B-29? I have yet to see a single one.

I expect that any reference regarding the Tu-4 will clearly state how it was an exact copy of the Boeing Superfortress. I have looked at more myself, and this has reached the level of certainty in my mind that this is clearly a fact.

"Made in the U.S.S.R. Of course they copied it. The two airplanes could have been twins." "The B-4 (soon to be renamed the Tu-4) was to be an exact copy of the B-29 Superfortress."Air&Space article, p2

"Stalin demanded that his new bomber be an exact copy of the B-29..."Air&Space article, p3

"...the Soviets were flying freshly cloned B-29s."Air&Space article, p6

"Tupolev... was instructed to build a duplicate B-29"Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft, by Paul Duffy, A. I. Kandalov, p95

"...the first Tu-4, as the Soviet B-29 was designated, made its first flight..."Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft, by Paul Duffy, A. I. Kandalov, p97

"...virtually identical to those of the B-29/Tu-4..."Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft, by Paul Duffy, A. I. Kandalov, p103

At this stage, I consider the supporting evidence to be overwhelming.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesnt matter if you cant get the consensus of other editors to make the change. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you even understand the concept of consensus, as Wikipedia policy directs us? You might want to give WP:Consensus a read.  This in particular:
 * "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
 * (my emphasis)--Concord hioz (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this change has now been implemented. And you'll find that the Tu-50 link will take you to the article on B-29 variants. This was done for the benefit of others who will come here in the future and might have similar objections. This way they will clearly see that the issue was settled long ago by a different set of editors. (I myself had no involvement with that.)--Concord hioz (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed as you do not have a consensus to add per this discussion the Tu-4 is not a B-29. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your action fails to conform with the Wikipedia policy on consensus, as is clearly highlighted in bold just a few lines above. Due to this proximity, it is easy to arrive at a conclusion that your action was motivated by willful ignorance.  For your edit to properly stand, it would require someone to show some area of consensus policy that trumps the part that's been highlighted.  No one has done that in many weeks.  Just as no one has provided quality references to persuasively support opposition to this change.  Without this, it is clear that the appropriate action is to reinstate the change.--Concord hioz (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Only one other user supported your change at the RFC so clearly you have no consensus, if you now make the change is it can be considered as just being disruptive, you also need to cut out the personal attacks as that will only lead me to blocking you, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I point out that my actions are supported by Wikipedia policy. I remain open minded to the possibility that you might be able to find some area of Wikipedia policy regarding consensus that might cast doubt on my position.
 * ...but instead you say that I have launched a personal attack, and you threaten to block me. Very curious.  But not surprising.


 * If you actually read the policy on consensus, you'll find that even if no one else voiced agreement with my position, it would matter little. What matters far more is the quality of an argument.  And I will highlight the fact that you have now shifted into this lower level of rebuttal as clear evidence regarding the LACK of quality to your position.  And let's be clear, this is nothing personal.  It is not about you.  It is not about me.  It is about the quality of two distinctly different positions regarding this one issue in this one article.  So you are certainly free to wield whatever weapons you may wish to bring to this forum, but that will do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of your position.


 * And you might notice too that I have responded with no weapons, no threats whatsoever. The only thing you'll find in my hands is a pen.  And there is a reason why there is that saying, "The pen is mightier than the sword".  My invitation for you to respond with a pen remains open.  Your continued refusal to use a pen to support your position is open for everyone here to witness.--Concord hioz (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll also take this opportunity to invite you to look up the definition of 'cyberbullying'. Are your threats necessary or warranted?  Or is it akin to wielding a pepper spray can in front of those who are causing no harm at all.  Maybe even serving a benefit to society.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here... I will post a hypothetical example of what a rational, reasonable rebuttal might look like:
 * "You've highlighted one isolated statement in the policy regarding consensus, but you appear to have overlooked this statement: XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX (whatever).  It is clear to me that the overriding spirit of the policy is that Wikipedia is indeed a democracy, that we do take a count of hands in order to determine consensus, irregardless of the quality and weight of sources that you have cited."

Contrast that with the approach of... ***I am unable to construct a rebuttal based upon reason, therefore I will resort to threats***.

I see Wikipedia to be ruled by a Meritocracy. The argument that can be constructed with higher quality will always trump arguments of lower quality. I see this to be preferable to Democratic rule. And FAR more preferable to a Thugocracy.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think its time you had a read of Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We had been discussing policy. You reply with an essay.  Again, citing absolutely no specific quotes.  Here, I will provide a specific quote:
 * "You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a draw."


 * It is apparent that you are of the opinion that you have "won" the debate. Which side is standing on solid ground, and which side is standing neck deep in quicksand?  This goes back to the original point regarding quality of the argument.  There is an utter lack of support for the view that the Tu-4 is a distinctly different design.  There is an utter lack of support that Wikipedia policy regarding consensus says that our decision here will follow "majority rules".


 * There is a certain area of agreement here: This debate has ended.
 * As for not beating any dead horses, my suggestion is that you yourself read that essay as well ...with fresh eyes toward seeing how it applies to your position.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Design commonality: Spitfire/Seafire
It is clear to me (even if not clear to some others here) that this article has a problem in addressing the issue regarding design variants versus distinct design types - where to draw the line between a mod versus a new design. Some here seem satisfied that if a manufacturer changes the model number or nickname, then that automatically constitutes a type change. And this is taken as gospel particularly if some regulating authority goes along with that decision.

Two issues have been highlighted above. I also want to highlight a third: the Supermarine Spitfire/Seafire. The table, as it stands, lists the total number produced as:
 * 20,351

...and then provides as a note:
 * "Total 22,685 if carrier-based Seafire variant included."

Why is the Seafire not counted in the grand total? The table could read:
 * 22,685 produced "2,334 of these were the Seafire variant."

Here is a quote from the Seafire article:
 * "The main structural change was made to the lower rear fuselage which incorporated an A-frame style arrestor hook and strengthened lower longerons."

...clearly indicating that the Seafire is essentially the same aircraft. Not convinced? Well, there are Seafires that were not produced on a separate production line. They were not produced at all. How these Seafires came to be was they took fully completed Spitfires and then modified them to be Seafires. So they were literally the very same airframe. There was far more variation between certain Spitfire Marks (counted together in the table) than there was between certain Spitfires and Seafires (only acknowledged in the note).

The recommended change here is to swap the counts, as presented above. This article can do a much better job in identifying variants that are essentially the same design.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The folding wings make them rather more different but we still have to go with what the sources say. We can't necessarily add up the variants and derivatives blindly. To take the Seafire example, the first 48 were conversions of existing airframes - and could be double counted if not careful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources say that many Seafires were the exact same airframes as Spitfires, just put through (non-radical) mods.
 * So Seafires were given folding wings ...with little if any change to the planform. There were Spitfire mods that introduced major planform changes, yet there is absolutely no objection to counting those mods as categorically the same basic Spitfire design.  It is perfectly clear that there is far more design commonality between a Seafire to a Spitfire than there is between the latest Spitfire mod to the earliest Spitfire mod.
 * This fact calls for us to apply NPOV and count the grand totals of Spitfires and Seafires together.
 * I do agree with your point that care needs to be taken to avoid any double-counting in the total.--Concord hioz (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dont have a problem with them both being considered together but we need a reliable source for the combined production totals not just adding them up ourselves per GraemeLeggetts comments. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is apparent that this section has arrived at a consensus.
 * And for the other two sections, it is clear that there is a wealth of support in references provided to go ahead with all three aggregate proposals.
 * Because this is a new step for this article, I suggest that we introduce a new color code, maybe pink, to make it clear that different models are being counted on the same line. With all three section proposals being implemented, this would result in three lines of the table being coded in pink (or whatever color):
 * - Spitfire/Seafire
 * - B-29/B-50/Tu-4
 * - Cessna (model numbers explicitly listed)
 * I think these changes will make for an excellent improvement to the article.--Concord hioz (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Slow down, just because you have a consensus for Spitifre/Seafire with a caveat, that does not follow that you have a consensus on Cessna or the B-29. In fact the above discussion clearly indicate that you dont. MilborneOne (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As MilborneOne says, if there is an adequate source that quotes total number of Spitfires including Seafires and isn't prone to double counting conversions etc, then update the Spitfire line but the rest is still up in the air. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The table, as it has long stood, makes prodigious use the plus symbol for dealing with ambiguous totals (eg, number produced: 32,778+). Here for you and others who voice insistence that we must have the exact numbers before making this switch, you clearly are demonstrating your resistance to change ...even after it has been shown that such a change would constitute a marked improvement regarding the principle behind the information that this table purports to convey - the most-produced aircraft design.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne, here you are making perfectly obvious your willful ignorance regarding the arguments presented. Nowhere have I stated that there is consensus regarding Cessna aggregation or B-29/Tu-4/B-50 aggregation.  The point I have stressed is that the vast majority of the weight of references cited fall in favor of making the change.  Over in the Superfortress section, I am going to post even more references in support of the fact that these model numbers were the same design.  Notice how I am now using the word 'fact'.  This classification applies in cases where sufficient evidence has been accumulated, and particularly when evidence to the contrary remains lacking.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Concord hioz you need to tone down your comments on other editors per WP:NPA, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You might want to read the section "What is considered to be a personal attack?" What you are being criticized for is your approach to logic.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please take the advice, "you are making perfectly obvious your willful ignorance", is a personal attack. Please stick to the subject and not attack other editors. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If a consensus of editors here insist that 2+2=5, and I provide a wealth of sources that unequivocally state that 2+2 actually equals 4 ...and I further point out that the basic problem I am seeing here is a willful ignorance, that does not constitute a personal attack.
 * You go so far as to provide the link to the Wikpedia Policy being cited, but notice how you FAIL to provide the exact reference from such policy. This fits the theme of this entire discussion.  Editors state a position as though it is fact, yet there is a gross lack of support to give reasonable evidence that such a position has a so much as a single leg to stand on.


 * There is a distinct lack of understanding here regarding what constitutes a personal attack, and more importantly for this article, a distinct lack of understanding about what constitutes a single basic aircraft design. And I say that knowing full well that this will be received with cries that this is some other kind of "personal attack" coming from me.  I've been posting on web forums for roughly two decades.  In my many thousands of posts, I am not aware of a single personal attack that I have issued.  Maybe some joke attempts that flopped, but I am fully aware of ad hominem logical fallacies, as well as other logical fallacies, and I do my best to avoid all of them.


 * If you or anyone else wishes to maintain that your position of opposition to all three proposed changes has legitimate merit, now would be a good time to post a reference in support of that position.
 * Or if it is thought that the evidence has already been provided, then a recap or pointer to such evidence, because I continue to see a gross lack, while I have persisted in providing more and more references that clearly speak to support. The scales here are tilted very clearly in this direction, and that is the direction that Wikipedia Policy guides us to follow.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear it is up to the editor requesting a change to build a case including evidence if needed and gain a consensus, you dont actually need evidence or even a case to support the status quo. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That case was completed over a week ago. And just scroll up to the 150/152 section.  That case for aggregating was agreed to back in 2009 with absolutely no objection posted, yet here we are six years later and that fix has yet to be made.
 * It is apparent that something else is going on here, and what that might be seems very strange.--Concord hioz (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing strange going on with the 150/152 type. An IP asked about combining them. Since they have a common type certificate and are treated as one type, I supported that, but the IP never followed up on his or her proposal. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see this issue to be significant enough to warrant its own Talk section. I will reply below.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Spitfire/Seafire numbers have now been updated (swapped from comments section into totals column).--Concord hioz (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Metadiscussion - Inertia vs Improvement
On the first day that I came to this article, I added a line to the table for the Beech Bonanza. This was not an idea that had originated with me. If you scroll up a ways, you'll see that the suggestion was made two months before I came here.

The question is... Why was this not done earlier? What are the forces that work against this article from being improved upon? 'Inertia' is one candidate toward the answer. It is just easier to do nothing rather than to do something.

Who has the responsibility to make the change, once the need for improvement has been identified? The answer to that is clear: We all do. Responsibility means having the ability to respond. And Wikipedia is designed so that anyone can make improvements.

So now scroll up to the Cessna 150/152 discussion (section 10). The point that our article would be improved upon by combining like-designed Cessna models was made ALL THE WAY back in the Summer of 2009. Yet that change was never made.

I came along almost six years later to make a very similar point. But I made that point directly with an edit. This quickly got reverted. I've subsequently put a LOT of time and effort toward constructing the argument that this change is indeed an improvement. This was supported by various reliable sources. And unless a quality rebuttal can be presented to show the opposite, I intend to make that change.

But the question is... Why should it be me who is the person to do that? Everyone who posts on this Talk page has one thing in common: We all have the desire to improve the quality of the article. Certainly there will be differences of opinion regarding what constitutes an improvement, and what changes are detrimental to the article's quality. But when those opinions can be backed up by substantial references, then the quality of the argument transitions from the realm of opinion and moves toward the realm of fact.

Now, once a FACT is firmly established, then what is it that keeps anyone from making the change? A recent example is the B-29 (discussed above). It has been clearly established as fact that this basic aircraft design was produced in numbers greater than 5,000, so therefore belongs in the list. Yet here we are weeks after that fact has been established, and no one has posted the improvement. No one has done it. I intend to. But the question is what keeps others from doing so?

Inertia. That is the best answer that I can grasp. Speculative, for sure. But making edits to Wikipedia can be a VERY emotionally engaged experience. Consider those who grew up during the Cold War. There is an emotional investment to maintain a very solid line delineating the "Free World" vs the Communist Bloc. You have to step back from such an entrenched perspective before one can admit to the fact that the Tu-4 was indeed an exacting copy of the B-29. Historians have taken that step. Now the question facing us is can we?

I plan to make the changes that have been recommended in all three sections above: 1) Listing like-designed Cessna's in a separate line (while keeping the individual models listed as well). 2)  Adding a line for the B-29/Tu-4/B-50. 3) Reorganizing the Spitfire/Seafire line to show combined totals, while breaking out the separate numbers into the comments section.

I continue to keep an open mind that someone might be able to demonstrate that the facts that have been established are somehow in error. But I have waited very patiently, and the evidence for that to date has been lacking. So if anyone wants to maintain an objection to these changes, now would be a great time to put forth your best argument.

Or better yet, since so much has been presented to establish these ways that the article can be improved... You can make those changes yourself! The ultimate lesson that Wikipedia has taught the world is the benefit of empowering the individual. We don't need to wait six more years to fix the article. We can do it right now.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When a change is discussed and a consensus reached to make the change then the person originally suggesting the change is usually the one to make the change, unless someone else says that they will do it. In the cases of the changes you have suggested you cannot go ahead and make those changes because the consensus in the discussions above is against you. See WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a direct quote from the very policy that you are citing:
 * "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
 * (my emphasis, repeated post because it is apparent that my previous quote of this in the section above has gone ignored)
 * You can have a thousand editors here who say you don't like the three changes that have been proposed, yet if you come up short when repeated calls have been put out for you to support your position, then it becomes crystal clear that the quality of your argument fails. That is the test for establishing consensus.


 * But you posted the link to the policy. Maybe you would like to provide a specific quote that says something to support your view.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As we keep repeating ad nauseum you still need the support of others here to make changes, to keep repeating your agruments can be considered disruptive, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is Wikipedia a Democracy? What leg do these rebuttals have to stand on?
 * In this discussion about policy, I see one side, and one side alone, to be well supported with specific references. The other side, lacking support.
 * And in the preceding discussion about the three suggested changes, I see one side, and one side alone, to be well supported with specific references. The other side once again, lacking.
 * If you all had a leg to stand on, then you would not be resorting to generalities that amount to little more than "I just don't like it".
 * And you would not be resorting to threats along the lines of "You're being disruptive."
 * What your counter-argument would look like is: "Here is a quote that says that the Tu-4 was substantially distinct from the B-29 design." (etc)
 * And "Here are the exact words from Wikipedia Policy that are instructing us to go along with what our side is saying."


 * Bottom line: Quality from one person trumps a mob that fails in supporting their position.
 * That is not an exact quote. It is me paraphrasing the policy that I have repeatedly quoted and posted here, and that you are repeatedly ignoring while failing to point to any specific grounds for supporting your position.


 * Until you provide specific support, and those references can be examined for weight and validity, the plan to implement the recommended changes remains in effect. You complain about "ad nauseum".  But I have been waiting extremely patiently for anyone to produce evidence that supports your position (regarding policy as well as article content).  All rebuttals to date have been hollow.--Concord hioz (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is starting to get into WP:DEADHORSE territory. In the case of lumping all the single engine Cessnas together I have pointed out that there is no ref that supports this and that both the company model number system and the FAA type certificates, which are legal documents defining the types, do not agree with your ideas. On top of that doing so is pointless, unless you lump all other manufacturers' types together for comparison purposes. You have provided no refs that trump those and yet insist on pursuing this course, regardless. You have not proven your case, do not have consensus and cannot proceed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The other two changes have just been made. I have held off from adding a new line for Cessna similar designs.  But it is hardly a dead horse.  I posted a very comprehensive reference exactly one month ago, and it went for weeks without rebuttal.  If you want to uphold your objection to this third change, I suggest that the best section to post your counterpoint in is this section above.
 * But you ignoring the reference I posted (in bold) does not constitute a rebuttal. If you take the time to actually read the article cited, you'll find it provides a wealth of detail that supports the position I've been presenting.--Concord hioz (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead, I created a new section below in an effort to give the Cessna issue a fresh start.
 * You are calling it a dead horse, yet absolutely no one has objected to the idea of combining 150 with 152.
 * Clearly, something is in need of being changed. If the horse is dead, it died way back in 2009 because of neglect.--Concord hioz (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cessna commonality, revisited
Ok, this is an effort at a fresh start to the issue of Cessna commonality.

There is a clear need that some sort of aggregation needs to be done, because certain Cessna designs were so similar. Way back in 2009 it was suggested that the 150 and 152 be combined. There is absolutely no opposition to doing this, but for whatever reason it has yet to be done.

There has been a lot of other points that have been raised regarding commonality between other models, with the suggestion that a new line be added without removing any of the other lines in the table to show the aggregate totals for all of these Cessna models that can be seen as modifications of essentially the same design. There has been stern objection to that.

So the question is.... What is the best way to reflect in our table that certain Cessna's were essentially the same design?--Concord hioz (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The ones that have the same type certificate, like the 150 and 152, are the same design as put forward by the manufacturer in the certification process and as accepted by the FAA. The type certificate is the ref that shows that they are the same design. The ones that do not share a type certificate are not the same design. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A 152 is essentially a 150 with a 28V electrical system and a Lycoming engine instead of a Continental. There are probably more differences between an early-model 150 and a late-model one, than there are between a late-model 150 and a 152. YSSYguy (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I combined the 150 and 152. However, I think we should not group the single-engine product line together, I think the case has not been made to do so. I have looked at the article in the May 1963 issue of Flying and I think it actually demonstrates that the Cessnas are not all the same. The article says "same basic design philosophy", not "same basic design" and discusses what the similiarities are and what the differences are. It emphasizes that each type was a clean sheet design that used as many common (mostly bolt-on) parts as possible to save money. Looking at the FAA Type Certificates for the 180 and 182, the 180 is certified as a floatplane, the 182 is not. The existence of two TCs is telling - if Cessna could have lumped them onto one TC, it would have; it did so with the 150 and 152. Concord, you have not mentioned the 177; why not, where does it fit in? I can tell you it is a very different aircraft to a 172. If we apply the "they're all basically the same" argument elsewhere, we have the situation that the Beechcraft Twin Bonanza, Beechcraft F90 King Air, Beechcraft B100 King Air, Beechcraft C99, Beechcraft 1900D and Fairchild Metro 23 are all the same type - the T-bone is the ancestor to all of those other types. Less extreme, the Bonanza and T-34 Mentor are then the same as well, as are the Cessna Bird Dog and Cessna 210. YSSYguy (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your edit that combined the 150 and 152. This was the change that has been hanging since 2009.
 * As for the issue of adding a new line to show totals of all Cessnas that are the same basic design, the counter to the TC argument was clearly shown in the 737. That is an aircraft type with HUGE variations, all on the same TC and counted on the same one line of our table.  The name 737 was not changed, so we have not questioned that they are the same aircraft design.  But Boeing easily could have changed the number.  Just as Cessna could have easily stayed with the same model number.  These were primarily marketing decisions.


 * Yes, the 177 Cardinal fits with the others. Thanks for pointing that out.
 * As for your read on that Flying article, you interpret it to say they do "clean sheet design". What it actually says is, "...they begin by attempting to build a new aircraft...", and "This results in a number of structural parts peculiar to each model...".
 * If it was actual "clean sheet design", then you would end up with all parts unique to each model. Clearly Cessna did evolutionary engineering, not Burt Rutan-style clean sheet design.  It's clear to me that a more careful read is needed in order to see what Flying is saying about Cessna's radical shift with the twin-engine Skymaster versus their previous approach to single-engine model designs.  What that article tells me is how very similar all of those previous models were, and it explains the design philosophy of how they got that way.
 * I suspect that there are many more sources out there that tell a similar story. This is just one.--Concord hioz (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Tu-4 production be added to the B-29
Should the production figures of the Tu-4, an unlicensed Soviet copy, be added to the total production of the Boeing B-29. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any refs that say these are the same aircraft. I am sure the Tu-4 was based upon the B-29, but changes seem to have been made in the design, so it is not the same aircraft and not part of the B-29's production run. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because there's nothing in common in terms of the production. License building would be another matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The Tu-4 is somewhat like a development fork. The B-29s that were copied were 1944 models, and the later development of the B-29 was independent of the Tu-4. Consider: "Should the AA-2 Atoll be included in the total production of the AIM-9 Sidewinder?" That is a more extreme example, but it's fundamentally similar: the Soviets obtained and copied an American design, then both they and the Americans altered the original design. Roches (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Addition: I read through the above section on this topic, and as a result machine-translated the Russian article on the Tu-4. It does stress that the Tu-4 was a careful copy, although the metrication wasn't limited to the aluminum skin. Wires and cables were also changed to metric sizes, rounding up, and some specific components caused trouble. Part of the article is a quotation of a discussion Tupolev had with Stalin, and it's interesting that Stalin specifically refers to the heavy machine-gun armament of the B-29 and stresses that it doesn't need fighter cover because of its defensive armament. The production Tu-4 had ten 23 mm cannons. The B-29s that Stalin captured probably had 12 machine guns, but the USAF gradually did away with most of the defensive armament, while the Soviet version retained it. Roches (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Not the same plane, "extensively re-engineered". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 03:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Not my field, but the foregoing unanimity and discussion seem reasonable to me. Furthermore, the articles on the B-29 and the Tu-4 make it clear that the relationship between the aircraft was not such as to justify regarding them as being the same in the context of production. If the B-29/Tu-4 were to be mentioned in this article, then I would say that it should be in a separate note at most, not as an entry in the list. JonRichfield (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. A definition is needed for "same". And one is provided, in the response to the preceding question on this page. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No due to substantive differences in engineering and production. -- Scray (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the manner that I have earlier combined the totals for the Cessna 150 and 152. We surely need to apply some consistency. The Douglas DC-3 total includes the thousands of C-47s and its relatives, and the Soviet- and Japanese-built aircraft as well. A C-47 is a very different aircraft to a Douglas Sleeper Transport, which was the initial production version; as is a Lisunov Li-2 with bomb racks and gun turret; and some of the Japanese-built aircraft were made of wood (I don't know if these are counted in the total though). The F-86 Sabre total includes Canadair and Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation production - the CAC Sabre was very different to the F-86, with 40% of the aircraft redesigned, different engine, and cannon armament; the Canadairs were different again. When the Dassault Mirage III was built in Australia, all of the production drawings were converted to Imperial measurements. "Different" can be more-or-less the same, and "the same" does not always end up being actually the same: I was once on the periphery of a Vultee BT-13 Valiant restoration; the owner had collected all of the main elements of the airframe, and the company I worked for rebuilt a wing, which then turned out to be unusable - its attach fittings did not match the corresponding attach fittings on the fuselage (the other wing's fittings did match). YSSYguy (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The B-29 and Tu-4, however reverse-engineered from each other they may be, are still completely different aircraft. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinion vs fact
I have sat back from this discussion for a whole month now. It is great to see everyone's opinions. But in the entire section above, I have yet to see a single reference posted in support of your views. Is anyone willing to actually provide support for your opinion? Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not count votes in order to decide which way we will go on this matter of the Tu-4 being the same design as the B-29. Anyone who has read the previous section arguing in favor will readily see copious references that show that they are indeed the same basic design.

It is fine to express an opinion that the Tu-4 was not the same design. But your opinion goes against the Smithsonian Institution. That is quite a high bar that the majority here seem quite willing to discard without so much as citing any reference at all to support your position. If your argument is that one used metric gauging, then this is what a substantial credible rebuttal would look like: "The Tu-4 used metric gauged skins and wires, and AvWeek in Month 195X says because of this fact it is a substantially distinct aircraft design." (Totally hypothetical)

Absolutely none of you are doing that. Yet you all seem quite content with the status quo. It is clear to me that this is a blatant misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy regarding consensus. I will post once again:
 * " The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever ."

For everyone posting 'no' above, your unsupported objections carry very little weight when compared to actual facts presented by sources of the caliber of the Smithsonian. I will patiently wait some more to give further opportunity for all of you to find and post substantial support. And if that cannot be done, then it is clear that all unsupported objections will carry little weight toward determining the consensus here.

One other observation... It was clearly stated in previous discussion that the Tu-4 is listed as a variant of the B-29: Boeing_B-29_Superfortress_variants. With so many here objecting to aggregating the total production of this aircraft design, I have yet to see any of you remove the Tu-4 from that article. So while you are looking for references that might support your opinions, you might want to check yourself on this matter of consistency. If we want Wikipedia to be consistent, we will either remove the Tu-4 as a variant, or we will add the aggregate total of B-29/50/Tu-4 production to our article here. And of course, the smartest way to resolve this situation is to follow what the most reliable sources tell us. (...as Wikipedia policy guides us to do.)

Wikipedia is about presenting facts. Not our unsupported opinions.--Concord hioz (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the Smithsonian as particularly relevant. It's not the technical details that are the thing under question here, it's about the interpretation of "same" instead.
 * Japanese C-47 derivatives, or the Li-2, were derived from licensed plans for the DC-3 / C-47 that had been supplied for the purpose of building aircraft to them. Even if they diverged from that point, there was a chain of causality from one to the other. The Tu-4 though had no such documentation chain. The Tu-4 was clean-room reverse-engineering, without assistance from the original maker. That's what makes the difference.
 * Sourcing for this would obviously be good, but that sourcing need not even discuss the Tu-4: it's a generic question, applicable to broad definitions of whether a reverse-engineered design is "the same" or not. Is the Klimov VK-1 a Rolls-Royce Nene or not? A very large and easily sourced lawsuit decided that it wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * All excellent opinions. Now here's the crux of the matter:  Can you point to one single reference that supports what you are saying?
 * I have put out a call for references, and again no one has produced any.


 * And you have totally ignored my other point. If you fully believe what you are saying, then why have you (nor anyone else) not deleted the Tu-4 from the list of B-29 variants?  It is easy for anyone to predict that the reason why it has not been removed is because the reliable sources overwhelmingly support the position I have been promoting.  (Which one can guess as the reason why it was added there in the first place.)


 * So your reply has fallen short on both of the main points I was presenting. Let's say we agree that "it's a generic question".  Well then if that's true then one might expect that it would be easy to find a reference that applies the generic issue to the specific case of the Tu-4.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I just looked up a book on reverse engineering, and this is what it had to say:
 * "One of the widely cited reverse engineering examples in the military is the Soviet Tupolve [sic] Tu-4 (Bull) bomber. During World War II, three battle-damaged U.S. B-29 Superfortress bombers made emergency landings in then Soviet Union territory after missions to Japan.  Most airplanes can be distinuished from one another by their respective characteristics.  However, the similarity between the general characteristics of the U.S. B-29 Superfortress bomber and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-4 bomber, illustrated in Figure 1.4a and b and Table 1.1, has led many people to believe that the Tupolev Tu-4 was a replica of the B-29 Superfortress."
 * Reverse Engineering: Technology of Reinvention, by Wego Wang (2010)
 * I found nothing that would support what you are saying. The images and table just go further to show how exacting the two are.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I just looked up the edit when the Tu-4 became listed as a B-29 variant. You'll find it dated 22 June 2006. So it has been there for nearly one decade. And best I can tell, no one has ever attempted to remove it. And that Talk page shows not so much as a discussion about removing it. Those involved with the decisions made on that page over all of these years had their reasons for doing so. And their end result goes against the opinions posted here.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

For those quick to discard the assessment of the Smithsonian Institution, here is what the United States Air Force has to say (source):
 * "The Tupolov aircraft manufacturer examined the B-29s in minute detail and copied them almost exactly (a fairly remarkable engineering feat)."

I will be very eager to see any references that anyone might produce that asserts that the Tu-4 was a substantially distinct design.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Check out Gordon, Yefim and Vladimir Rigmant. Tupolev Tu-4: Soviet Superfortress. Hinckley, Leicestershire: Midland Counties Publications Ltd., 2002. ISBN 1-85780-142-3. They go into great detail the work that went into producing the Tu-4, and the substantial differences that resulted. The Smithsonian is only as good as its sources, and those are almost entirely cold war propaganda which was SO accurate. The US has a long history of denigrating the products of other countries and claiming their work was a copy of US designs, and while the Soviets did start with a B-29, and while their design was within 1% of the weight of a B-29, and all changes had to be authorized from a high level, in the end there were few components that could have been interchangeable. It is a grey area as far as production numbers go, and the best solution would be to include a note on the B-29 entry about Tu-4 production.NiD.29 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How bout an exact quote? ...anyone?  ...anyone?
 * As for "substantial differences that resulted", no one here is saying that the Tu-4 was not a different aircraft from the B-29. There are substantial differences between, say, the XB-17 compared to the B-17G, yet the two are the same basic design.  And being the same basic design , or not, is the crux of the issue.  If you or anyone else can find a specific quote to indicate such an understanding (that they were not), then it is high time for you all to produce the quote.  I've supported my position with a wealth of resources.  Far more than just the Smithsonian.


 * Look at how many people here hold the view that the Tu-4 is substantial distinct. Why is there such an utter lack of quotes from reliable sources to support this view?  The most obvious answer is because that view is mistaken.


 * (...or maybe I am mistaken, and the wealth of resources are out there, yet for some reason beyond my understanding, they are not being posted.)


 * But let's not chase an herrings in this process. There is absolutely no requirement that I am aware of for parts to be interchangeable in order for two aircraft to qualify as being the same basic design.  On the contrary, it is very easy to imagine two aircraft have absolutely no parts in common, yet being the same basic design.


 * I myself have no intention of reading every book written about the B-29 and Tu-4. I have read enough to know that they are indeed the same basic design.  If anyone would like to present a persuasive argument that this understanding is mistaken, and in FACT they are not, then providing a specific quote with page number will get a lot more mileage than shotgunning ISBNs in the dark.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

NiD.29, your suggestion to include Tu-4 production as a note on an entry for the B-29 should also be addressed... B-29 production by itself does not reach the threshold for making the list. So the decision boils down to: these aircraft are the same basic design and belong on the list, or they are not and won't appear here.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

-

I have waited patiently for one week since my last post here, and a full two weeks since this opinion/fact subsection has been opened. No one has offered any specific quote to support the view that the Tu-4 was a substantially distinct design. Likewise, no one has offered any specific quote regarding Wikipedia policy regarding consensus that would trump the one that I have been highlighting. Given that the scales here are clearly tipped regarding the quality of arguments presented, the table has now been changed back to include the B-29/Tu-4/B-50.--Concord hioz (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Everyone disagreed with me but because I'm the more persistently obsessed with a subject, that makes me more right"
 * It's not the moost convincing argument I've ever heard. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the obsession? You might be surprised to learn that I myself have very little interest in this topic.  I came to this article to post a change regarding Cessnas.  I have even LESS interest in Cessnas.
 * As far as being convincing, I DO note that your post cites absolutely nothing to support your apparent view. For anyone who has been following the full discussion, it has been clearly shown that what drives Wikipedia is citation of reliable sources.  THAT is the ground that I've been standing upon.  Contrast a concrete foundation with the attempt to stand on a broken sheet of ice floating in water.  One works.  The other doesn't.  The view you are now voicing boils down to this:  "I don't like how Wikipedia works." (policy)--Concord hioz (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here is the statement that I originally came to this article to post (edit):
 * "By far the most prolific aircraft is the Cessna 172. And if the Cessna models 120 through 210 were counted collectively as modifications of the same basic design, then that total would be more than 133,000 airframes produced."

An astute observer will note that the article, as it stands today, contains absolutely no hint of that.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In case my point above was not clear, I will elaborate... Regarding the issue of Cessna aggregation, a rebuttal was voiced that the source info that I was basing my recommendation on was inadequate. That was a rational, reasonable rebuttal. Until I, or someone eise, finds a more solid reference, I have dropped that effort.--Concord hioz (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The preceding discussion shows a vote of 8-to-2 AGAINST inclusion. Yet the very first paragraph of Consensus clearly states: "nor is it [Consensus] the result of a vote." What that policy clearly guides us on is the understanding that quality outweighs numbers. And what the entirety of discussion clearly shows is that the overwhelming majority of quality references weigh in favor of inclusion.

There are several Wikipedia articles that already reflect the same facts. Those articles have been in stable form for many years. My efforts here are toward bringing consistency to Wikipedia across these articles. I'm sure there's other Wikipedia policy that directs us to have articles that are consistent between each other.

The statement: "There is consensus that the production figures should not be added." ...is ERRONEOUS. It is a total misunderstanding of what the WP on Consensus tells us.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Consistency
Quote:
 * "Wikipedia should be consistent."

I was guessing that there was a policy on this. It was very easy to find. You ALL are in violation of that policy. Even the Admins. Especially the Admins.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Elaboration:
 * "statements in articles shouldn't contradict each other".

We have multiple articles, as has been CLEARLY pointed out above, that state that the Tu-4 was a variant of the B-29. In order to conform with the Consistency requirement, we must either accept inclusion here, or remove all such statements from all of those other articles.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reason vs Thugocracy
The test has once again been raised. I have made consistent and persistent appeals to reason that we abide by clear Wikipedia policy. Admins have jumped in here to close down discussion and BLOCK me, when their job description says that it is their duty to enforce policy. We now sit back and wait to see if reason will prevail here, or if more pepper spray will be wielded, just because they can.

"Might Makes Right" vs "We can have a calm, rational, courteous discussion about this". Ball's in your court.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Accusing Wikipedia admins of "Thugocracy" is a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You have been blocked for edit warring, and as soon as your block is done you are now back to edit-warring. As I noted, you are editing against consensus. Read your own words - you seem convinced that you are right and everyone else, all the editors and admins on Wikipedia, are wrong. I really suggest that it is time for you to step away from Wikipedia for a while and think over your participation here, coming back only when you can work with other people and conform to policies, like working with established consensus. If you don't take this step voluntarily you will likely have a much longer block next time. - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - "As I noted, you are editing against consensus."
 * I have provided specific quotes that clearly show that my position is the one that fits with Consensus. It is the one that has been backed with plenty of top-quality references.  You and others here persist in pretending that the 8-2 vote AGAINST is the defining event that established consensus.  Anyone who bothers to actually read the policy need only go a few statements deep to see very clearly that a vote is not what determines consensus.  So you can continue to repeat your words, but that will never make it true.


 * As for AGF&NPA, I assume good faith with everyone. And then if they should do something that demonstrates that I was mistaken, then I re-evaluate.
 * The admin who decided to block me posted the statement:
 * "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection."


 * Anyone who took the time to get acquainted with the situation here would have readily seen that GREAT lengths and MUCH patience were applied toward rational discussion with the goal of reaching consensus. The admin's job is to enforce Policy.  My critique that this was not done has absolutely no personal component to it.  I have strenuously highlighted the fact that they were NOT doing their job.  They actually did the opposite.  Policy clearly says one thing, and they decided to go against that.


 * I have persisted in presenting rational, reasoned arguments. I have extended that patience and persistence over an extraordinary stretch of time.
 * Instead of getting a response that 'this better-quality source says this' or 'this exact quote from the policy says that', the tactic that has been used against me is threats and execution of those threats.


 * Perhaps you yourself would like to take a step back.


 * During that period, you can ask yourself... If my position is the one that is best supported, then why am I not making any effort to get all of those other Wikipedia articles to read consistently with what I am so strenuously pushing here?  Likewise with policy...  What leg to I have to stand on?


 * These questions are long standing here. Yet they continue to be ignored.
 * When rational, reasonable questions are ignored ...and the response is threats and hammers, then it is THOSE actions that create the environment that I have labeled here. Ugly, yes.  But it doesn't have to be this way.  We could instead have mature, respectful interaction.--Concord hioz (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

B-29/Tu-4
User:Concord hioz you need to stop adding the combined B-29/Tu-4 without consenus, if you will not drop the stick and cant agree with the consensus and Request For Comment not to add it then please use other dispute resolution methods but not edit warring it doesnt help anybody. MilborneOne (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If decisions are to be made by majority rule, there should be a POLICY to state this. No one has produced any quote to indicate that.  Quite to the contrary, it has been clearly shown that policy directs us to weight QUALITY over quantity (number of editors who express an unsupported view).


 * You and other editors have had many weeks to present specific quotes regarding both content as well as policy. Those efforts have fallen severely short.  Or if anyone believes that those efforts have amounted to a substantial rebuttal, someone can present a summary.  Or simply a pointer.


 * But they cannot, and have not. Because in looking at the totality of everything presented above, the rebuttals carry little weight.--Concord hioz (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK you had a choice to seek further dispute resolution or edit war, but it appears you have decided to edit war on the matter. This is considered to be disruptive editing which I am afraid will only lead to you being blocked if you continue on that path. MilborneOne (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a very simple way to resolve this conflict. Whose edits are supported by Wikipedia policy?  Whose actions are not?--Concord hioz (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Concord hioz: Wikipedia policy says that the content of articles is decided by consensus. Stop edit warring on this or you will be blocked. We had a discussion on this subject above, and came to a consensus which you apparently don't accept. You have been asked by an admin to take it to dispute resolution but you choose to edit war instead. The issue has been decided, it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that you refuse the clear meaning that is presented in that WP regarding Consensus. Either that, or you simply haven't taken the time to read it.  That policy supports my actions here.  And if you look above, I've cited another policy that supports my actions here.  So if you want a comprehensive count of the tally, it is 2-to-0 (WP's that support my actions).--Concord hioz (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your unwillingness to accept the consensus above does not trump the consensus. Please stop edit warring to get your own way here and either try to achieve a new consensus or move on. - Ahunt (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not about me getting my own way.
 * If you've followed the points presented, you can clearly see that what this is about is getting Wikipedia articles to present info consistently.
 * ...and then when striving to decide which way to switch in order to comply with consistency, we are instructed to go with the weight of the best quality sources.
 * As for Consensus, it is determined by what the measures that the Policy tells us, not by you persisting in saying something that goes DIRECTLY AGAINST that policy.
 * I have no expectation for you to accept anything I've just written. You have very consistently ignored and dismissed all of my rational presentations up through now.--Concord hioz (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because other articles contain inaccuracies that is no reason that this one should do so. It just indicates that they need fixing as well. You still haven't explained why your single opinion outweighs the consensus arrived at above. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If my view was unsupported, then you would be accurate in calling it my opinion. But when the view is verified by numerous reliable sources, the quality of the info rises well above opinion.  The edit is adding well-established fact.
 * I have never said that anything I've posted "proves that I'm right". Nor have I ever stated that info in any of the other articles proves me right.
 * On the contrary, I have maintained an open mind that the 8 who voted AGAINST are the ones who are on the side of truth, and that I might be on the side of error. Regarding OtherStuffExisting, what I have questioned is "Why have none of you made any effort to change any of those other articles?"
 * You have no obligation to "fix" anything on any other articles. The validity in the question is found in the level of effort spent here, while I see absolutely no effort over on those articles.  You (and others) are being inconsistent with your efforts.


 * As for the possibility of me being in error, I will continue to keep an open mind because I know that tomorrow a great source might come to light where we can all increase in our understanding of this one issue.
 * But as it stands today, the weight of all evidence presented tips the scales firmly in favor of inclusion. This is not a case where my "single opinion outweighs the consensus".  It is the view that is in line with Consensus.  Consensus as established by top-quality facts .--Concord hioz (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that it is against policy to edit war and I think if you continue to ignore the RFC and consensus then we should consider raising your edit warring at WP:ANI. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Concord hioz has already been blocked for edit-warring on this article and he continues to not accept the consensus above and continues to edit war to get his own way here. I will ask the uninvolved admin who administered that last block to review the situation here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That was quick. It looks like the admin has reviewed the situation and administered a one week block for User:Concord hioz. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Any admin who reviews the situation here can readily see that my actions have conformed to specific policy.
 * If an admin decides to block a member, they are required to specifically explain their reasons for doing so:
 * "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked."
 * For both instances to date, the only reason given was "edit warring". This admin has failed to address the point that I am the one here who is conforming to policy.  There is absolutely no justifiable reason for blocking a person who is abiding by clear Wikipedia policy.
 * Now for everyone who might have a problem with comprehending the plain words spelled out in that policy, I have posted a video of Jimmy Wales explaining the core principle that the policy is built upon. (In new subsection below.)--Concord hioz (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales explains fact vs opinion

 * "The difference between a fact and an opinion, for us one of the most important things is to look for reliable sources and to report accurately on what reliable sources have said, rather than just say, 'Well, gee, I think this is true, I'm going to write it down.' That's never quite enough for us."
 * --Jimmy Wales interview, PBS NewsHour (posted to YouTube on Jul 10, 2012)

Everyone here who is saying that I am the one acting against consensus could greatly benefit from actually reading what the policy on consensus actually says. What it says is what Jimmy Wales is saying. We don't just go by our opinions. The critical aspect of consensus is established by what the reliable sources tell us.

For the totality of reasons that have been thoroughly explained here on this Talk page, we as a community are required to abide by what the reliable sources state. And for these reasons, the table in the article needs to include the B-29/B-50/Tu-4. Jimmy Wales himself has made the policy perfectly clear.--Concord hioz (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read Argumentum ad Jimbonem, and WP:Role of Jimmy Wales. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jimbo is explaining the Wikipedia Policy regarding Consensus. It is all written there, and cited extensively in previous sections above, if you haven't been following.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you even bother to read the essay you have cited? It is all about Jim being misquoted and misinterpreted.  There's absolutely no risk of that when you have been provided with the video link to hear the words straight from his mouth.  You can even back up the timetag to get the exact quote in full context.


 * Here's a novel idea...
 * How about we just follow Wikipedia Policy?--Concord hioz (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales: Wikipedia core value is to accurately reflect what the sources say

 * "...follow the sources and see if we are accurately reflecting the sources, and if not, come and tell us because we'll be, you know... [laughs] That's one of our core values is to accurately report on what sources say."
 * --Jimmy Wales interview, PBS NewsHour (posted to YouTube on Jul 10, 2012)

Gotta wonder what Jimmy would say to an admin who repeatedly bans an editor whose efforts are toward getting an article to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions, to anyone wanting to revert B-29/Tu-4 inclusion
Q1- What is your basis for doing so?
 * My actions are done atop a foundation of specific Wikipedia Policy regarding consensus. Yours?
 * If your answer to that is: "We took a vote, and the vote count was 8-to-2 AGAINST." ...then the next step is for you to show, somewhere in Wikipedia policy that "Consensus is determined by democratic rule" or something to that effect.  No one to date has produced ANY evidence toward that end.

Q2- Why, if you really believe that the Tu-4 is not a legitimate variant of the B-29, have you NOT removed it from the article on B-29 variants?
 * For you to revert here, but not remove it there, you are expressing a position that says "I am totally fine with an encyclopedia that is not self-consistent."

These questions have been LONG standing here. And the B-29 Variant article is extremely stable. Unchanged, and unchallenged, in many years.--Concord hioz (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - Does anyone else think that Concord hioz has any point worth discussing further? (Not that they're necessarily right, merely that's there's anything left to discuss) Or are we done here?
 * For myself, I can't see it. The Klimov VK-1 case and legal judgement (unauthorised copying of an unlicensed Western design is not an enforcable licence) seems to be the icing on that particular cake. So anything beyond this, without any new sourced material being put forward, is just WP:TENDENTIOUS and can be treated as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I note also that you and others persist in ignoring the question that you have posted your reply under. If you feel so strongly about the Tu-4 not being a variant of the B-29, then why have you not put any effort toward deleting it from the B-29 Variant article?  (Not that I'm looking for a reply.  Just reiterating the obvious inconsistency in effort.)--Concord hioz (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Me insisting that we follow what the policy regarding consensus actually says is seen to be tendentious. Now that's a curious position.
 * As for the VK-1, you've mentioned it without presenting any argument as to the reason why what one particular court might rule would have any jurisdiction over Wikipedia editors. We've recently seen a major case where the US Supreme Court reversed itself.  Courts do not have the final say, particularly here on Wikipedia.
 * You have yet to present such an argument about the VK-1. Yet in the same breath you indicate that there's nothing more to say in this discussion.  Another very curious comment.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is already very obviously to treat the two as distinct. The only question remaining is whether you have anything left to say that we will be prepared to still listen to, or do we just pull the plug on your opinion here (yes, that's how blunt it is) as a tendentious editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been patiently and persistently posting well-reasoned rationale as to why the edit I have been pursuing is consistent with well-supported fact, backed by plenty of reliable sources. I have gone further to show how these actions have all been consistent with the clear policy on consensus.  In response, you and others, choose to characterize my actions as willfully harmful.


 * If I have someone seeking to persuade me while using mature discourse backed by citation to proper authority, I do not make effort to pull any plugs. The fact that this has been done twice now is how I arrived at the conclusion that what is going on here is a thugocracy.--Concord hioz (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * From the tenditious editing essay, one of the sections is Tendentious_editing (aka WP:REHASH ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)


 * Editors can note that User:Concord hioz‎ has now been indef blocked for edit warring. I have returned the page to the consensus version. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Klimov VK-1
If a solid argument can be made that the wisdom of some court ruling can shed light on the matter of fact here regarding whether the Tu-4 was a derivative of the B-29, or a separate design, then I would be very glad to go along with that.

As for the notion that my actions here have been tendentious, here is a salient quote from that WP:
 * "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out."

My effort here has focused on inclusion of the view established by the Smithsonian Institution, among various other authorities. This is the type of effort that is said to be a Core Value of Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales, and detailed in the policy regarding consensus. An insufficiently supported majority vote does not determine consensus. Whereas an editor who strives to abide by this core value is not acting in a tendentious way. Quite the opposite. It is those who work to not conform to policy are the ones who are acting against the best interest of this encyclopedia as a whole.

We can ask ourselves, WWJD? Would you go along with what these bunch of editors have voted, providing little support? Or what the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources have clearly stated? ...which would also be consistent with what has long been the stable state of various other Wikipedia articles on this topic. I don't need to ask myself WWJD, because I know what he would do. And if anyone doubts it, there are the video links provided in the section above.--Concord hioz (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from the lede of the Wikipedia article on the VK-1:
 * It was derived from the British Rolls-Royce Nene.

Note the word "DERIVED". If one were to count the number of similar engines produced, this word indicates that aggregation would be appropriate. For those who feel it should not, you might want to consider editing that article to conform to your understanding.--Concord hioz (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

...and to draw a parallel between the B-29/Tu-4, we would be talking about the relationship between the Rolls-Royce Nene to the RD-45, not some follow-on improved version (VK-1). I fail to see any substance to the rebuttal presented along these lines. Now if some court had ruled that the RD-45 was somehow substantially distinct in design from the Nene, then I might see a possible basis of argument.

Here I am grasping at straws as to what the objection might be. If no one can present a reliable source that clearly and definitively states that the Tu-4 was substantially distinct from the B-29 in design, then I will go back to the earlier suggestion that there is NOTHING more here to discuss.--Concord hioz (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The VK-1, and the Tu-4, were very obviously derived from earlier, Western designs. The question remaining is whether we consider them to form part of the same production series. Consensus so far is that they do not.
 * When Rolls-Royce argued your same point, that the VK-1 was so close as to be considered to justify a licence fee, they were rejected by a UK court. Given that the technical situations and the political contexts are so very similar, I consider this UK court judgement to be a substantial guide to how WP should judge this issue. One that indeed supports the current consensus.
 * I am uninterested in anything you have to say on the matter. I consider you to be a tendentious editor who may simply be ignored, having nothing of value to contribute further (congratulations, it takes a lot to achieve such a dismissive status). If other editors think you might still have something to add (hence my question to them – not a question to you), then I might reconsider that.
 * So far though, I expect this to proceed as: no other editors think you have a remaining point to make, you continue to post the same material here without any new argument, a topic ban is applied for and granted, you ignore that and are then site blocked. It's up to you to stop that process at any point, but that is how it usually plays out. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Likewise, you have the option to choose to follow what the WP on Consensus says, and what JW reiterates on camera.
 * You also have the option to actually read the arguments you are presented with, because if you've done so here, you would know that I clearly stated that the closest to an apples-to-apples comparison we can get from your engine example would be a court ruling on the RD-45, not the VK-1. Clearly you have little interest to follow the reasoning you've been presented with, and instead have opted to persist in your threat-as-rebuttal stance.--Concord hioz (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Editors can note that User:Concord hioz‎ has now been indef blocked for edit warring. I have returned the page to the consensus version. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

B-24 total
Does anyone know whether the B-24 production total includes the PB4Y Privateer and/or the C-87 Liberator Express? Carguychris (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Limit to either "Civilian" or "Military" designation
I propose the eliminate the "CM" designation being used for aircraft in the "civilian or military" column. So many aircraft are used for both purposes, but are designed/used mainly for one or the other. Almost every civilian model is at least examined for possible military use, and many surplus military models end up being sold off for civilian use, thus putting most aircraft arguably into the CM designation and rendering the "civilian or military" column effectively useless. As it is, models such as the Boeing 737 - built and used overwhelmingly for civilian purposes, are listed as a "CM" aircraft. This is a confusing, misleading, and unnecessarily complicated division for what should be a easily-sortable list. I propose to eliminate this unneeded ambiguity and just use common-sense to classify each model as to it's initially-designed purpose or most common use: either civilian or military.Bron6669 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree, I've no problem with removing column. The type and notes columns should be more than capable to indicate whether majority civil or military use for those instances where it's not obvious. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The "civilian or military" column itself wouldn't be eliminated, just the acceptable designations within restricted to "c" or "m", with anything else being an unacceptable option.Bron6669 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have changed all C/M column entries to read either "C" or "M" according to my best judgment. I have heavily weighted the designation according to the initial design intentions (civilian, or military tender). I do not know how to restrict the column to accept only those two designations so if somebody knows how please do so.Bron6669 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of most-produced aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/aircraft/bomber/polikarpov-u-2-po-2.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924073936/http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/beechcraft/the-bonanza-hits-60-strong-and-fast to http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/beechcraft/the-bonanza-hits-60-strong-and-fast
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/aircraft/fighter/polikarpov-i-16.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706065556/http://www.gama.aero/files/2007gamadatabookoutlook_pdf_498c889640.pdf to http://www.gama.aero/files/2007gamadatabookoutlook_pdf_498c889640.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223125310/http://www.gama.aero/files/2016%20GAMA%20Databook_forWeb.pdf to http://www.gama.aero/files/2016%20GAMA%20Databook_forWeb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yak-12
According to Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon's Yakovlev Aircraft since 1920 (p. 104), total production of the Yak-12, including that of the Yak-12M and -12A in Poland is 4420. That puts it below the 5000 built criteria for the page. Even if you include the 325 PZL-101 Gowrons, that still only gives 4745 aircraft. Delete the entry?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The current entry is unsourced, so if that is our best ref, then, sure. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Bell 206
I removed the claim that the Bell 206 is the "most produced civilian helicopter" because the claim is uncited and dubious; the aircraft's roots are in a military contract competition, and a large number of 206s have been produced for the military as OH-58s. If a reliable published source indicates that civil production of the 206 still exceeds that of the Robinson R44, the claim can be reinstated. Carguychris (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * See now your post. The most produced civilian helicopters is the Aerospatiale AS350, that is not on the list even if over 7000 aircraft are produced. Why you talked about R44? Wind of freedom (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a ref for that claim? See WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"Unless noted, aircraft are piston engined monoplanes"
This line may denote that aircraft are only piston engined monoplanes are aircraft, which is far from the truth. I understand that its trying to say most planes on the list are piston engined monoplanes, but it seems like an unneeded line Forevernewyes (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Luscombe 8
This list seems to be missing the Luscombe 8, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luscombe_Aircraft Luscombe produced 5,867. Versaperm (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)