Talk:Saab 105

Engine specifications
Engine specifications listed are wrong. The speclist shows the export version to austria that had the more powerful engine. The list have the right engine and top speed but list the kN/lb values for the standard model weaker engine. The austrian version gives 12.7 kN of thrust per engine. Actually if you look at the wiki page for that engine there is no version of it that produce as little power as 7.49kN. Austrian wiki page also shows a higher number, the kp listed there is roughly 12.55 kN. If that can't be verified maybe it would be better to change the specifications to one of the two standard swedish military versions.
 * Fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * nope it is still wrong Revener (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now it seems to be correct. Sadly I only seem to own one book that list the sk60 and that only show the thrust of the updated military version. Revener (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Engine designations
If BillCJ thinks that two wrongs always must make a right, he has the right to do so. But it takes all credibility out of Wikipedia to keep use incorrect sources only because they in turn copy the same mistake over and over and over and over. The system with Swedish military designations are not exclusive to aircraft or engines and have been the same since long before there were aircraft. This goes back to at least the 19th century, probably more. This is something I became aware of long time ago after spending hours digging in archives doing researches for numerous books and magazine articles about Swedish aviation history over the years. Why do you think it's SK 60 and not SK60 in the aricle(or even worse the Americanized SK-60)? The designation system is the same for Army bases, Air Force bases, Navy bases, radar, cameras, robots, airplanes, vehicles, guns, actually anything that goes into an inventory list including engines both piston and jets! Military systems anywhere are not exactly known for being flexible. Everything should be conformed the same. It should be the same with Wikipedia. If we want to spell the engine designation incorrect, then the airplane designation has to be changed to the incorrect "SK60" as well! This goes for all other SAAB aircraft articles in all languages on Wikipedia! It has to be either, we can't have both! Personally I think it's easier to change a few incorrect spellings than hundreds that are already correct! After all, this is about common sense!!

Also remember that a commercial website is often made by a webmaster who doesn't really know anything about the subject. This is not only true about Volvo Aero's web, but also the Swedish Armed Forces website who also have some similar misspellings. Sometimes they get it right though! (i.e. misspellings are not consistent on their web!) And yeah, even sorces like Jane's sometimes get it wrong!

"Infallible"? I'm not even gonna go that low to answer such a obtuse comment. Although it do say a lot about BillCJ himself! --Towpilot (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think all BillCJ is looking for is a reliable source about Swedish designation systems and that applied to the 105 in particularly. Remember we dont make up our own designation systems we just use what the reliable sources tell us. So whatever you say above if the reliable sources contradicts your change then your change will most likely be reverted again. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I called you "Infallible" since you have made such claims in the past, but never provide sources to back it up, expecting others to believe you simply because you say so. I was frustrated by that, and used sarcasm. Not usually the best thing to do, but it keeps me sane in the WackiWikiWorld. My aoplogies.


 * WP relies on reliable sources, not "insider" claims, which is original research. I can provide sources, both internet (from the company) and published (Gunston and others), which do not use spaces in the engine designations. There needs to be consistentcy, and WP defaults to the reliable published sources (both print and internet). Btw, you're using aircraft designations to prove a point on engines designations, which aren't automatically the same thing. As to changing hundreds of designations, the designations in most of the engine-related articles on WP are of mostly one style already - without the space. This article is the one that is inconsistent. I await with eagerness your proof from a reliable published source that current Swedish military engine designations use spaces. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a year later, and those sources have still not been provided as requested. Therefore, I've reverted back to the "RM9", etc., per all given reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The book about everything Volvo made for the Swedish military, that the Swedish Military Bookclub released. List engines as RM8 etc Revener (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)