Template talk:Aircraft specifications/Archive 1

Add issues below as you see fit, sign with ~ ~ ''Note: the title combines aircraft and template; hence, airtemp. It does not mean this template is temporary.''

Instructions
To include this template in an article, copy and paste the outlined block, filling it in as appropriate. Some uncommon fields, such as loaded weight and useful load will be omitted if left blank. The teplate code can be inserted directly into an article by using for American and English aircraft, and  for all other aircraft. If you insist, you can copy-and-paste the text below instead.

Additional parameters:
 * more general= Additional general characteristics (weights, dimensions, etc.) not covered in the template. Start each line with  or  .  The latter format may produce a slightly larger line spacing before the first item of the additional general characteristics than that between the items themselves.
 * more performance= Additional performance (G limits, takeoff/landing rolls, etc.) not covered in the template. Start each line with  or  .  The latter format may produce a slightly larger line spacing before the first item of the additional performance than that between the items themselves.
 * power original= For engine power originally measured in non-standard (for WP:Air) units such as metric horsepower (PS) for WW2 German aircraft. Format as  and place   at the end of the article. Use this only if you have a source citing the original power output in something other than hp or kW.
 * thrust original= For engine thrust originally measured in non-standard (for WP:Air) units such as kgf for Soviet jet aircraft. Format as  and place   at the end of the article. Use this only if you have a source citing the original power output in something other than lbf or kN.
 * ref= For all references used to fill in the specifications. Use the name of the source, ie Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, and follow it with a cite.php &lt;ref&gt; tag for the full citation.
 * max speed more= Used to add additional information after main units (alt units). E.g. when speed is known at a specific altitude, it can be added as "at # ft (# m)" producing "main (alt) at # ft (# m)". |thrust more, |power more, |cruise speed more=, |stall speed more=, and |range more= work in a similar fashion.

Adding additional sections
Simply end the line with a closing parenthesis and carriage return, starting the next line with an additional bullet (*), to create a new non-template line.

Old template code
General characteristics
 * Crew:
 * Length:
 * Height:
 * Empty weight:


 * Maximum gross takeoff weight:

Performance
 * Maximum speed:


 * Range:

- Emt147 Burninate!  05:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Armament
I have developed a superior armament section of the following form. It specifies, , , , and. The armament section will appear if any of these parametres exist.


 * Emt talked me out of this one, but I have brought it back in altered form: it can now be overridden by specifying  and typing a fully formatted armament section.  Ingoolemo talk 17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Compund helicopters and gyrodynes
Just tried using this for the Fairey Jet Gyrodyne and obviously can't do wingspan AND rotor or two propellors off one engine.GraemeLeggett 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wingspan is relatively easily solved:


 * plane or copter?=plane

...


 * span main=10 m
 * span alt=33 ft)
 * Wingspan: 100 m (330 ft


 * I would incorporate this into the template, but there are so few aircraft to which it applies that I don't consider it applicable.


 * Your second complaint could be dealt with easily, but I propose a more complex solution. Since propeller information is often included in our souce material, it would be worth adding it to our template.  I will raise it on WT:Air.  Ingoolemo talk 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

MPH???
Is there a particular reason why Wikipedia articles about aircraft are so fond of describing all speeds and ranges in statute miles (per hour), and why the documentation for this template encourages this?

In most aircraft, knots and nautical miles are the preferred units of speed and distance.

The template ought to at least be capable of supporting two "_alt" fields, if all three units are to be supported.

72.49.72.57 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what articles you've been looking at, but at least half should give the statistics in statute miles, nautical miles, and kilometres. This is, in fact, the standard you will find at WP:Air/PC.  Ingoolemo talk 05:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand with the statute miles nonsense. The official measure of aviation distance is nautical miles and the alternates should be kilometers and statute miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamefreak32 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unarmed military aircraft
Using this template with armament=None results in poor formatting, see WC-135 Constant Phoenix. Is there a better way to do this? It would be nice to be able to specify unarmed, rather than just not having an armaments section at all. Brianhe 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say Armament: None shows it quite well, but the "none" could do with formatting with a bullet like the other elements. GraemeLeggett 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

internal fuel
Can someone show me how to add an internal fuel line to the template, thanks.


 * Wikipedia isn't a Pilot's Operating Handbook; does internal fuel really add that much for the casual reader? If someone wants to look up more detail on the aircraft, our articles should have links to resources with more information. ericg &#9992; 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do APU specs go?
I'm trying to add info about a Solar T-62 APU on a Marine helo in CH-46 Sea Knight but noticed that this template makes no provision for a very important piece of powerplant equipment on most modern military and many civilian aircraft, the auxiliary powerplant unit. May I suggest the addition of APU info to the template, to cover MFG, MODEL, TYPE (recip or turbine, even some venerable WWII a/c had them), PURPOSE (jet start, hydraulic, bleed air, etc.) and perhaps POWER OUTPUT? Any other ideas for fields would be welcome. :) Flybd5 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also seen 'alternative powerplant' on a few articles.


 * A stopgap solution that will work until the template is changed would be to add info to the parametre, as in  .  This will be appended directly below the primary powerplant specs.  Karl Dickman talk 02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is so much specs bloat to the template already that I would strongly urge you to NOT add APU (something that will appear only in one or two articles) into the template. Using the "more" tags as explained above produces exactly the same appearance without the server load and page slowdowns from excessive code. - Emt147 Burninate!  07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with this. APU's have been in use since before WWII and some of them have become important historical components of aviation history in their own right. For example, what do you think kept all those B-17 pilots in WWII comfy at 35k feet without pressurization or side windows? It was an APU! Flybd5 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is questioning the importance of the APU, only the fact that this particular spec is largely unknown and creating a parameter in the template for a spec that is rarely used creates unnecessary code bloat. - Emt147 Burninate!  22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest an add to the parameters with in the propulsion section as "more power", "more general" can be left for dimensions stuff, "more performance" does just that but "more power" can then cover APUs, JATO units, or other strange powerplant instances. GraemeLeggett 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters
Hi, I'm traducing this template to the spanish Wikipedia, but I don't understand what exactly is Disc area? Someone can you help me? Please answer in Elkan76 Many thanks

Elkan76 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Disk area is the entire rotor surface area as if it was a solid disk $$( \pi r^2)$$ --Born2flie 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maaany thanks, sooner you'll see this template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.27.164.211 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Usage example out of date?
Is the usage up to date, there appear to be more parameters that are discussed than are present in the parameter list. GraemeLeggett 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Template not applicable to gliders
The above template applies only to powered aircraft. Most of the data listed, except a/c dimensions, will not be available for gliders and thus will be void. For gliders essential data is not listed at all. I recently introduced a template specifically for gliders in the German Wikipedia (Template, Preview), which I copied and adapted to the English Wiki. If interested, you can find it here. Comments? -- Wo st 01 (2007-06-13 13:13 UTC )

Integrate it into aircraft specs or copy the style of the aircraft specs template, the two will then appear the same no matter the underlying code operations. GraemeLeggett 09:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Include template in the code?
Could we include the original_value original_unit template into the code? It would save a lot of work for the creator of the new aircraft articles when you don't have to calculate from m to feet kg to lbs etc (and vice versa). --MoRsE 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I realize that there still is no weight conversion code in the template, so I asked them to include it, along with the power units conversion code. --MoRsE 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd have to specify which system of units are the main ones. US customary units are the main ones on most US products.  How difficult would these conversion templates to work either way? -Fnlayson 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Testing:
 * 100 ft generates: 100 ft
 * 100 m generates: 100 m ...seems to work quite good!
 * I meant integrating that template in with the rest of the Specs template. Hopefully it is not as bad as it seems to me now.  -Fnlayson 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not ready for deployment
This template is not ready for deployment. See, for example, the mess it has made of the specifications in the Robinson R22 article. Until its deficiencies are corrected, usage of the template should be stopped immediately. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This template has been in use for some time. There's nothing wrong with it.  Someone recently added a bullet to the More general field is all.  I fixed the formatting in the R22 article.  Chill out ... -Fnlayson 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still a mess. Look at the text in the top line:
 * Data from Robinson R22 Pilot's Operating Handbook Data for current versions of the R22 vary slightly.
 * What's with the weird mix of italics and normal text?
 * Also, look under Performance. What's with the missing right parenthesis after "(386 km" and missing left parenthesis in the following line, after Endurance?  My assessment still stands.  The template needs further work. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That parenthesis was messed up due to the Endurance add on thing right below it. I don't care for the italics thing either, but I think it is a minor nit. -Fnlayson 03:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Empty performance heading
How do I hide the performance heading when there is nothing under it, e.g. in Antonov A-40? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 18:43 Z 


 * You can't. However, the newer aerospecs supports this; I'll swap it over. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 20:29 Z 

Display issue - engine thrust params?
When using the "=both" for type of engine, I don't see afterburning thrust as well as dry, as in here Operational Requirement F.155, is this me or the template?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure on that one. Why is the rocket info put in the engine(prop) fields?  That may be why.  Try using the more general field for the rocket info to see if that works any better. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the rocket bit is a cheating with the template to get two different engine types listed. I' sure putting it into more general would work but. i) these rockets are just JATO units and deserve equal billingbalongside the turbojets. ii) I wondered what was stopping it from happening - it could have been an aircraft with a RR Merlin and a the augmented W2 ... GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The code only shows the dry thrust info if the type=jet. But then the prop info does not show.  That's all I got.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Greame, you might try Template:Aerospecs (not Template:Aero-specs). It is more flexible, having two engine sections, each able to select jet, prop, or rocket. - BillCJ (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll stick with figuring the answer to this one, from a bit of experimentation I can see its because its not been completed in the code, and is a question of ifs and elses and whathaveyou. Perhaps a more adept coder will come by....GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Got the code to work after a fashion here User:GraemeLeggett using my sandbox but cut and paste didn't work on the template. Any answers?GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
This template has several inaccuracies. Somebody more well versed than I in the process for editing Wikipedia should make these changes. I am a Commercial Pilot and Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic with Inspection Authorization, so I have some knowledge of this. First: "Empty Weight" is the weight of the aircraft with the following provisions: 1)weight of the primary structure 2)weight of any equipment which is permanently attached to the airframe 3)full engine oil tank or sump 4)full hydraulic reservoirs, if any and 3)weight of unusable fuel. Unusable fuel is the fuel left in the tank after the engine "sucks it dry" and stops.  In smaller aircraft this can be as small an amount as 1 or 2 gallons, in larger aircraft it can be a considerable amount.  "Gross Weight" is the maximum weight that the aircraft can weigh under any circumstances, including passengers, cargo, optional or portable equipment, baggage, and fuel.  The term "Gross Weight" is the only correct term for this.  "Loaded Weight" is not a technical term used for this or any other specified weight of an aircraft. "Useful Load" is the term for the difference between the Gross Weight and Empty Weight. It is not the fuel capacity, baggage capacity, passenger load, or any other component of weight loaded on to an aircraft. It is the maximum TOTAL load which can be added to the Empty Weight, as defined above, up to the Gross Weight, but not an ounce more.

"Maximum Takeoff Weight" should probably not be included in the template because it is a calculated weight which changes with the circumstances of each flight. In other words, the maximum weight which at which an airplane can be safely flown may be less than the gross weight depending on temperature, airport elevation, length of runway, runway conditions or type of surface, proposed flight profile, loading weight and balance considerations, and other factors. Since this weight is computed or considered prior to every flight, it is a varying number and should therefore not be part of a template.Cd195 (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points all, but now, if this is accepted, the changes will have to be melded into the template. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
 * The (unreferenced) Maximum Takeoff Weight disagrees on terminology and refers to airworthiness requirements, and the "maximum permissible takeoff weight" is the variable one.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From the CAA, "This is the maximum take off weight authorised (in kilograms) for the individual aircraft. Some data may not have been verified by the CAA. In certain cases the weight displayed on G-INFO may be higher than the maximum declared take-off weight that the operator has declared to the CAA.  For details of these aircraft please see MDTOW."GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the empty weight described above is more correctly called "Operating Empty Weight". That value is not always available, but the more general empty weight (basic airframe weight) is. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
I think some of the confusion here is that large category aircraft, such as airliners, have more than one maximum weight. There can be a maximum ramp weight, a take off weight, and a maximum landing weight. Also, a large aircraft can be loaded to more than its maximum take off weight if the amount of fuel projected to be consumed on the ramp and while taxiing for take off will be enough to decrease the weight to MTOW by the time the actual take off occurs. The manufacturers determine these weights to conform to the airworthiness requirements. The Maximum Take Off Weight, however, is not invariable. From FAR 135.365 (a): "No person may take off a reciprocating engine powered large transport category airplane from an airport located at an elevation outside of the range for which Maximum Take Off WEIGHTS have been determined for that airplane." Notice the term is not Maximum Authorized, or Maximum Permissible, and notice the plural form of weights. This indicates that the manufacturers calculate various maximum weights depending on factors such as, in the case of this particular FAR paragraph, runway elevation.

In general, however, smaller aircraft, particularly single and twin-engine reciprocating aircraft, do not have their maximum weights expressed in those terms, but in the more common (for general aviation) gross weight. Even in a small aircraft, the gross weight can vary. For example, an aerobatic aircraft may have a gross weight allowed for flight within normal or utility category, but the allowed gross weight may be less if aerobatic flight is planned. I think in articles describing general aviation and smaller aircraft, the template should indicate gross weight and empty weight as the maximum and minimum parameters to avoid ambiguity.

In relation to empty weight, that is rather strictly defined by the FAR's. It specifically includes fixed ballast, permanently installed equipment, full hydraulic reservoirs, if any, engine coolant, if any, and unusable fuel. Up until recently, the issue of engine oil was not addressed. Some manufacturers included it, others didn't. When the most recent revision of Part 23 of the FAR's came out, the engine oil was definitely included in the definition. This figure should not be difficult to obtain, since the manufacturers specifications for an airplane will have to have an empty weight figure, and it will by statute include the items listed.Cd195 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The CAA lists one MTOW for each registered aircraft. This example BA 747 has its MTOW at 396,893 kg, this one with GE instead of RR engines] has a lesser MTOW (378,000 odd kg) GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly you get reliable sources such as Jane's All The World's Aircraft quoting MTOW, normally along with empty weight. Some other sources seem to use loaded and maximum take off/gross weight interchangeably (i.e. different sources will covering the same aircraft will list the same weight as loaded and MTOW, while sometime separate loaded and maximum/gross weights are given.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
A reference is made to the CAA, or Civil Aviation Authority, as determining the maximum weight of a 747. It should be noted that the "CAA" is NOT a controlling regulatory body with the authority to define terms, regulate aviation issues, or mandate aircraft parameters. The controlling civil aviation authority (speaking descriptively) in the United States is the Federal Aviation Administration, and it is to the set of regulations issued by that body, specifically Title 14 of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), termed the FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) to which I allude in my statements. What the "CAA" states is superceded by the FAR's.213.86.181.212 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The UK Civil Aviation Authority is a reliable source, not sure why you would think it wasnt. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant newline
Under some (most?) circumstances the template appends an extra newline to the text it generates. This has given rise to a dispute on the Eurocopter AS332 talk page about the best way to deal with the problem. I have now managed to isolate the part of the template where the offending newline is generated. If the more performance and subsequent parameters are all undefined or empty, the following piece of code generates a newline, but the subsequent code generates no more text, thus leaving a redundant newline at the end of the text actually generated. }} {{ then the template should produce exactly the same output whenever the more performance parameter is defined and non-empty, but will not produce the offending newline whenever it is not defined or empty. I have performed some extensive testing of this proposed replacement in the Template sandbox, and far as I can tell it does perform as I expected, and also doesn't seem to cause any prolems when the more performance parameter is empty but subsequent parameters aren't. I therefore propose that the code be altered as I have indicated. However, before making the change, I thought it would be wise to run the proposal past the denizens of this talk page. Can anyone see any problems with it? &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please implement it! Others have tried to fix it in the past, to no avail. We'll see how it works on the mainspace articles. Thanks for tackling this issue, as it was beyond my abilities, tho I did try to fix it a few times also. - BillCJ (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems alright near as I can tell. Also, there are some #if:  afterwards that I don't understand the need for. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now implemented the change (but without the &lt;br&gt; line break, which turns out to be unnecessary). As far as I can tell, it does seem to have fixed the problem and doesn't appear to have caused any disasters in the few aircraft articles I have checked.


 * While experimenting with the template I noticed a couple of peculiarities, the first of which I suspect may be a bug.
 * If the armament parameter is given, whether with or without a non-empty value, and any of the other armament parameters (guns, rockets etc.) are given non-empty values then the latter are not displayed at all. I don't understand why this happens, but is this how it's supposed to work?
 * If the extra performance details in the more performance parameter are given as html list items (i.e. by starting the line with &lt;li&gt;), as suggested in its documentation, then the line spacing at the boundary between the previous performance details and the extra ones is not the same as the spacing between the items themselves. On the other hand, if a wiki-style asterisk is used instead of &lt;li&gt; the line spacing between all the items remains perfectly even. I suggest the latter method be offered in the documentation as the preferred option.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote:
 * "I don't understand why this happens, but is this how it's supposed to work?"

Well, I do now. And judging from the comment on the armament parameter in the Usage section above, that is how it's supposed to work. I don't think this is sufficiently clear from the documentation and may lead to some frustration on the part of editors who try to use both the armament parameter&mdash;or even leave it in their template with an empty value&mdash;together with any of the other specific armament parameters (guns, bombs etc.). I shall amend the documentation to make it clearer that the armament parameter must be omitted for any of the other armament parameter values to take effect. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the template documentation is on the main page. Use of the armament field is explained there.  Not a bad idea to update what's near the top of this page or just remove that part above to keep from confusing people. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wing Loading
Harping back to an earlier discussion, wing loading is useful for comparing climb performance in gliders, the lower the wing loading the better the climb performance in weak thermals and vice versa, as for it being original research, using that criteria we can't use any specs given in reference books, what are people on these days?. Also it would be nice to have the option of knots for all speeds in all templates. I find that the template with useful gliding attributes does not cater for knots or wing loading216.241.47.196 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, if wing loading is given in an a reference, listing it would not be original research. Hiowever, most of the time, the references do not give that, so it is computed from other figures - that's what's being called OR. As to knots, they can be listed in this specs, and usually are, since the fields aren't tied to any particular measurments. However, aero-specs is not like that, though it is better for gliders. - BilCat (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are variables such as water ballast (full/half-full/empty?) and weight of the pilot(s), at the least we would have to give a minimum wing loading with a 70 kg pilot and no water and a maximum wing loading with full water (or water that takes it up to the maximum allowable weight) and a 110 kg pilot. Of course many modern gliders are able to switch wing tips to compete in either 15 or 18 Metre class (which changes the wing area) and the wing span would also have to be specified. It all gets rather complicated, most readers and editors would use the best L/D ratio as a performance marker which is often added under 'more performance'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Add wikilinks?
I see that some elements of the template, such as wingspan, are wikilinks, but others are not, such as hardpoints. How could these be made into wikilinks as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velociostrich (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Monkey see, monkey do.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuel Weight
It should be added to the template Fuel Weight: 10300 kg. Pycb (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That can be added easy enough using the more general or more performance fields. Examples of this are at KC-10 Extender F-35 Lightning II. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Line break handling
Any issues with nowrap-ing the numeric fields in the template? (Existing instances with  or   will still work, but will become redundant.)

Occasionally, this template is seen with longer descriptions in the parameters (that wouldn't benefit from ), but this tends to be inconsistent and is often better handled by a note rather than trying to cram the explanation into the specifications template. TheFeds 18:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian version
Please add Indonesian interwiki to this source: id:Templat:Aircraft_specifications. Thank you. Reindra (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)