Template talk:Aircraft specifications/Pruning

Prune
''Note: this is a transcluded subpage. Click here to edit.''

This template has become a bit bloated in some parts, and I think it's time that we review some of its features and decide whether to keep them or not. Please note that I do not suggest not including these in the articles; I only propose that some of them should be removed from the template code. Some of the fields that need to be discussed:


 * Useful load:Isn't this just the difference between MTOW and empty weight?
 * Vne, Vs, Vmc:Vno and VC are probably the only V speeds used on a regular basis in our articles.
 * Hardpoint codings: I developed this to better accommodate modern fighter aircraft, which carry most weapons on external hardpoints. For example,    would yield Hardpoints: 5, with a capacity of 4,500 kg, equipped to carry combinations of:Guns: 12.7 mm machine gun podsRockets: 70 mm unguided rocketsMissiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missilesFuel tanks: 4,000 L However, since I am going to the trouble of pruning the template, I think this is a very worthy candidate for elimination.
 * Wing loading, thrust/weight, and power/mass:Several editors have argued that these values are always calculated by Wikipedians, and therefore constitute original research.
 * Loaded weight:This figure is cited in many sources, but is usually arbitrary—no universal standard exists for defining loaded weight.

Karl Dickman talk 09:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't "top speed" be Vne? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The template links to VNO for maximum speed. How correct this is, I don't know. Karl Dickman talk 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Top speed" is the maximum speed the aircraft can attain in level flight, typically near or around VNO (normal operations). VNE is the never-exceed speed, typically reached only when the aircraft is in a dive or at high altitudes and mach numbers. ericg &#9992; 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how useful "loaded weight" is for the purposes of Wikipedia; frankly, I think that empty weight and max takeoff gross weight are all that is needed — and "useful load" can be readily determined from those. If I were to add something weight-related, I'd probably substitute "wing loading". As for armament, I think that should be a standard separate section for combat aircraft, whether a template or not. It's not so much performance-related as capability-related. If you are going to make it a template, I would divide the "Missiles" parameter into separate AAM and ASM lines, and add another parameter for "Other pods" (nav, recce, EW, etc.). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although in nearly every article wing loading is calculated as the loaded weight divided by the wing area. Several editors have argued against including wing loading and thrust/weight specs, on the grounds that they are calculated by us and thus uncitable original research.  Karl Dickman talk 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple math is "original research"? If everybody would calculate the same result, then it's hardly original. I could agree if there were a choice of formulae to employ. Max wing loading would tend to get around the "loaded weight" issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dying to add more entries to the specs. I'm just thinking of what the average person familiar with published aircraft encyclopedias would expect to find. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing that might be useful to actually add into the specs would be hover ceiling (IGE, OGE, or both) for helicopters. A lot of the service ceiling entries on helicopter pages are actually hover ceilings and I have to remove them. Hover ceiling is generally a more useful spec for helicopters than the service ceiling and is more often stated by the manufacturer than an absolute service ceiling which is more a function of weight and engine performance. As for the loaded weight, I was always taught that it was the aircraft with oil, fuel and pilot, minus cargo. So, it is a true indication of what the cargo capacity is versus thinking that the useful load is its actual cargo carrying capacity. --Born2flie 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about screwing up the format. I just wanted to point out that in most of the articles the power to weight nomenclature is sloppy. From the Piaggio p180 page: Power/mass: 4.13 kg/kW (6.79 lb/hp) Power/mass implies power to weight, but the number is reversed as weight/power. Many of the articles do this, although power to weight is the idiomatic way of saying it, it is incorrect. It will also lead to confusion for the few aircraft that actually exceed 1:1 Also the term "mass" doesn't make sense as the aircraft is in a gravitational field, and lb is not mass, it is weight.

Engines and armament
Because these sections are relatively complex, perhaps they could use their own subtemplate to make the main template easier to read. Or perhaps the info should be entered manually rather than automatically? Karl Dickman talk 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)