User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 1

Inlet geometry
On F/A-18 Hornet, you added the F-16 as having variable inlet geometry. I always understood that it was fixed on the F-16, and I can have several printed sources on that. Has that been changed on later F-16s? - BillCJ 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I only reverted a change where the F-4 replaced the F-16 in this sentence: The engine air intake of the Hornet is notable among its contemporaries for being "fixed", unlike the F-14, F-15, and F-16 which have variable geometry or variable ramp engine air intakes.. The F-4 is from an earlier era.  Please correct that if needed.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 05:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I didn't check the earlier history. I just wanted to ask first to find out why it there in case you had a reason, and now I know. I'll take it out. THanks. - BillCJ 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

C-5/C-9
I should have explained, sorry. The usual practice is 3 designations per side - 2/3/4/5/6/7/8. The C-9 made 4 after. I'm not trying to be nit-picky, but I couldn't see an obvious reason for it to be there. Sometimes if a number is first or last in a sequence, I may put more to extend it a bit, or if there is some historical reason to show it. There are some unique cases, such as the sequence in the F-35 Lightning article. If you know of a reason in this case, I'd have know problem with it being there. - BillCJ 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't know about the 3 per side. Thanks.  There weren't that many C-9s anyway. -Fnlayson 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's on the WikiProject Aircraft/page content page under "Related content:Designation Sequence". - BillCJ 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

787 titanium usage
Hello Jeff! How are you? titanium is 40% heavier than aluminum. The first reference says titanium being replaced by aluminum but second reference which is older does not. Take care!--Bangabalunga 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Marcus. Thanks, I looked closer.  Somebody got the alumunum/titanium switch backwards in the komotv article. -Fnlayson 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff read this article please. Also there is confirmation from the head honcho at Boeing, the big CEO Mcnerney, he says the plane is 5000 pounds over weight. I live just north of Seattle so i get lots of 787 news. its always on tv. Should we mention this or not? http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/12/29/100loc_a1boeing001.cfm
 * The Herald is the big news company here.--Bangabalunga 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would help quantify the issue. But that's only 2% of the empty weight for a DC-10 (empty weight for 787 not available). -Fnlayson 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We dont have the empty weight of the 787 yet, but 5000 pounds is 2% of 250,000 pounds. This is about accurate. the 787-8 has takeoff of 476,000 pounds, so empty should be around 240,000 pounds. 245,000 as a last resort, but it is 5,000 pounds too heavy. makes sense.--Bangabalunga 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quad TiltRotor copy edit
I've just posted a new article at Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor, and could use a second set of eyes, if you're in the mood. Akradecki 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

KC-767
Thanks for fixing the ref coding on KC-767. A75
 * You're welcome. I think I understand where you going with the CDARAP amd lease parts.  I put the lease info in a subsection.  See if that's how you understand things. Thanks. -Fnlayson 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, I checked it out and made another section tweak along those lines. Open to other idea's if you want to change it further though.   A75

Thanks for not just reverting my edits on KC767, and actually incorporating the gist of them in your updates. I am happy with the new version at this point, and good luck on your edits. A75 03:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I try to do that whereever I can.  If you get a chance see if the Lead reads OK.  It would get too long if I touched on the lease and controversy. -Fnlayson 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way that was good addiation about tanker consortium for the UK MoD. Interesting approach they took.  Since it was just on paper I didn't think a bulleted list was needed.  -Fnlayson 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

B-1 article
Wow, I didn't realize I hadn't posted in my refs, my apologies. I'm surprised no one pointed it out to me earlier.

The good news is that they're fairly easy for me to find again. The descriptions of the background AMSA is a much shorter version of information found in this and Joe's. I basically reduced the entire series to "After a prolonged development period", I didn't think the long series of previous studies was too germane. The comment about the progress of aviation was ad-lib, but I think safely non-contentious. The turbulence reduction system, SMCS IIRC, is mentioned in both articles, and the comment about using it for airliners comes from a late-70's issue of Popular Mechanics (maybe 80?). I can find it again, but that one might take me a while. Actually there's a lot of interesting information in that I think should be mentioned (the tie-in to the ATB for instance, and the changes before the first B-1A's were actually built), but I was afraid it might be took long already. The two paragraphs about the need for the B-1 (in the middle) in terms of penetration and the whole debate within the AF and gov over the need for a new penetration bomber is discussed a little here, (2nd page of above), but nothing that "direct" (see below, I'll discuss this). The addition of new electronics between A and B is also documented there, although the reason is not (also see below). That Carter questioned the expense of such a system in face of the B-52/ALCM is contained in the references above, and that the B-1A was cancelled for the ALCM as well.

I then noticed there are several cite tags in the article, so I'm assuming that's what you're most curious about? The comments state "para needs a ref" but given the information it's a little difficult to know for sure what the issue is because they are all drawn from multiple sources. For instance, the comment about the survivability of the SLBM force and the need for a strategic bomber is a subset of the Triad debate, and I think is essentially non-contentious. It is ad-hoc, but I felt the article needed it as background for the debate that was taking place, and it's all covered in documents like this, when the generals were called on to defend the concept. Note that references to defending the concept are always written by the USAF :-) That it was a debate at all is more difficult to ref of course, but one can see mentions in the few policy documents from that era one can find like here (just an abstract) and the GAO report which questioned the entire concept in light of inflated claims. Modern arguments are almost always based on keeping the bombers for the conventional side, and I've even seen a call to eliminate ICBMs in order to keep the bombers. I believe that covers every statement up to "Flight tests of the four B-1A models...", which is the B-1A section.

In the B-1B section I see two tags. One is about the introduction of look-down systems. This was known by the defection of Viktor Belenko, who described the "super MiG-25" as having look-down capability in order to attack cruise missiles. The MiG-31 article talks about this. That new the ECM was actually added is referenced earlier (and in practically every B-1 article). The second tag is the mention about the spreading of the defense contracts was already there, my addition in that area was to mention the greatly increased price and the debate it sparked. I think that's it for the B-1B section.

However, it was while looking for the comparative weights for the comments about the B-1_A_ carrying less load than the B-52 that I got a little confused. All I can find now is 60,000 lbs for the B-52, and a single mention of the _increase_ between the A and B models here. However this leads me to believe the B-1A was in fact much larger too, so I've removed this claim even though I was led to believe it by a B-52 pilot (ahh, politics). I'm also a little suspect of the language I used in the "unkillable" comment, and I'd like your thoughts on that.

BTW I'm looking over the edit list to try to figure it all out and I see you've really done a lot of work beating it into shape. Kudos. If I have missed anything above, let me know!

Maury 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maury. I know almost nothing about the background and early politics of the B-1.  -Fnlayson 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading it all I also decided it simply rambled. I think the expansion into the background is justified, so I've dramatically lengthened this section. I hope you'll agree that the whole Triad debate now reads better, although it is a little worrying that the length is so long. Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think. Maury 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Italian KC-767
While out doing errands this morning, I happened to be driving by Air Force Plant 42 and saw the Italian KC-767 sitting on the ramp of Boeing's Space Shuttle facility...strange it would be there! Made my morning, though...kinda cool to see a plane I've written on WP about in person. Akradecki 20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Palmdale area huh. That is pretty cool. -Fnlayson 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Palmdale? Heavens no (with a shudder!). The north side of the plant is bordered by the grand metropolis of Lancaster.... Akradecki 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You got me there. I definitely don't know the area.  I'm almost 2000 miles away.  I know my way around the Huntington Beach area from work, but that's it.  -Fnlayson 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aussie Rhinos
What is it with these guys? THey are so giddy about the RAAF getting Super Hornets, they aren't paying much attetion to what they're doing! You removed a redundant section, then I remove another one. Oh, I the guy who added the info into the existing section also added it on the legacy Hornet page. What's next, the YF-17 page?? :) - BillCJ 07:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, they seem to running a race who can get that info added first. To heck with accuracy and reduncancy. :) -Fnlayson 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance request
You seem to know your way around spec tables pretty good, so I was wonderiring if you could help me out on the Airwolf (helicopter) page. I'd like to do a side-by-side chart of the Bell 222 (original model) and Airwolf to give a good comparision of what the real aircraft could do, and what the fictional version could do. I really don't care what it looks like, as long as it looks good. If this is not a project you want to work on, it's OK. One of the editors on the Airwolf page wanted to have a page on the helicopter, and I'm just trying to make sure it stays grounded in reality! - BillCJ 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you or someone copied the Bell specs to the Airwolf page. What catagories do you want to list?  Size, weight, engines, speed, range & celing maybe.  I used to watch that show every week when it was on the air.  That and Bluethunder. -Fnlayson 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I used to watch both shows also. Oh, I added the two specs charts; didn't expect them to overlay like that tho, might be useful somewhere else. Basically keep most of the Airwolf specs, and match up what you can of the 222. I guess we should take the weapons out, and list them elsewhere. Just use your best judgment; if I think it needs tweaking, I'll let you know. THanks for the help. - BillCJ 03:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. THanks. However, maybe this is just my browser or comp setup, but I cant see the writing on the header; it's just all black. I'm running IE6 on Win XP, 850 Mhz, 800x600 on 32-bit color. - BillCJ 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Humm, I used the same dark gray as one of the other tables there. I'll look at it. -Fnlayson 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

MD-11 weights
I have seen that you've changed the MTOW for four versions. Although the numbers shown right now aren't wrong, they represents the standard weight of the aircraft. And over the years many operators has ordered aircraft with higher MTOW, or modified their fleets to higher standards.

For instance, KLM MD-11s have a MTOW of 280,320 kg: http://www.newfoundland.nl/cgi-bin/rld_search_uk.cgi?langPH-KCA

Martinair MD-11CF and MD-11F have a MTOW of 285,990kg, like the MD-11ER. http://www.newfoundland.nl/cgi-bin/rld_search_uk.cgi?langPH-MCT

On this site, you can see on the manufacturer documents that the MD-11C has a MTOW of 625,451lbs or even higher as an option. http://md-eleven.net/Specs-Technical-Details

I remember that Swissair's MD-11 were considered as MD-11AH (Advanced Heavy) because they had the higher MTOW without the extra tank for more range.

All this to say that it could be better to show the higher MTOW or both. --EuroSprinter 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I listed the numbers from the airport planning report (last rev'ed 1998). I guess that is not up to date or totally accurate.  You could add extra columns for the AH and whatever else is needed. -Fnlayson 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The heavy/ER type weight seems to be an option. That's what the MD-11 brochure says.  I listed the standard weights except for the ER column.  I could add an extra line for the 630 klb weights. -Fnlayson 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

--EuroSprinter 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding a new column for the MD-11AH because these are just pax MD-11 incorporating almost all the PIP (Performances Improvement Programme) and the higher MTOW. Swissair's fleet was always designated as MD-11s. Finnair seven aircraft are MD-11s with the ER/higher MTOW, but without the range.
 * I remember, when I bought it, that in the JP airlines fleet book published every year, each aircraft had the MTOW numbers shown. This could be a good way to see which operators are still having MD-11s with the standard/original weight, mainly for US airlines as I can't get access to that information yet.
 * Adding an extra line to show optional/higher could be good thing. On UPS site, I haven't been able to get a figure of their aircraft weight. So unless we can find it on the web, the book I mentioned would be the best way to know.

It seems that MD-11AH is a designation used only by Swissair for its PIP modified MD-11s having the heaviest MTOW too. --EuroSprinter 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh OK. Glad you mentioned PIP before.  I looked that up and added some info on it. -Fnlayson 22:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found some details regarding the fleets of Saudi Arabian, Transmile and Varig Log.


 * Saudia MTOW 632,500lb / 286,848kg, but I0m wondering if these aren't the numbers for the max. taxi weights.
 * Transmile MTOW 630,500 / 285,990 or 625,500 / 283,722. All four aircraft are ex. Swissair, but two were bought second hands from German charter LTU, which didn't need the same capability as Swissair which used them essentially from GVA/ZRH to JFK.
 * Varig Log MTOW 280,320kg. These are two aircraft previously owned by Korean Air. Two others went to World Airways.

This gives us a better view of all the differences out there. Lufthansa Cargo and Alitalia designate MD-11SF all their aircraft converted from pax/combi, five for each airlines. But FedEx and UPS don't seem to do the same. --EuroSprinter 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

MD-11 References
I've just added a new reference (book), and I'm wondering if we shouldn't simplify all the sources and references. Under "Specification" there are some links, including another book I've used, and under "References" and "External Links" there are many other references (some already used under Specification), including my latest. I wonder if all these "sources" in three places won't confuse other users of the article. --EuroSprinter 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Well, that was more a questioning than an affirmative and indeed I prefer some sources under the table too. I've checked the page about the DC-10 where I've also edited and added book's references. On that page, the books were left on the references, and Boeing links put under the table. Just an idea, you're more experienced than me with Wiki. --EuroSprinter 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, I've noticed the differences depending the source. I'm actually trying to determine how all these different options have evolved. When you that Swissair aircraft were delivered with 605,000lb, then upgraded to 618,000 before going to 630,500. And I'm not sure if I don't forget one or two modifications.... You really appreciate my work, I have to say I appreciate your help. --EuroSprinter 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I made that change. I prefer the sources under the table to see where values came from.  -Fnlayson 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, well those books should be listed as references. You used them in the article, I believe.  I might list them both under the spec table and in the references section since the weights aren't the same in all sources.  I really appreaciate your work on this article, btw.  -Fnlayson 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AH-64 Apache
You made an edit here (diff) to differentiate between the manufacturers. The way you currently have it worded makes it sound like Hughes and MD developed it together or that MD took over from Hughes in developing the Apache. As I understand it, Hughes was solely responsible for the YAH-64 and AH-64A development and MD purchased Hughes and continued production and developed the AH-64D Longbow. How do you see it with your references? --Born2flie 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I think that is better than how it was. --Born2flie 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I just wanted to talk it over with you, since you made the initial change to include all manufacturers. I think this newest change is the best one. Great job! --Born2flie 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * MDC did the Longbow design work in the early to mid-1990s. That should be worded better it seems.  I'll see what I can do. -Fnlayson 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Change it to something better if you want.. -Fnlayson 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18 E/F RCS
Hey Jeff. Hope the point I'm making isn't too problematic. Documentation/sourcing is how we differentiate this forum from random blogs, right? Am I off base on this thing? Thanks--Jonashart 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're off base much anyway. ;) It is just that sources for RCS are limited.  That's classified or sentative info.  We have to use the best reliable info available. -Fnlayson 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, right, exactly. So, stating definitively that the RCS HAS been reduced is assuming a whole bunch of things. Like I said, I'm more than willing to believe that, in fact, the RCS has been reduced. But then, that's a leap of faith...not an agreement with proven science. Anywho, thanks.--Jonashart 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ref. fix! Nicely done.--Jonashart 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Winglets provide lift
Hello Jeff, I see you are an engineer. On the 787 talk page several people are arguing whether winglets provide lift to an airplane. Is this true? I dont know the answer either way, but my guess is that winglets may produce localized lift which eliminates drag at the tip of the wing which in turn takes pressure off the plane. The winglets dont provide direct lift to the fuselage like wings do but by their localized horizontal lift cacels some pressure off the wings. I'd appreciate some insight.Marcus--Bangabalunga 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the issue was about winglets providing some thrust. I don't really understand it.  My background doesn't include aerodynamics.  I had always thought they just reduced drag.  One way or another that's the net result. :) -Fnlayson 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat
The Ceremonial Last Flight Tomcat experienced a single Generator caution light so the spare launched in its place. The local AP stringer (SONJA BARISIC) changed that to "mechanical problems" to suit her spin for the AP wire release. The local press only reported one problem, which was accurate:

'An F-14 flown by Lt. Cmdr. Chris Richard with radar intercept officer Lt. Mike Petronis makes the actual flyover after the first jet had a mechanical problem. The F-14 is being replaced with the F/A-18 Super Hornet.' (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=111479&ran=132499).

The AP reporting in Tidewater has gotten things wrong in the past in a rush to get copy on the wire. Wasn't the first time, likely not the last. HJ32
 * OK. Thanks for explaining.  I would have figured it out when you added the reference. :) -Fnlayson 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure because the references do conflict with one another so it does pose a dilemma in which one to go with, ne c'est pas? --HJ 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, looks fine. -Fnlayson 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bell 222 table coding
I was wondering why you changed the Bell 222 table from the wikipedia standard style to something else? —MJBurrage • TALK  • 00:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What standard? Where?  There's nothing about a standard on the Help pages or Manual of Style that's I've been able to find. -Fnlayson 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Most tables on Wikipedia use style="wikitable" which gives them a standard appearance. Note that as far as I know this is not a rule, but rather an informal attempt to make Wikipedia more uniform. I.E. there are many tables that use other colors for specific reasons, but if the color of the table is unimportant to the topic, most tend to stick to the "wikitable" table design. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the aircraft articles I watch use the class="wikitable" thing. That doesn't do anything that can't be done other ways (Help:Table). -Fnlayson 03:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to back Jeff up here, a lot of aircraft and airline articles use colors and differing styles in their tables. As long as there is no guideline on tables, either wiki-wide or in specific projects, editors are free to choose their own styles or colors, with or without a good reason for their choices. I have brought up adopting a standard style for spec tables on airliner pages on WP:AIR, but the discussion did not get very far. Feel free to chime in, and maybe we can come up with some ideas for a standard table.
 * Btw, the Bell 222 page is going to be replaced soon with an updated article, including the table. If you make changes to the table that's there now, be aware it is going to be replaced anyway. - BillCJ 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, all using class="wikitable" does is standardize the colors and lines of the table to match the general look of Wikipedia. Content and structure are still based on the editor's decisions. Using this default style gives the table an appearance consistent with the majority of tables in the encyclopedia (since more use this design than any other), and removes the need to clutter the table code with lots of color and/or border commands since they are built into the CSS class already. Compare the following three tables:

Notice how it takes more work (than in the third table) to do custom formatting in the second table, and that the table would be harder for someone else to edit due to the extra code. The third table is 1) more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and 2) easier for others to edit later. (P.S. where in WP:AIR is this being discussed?) —MJBurrage • TALK  • 07:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I understand those differences. Several articles have tables with a different BG color on the header row but that's about it.  The dicussion on table guidelines has been archived now.  See Spec tables in WP:Air talk archive 15.  -Fnlayson 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 737 under-wing engines
The "issue" was having to use partially triangular engine intakes and side-mounted accessories on the high-bypass engines on later models. This is well documented; I don't think we need a fact check on it - the article discusses it elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement read like there were engine failures due to FOD. That'd be an incident. -Fnlayson 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True. That more specific claim could use some references, sure.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bell helicopter sandboxes
Jeff, I just added the updated version to the Bell 407 page. Could you double-check it for me? Thanks. Btw, I've moved my sandboxes to new pages; the updated list is here. - BillCJ 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. Got it. Those better names for your sandboxes. -Fnlayson 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the Frawley book does not cover the 429, as it was printed in 2003. It does have info on the 427, tho not the planned/stillborn 427i. I plan on using the Bell 429 site and the Flugrevue page in the EL fo r the specs. - BillCJ 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. You have a Frawley ref thing in the Capcaity line in the Specs.  Guess that was a carry over from something then.  No problem.  -Fnlayson 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a carry-over from the 407, where I stole the specs table from. Thanks for catching that. I've gone live now with the full version at Bell 429, and the sandbox will be deleted soon. - BillCJ 18:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I noticed that the specs on User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 222 and User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 430 don't have the engine models listed (just the power rating). I still don't trust myself on tables, so can you try to add those sometime in the nest few days? Oh, don't bother messing with the current Bell 222 page's table unlkess you really want to do it. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can add a row for Engine/powerplant, but I may not be able to readily find the models numbers to fill in. I'll leave question marks for stuff I can't find.  -Fnlayson 02:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Finished. Couldn't readily find the engine type for the 222(A).  Maybe an earlier variant for the 222B's engine (??). -Fnlayson 02:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A previous editor on the 222 page (probably Alan) has detailed engine info at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 222. I'd need to ask him to be certain that he was the one, and to clarify his sources, but most of the data is probably from the Bell 222/230 Field Maintenance Training Manual, which is listed in "References". - BillCJ 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 430 ready
Jeff, I have finished up the Bell 430 sandbox. If you could double check it for me, I'd appreciate it. I'f asked Alan to look at to too, and then move it to Bell 430 over the redirect, so it might be on the main page by the time you read this. - BillCJ 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some cleaning up. Looks good. -Fnlayson 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I manually copied your sandbox content over the redirect in the 430 article. That does nt get the history though.  Let Alan move the sandbox over it I guess.. -Fnlayson 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Alan does that it's fine, but if not that's OK too. I just think it's good to give the new pages some edit history if we can, but it's not a big deal either way.

I'm going to cut the 430 out of the main 222 page, and copy the new specs over, and the other sections, but I'm still working on the new text in the sandbox. Thanks again for your help. - BillCJ 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of mph/kph in 787
Jeff the reason I have removed the speeds is mph/kph are multifold, this is currently the standard parctice on Wikipedian jet article (737/747). The refs I have provided from Boeing only quote the Mach number. The reason they are not present is because there is no consitent way to convert Mach Number to a velocity. As I'm sure you are aware the speed of sound (Mach 1.0) depends on a number of factors (temperature, pressure altitude, air density etc..) For example (discounting air density/pressure altitude) at 0°C the speed of sound is about 740 mph (making Mach 0.85 equal to 630mph) where as a temperature of -50°C (not uncommon at FL400) the speed of sound is only 670 mph (making mach .85 = 570 mph) This gets further complicated when you consider pressure & density, When considering this with respect to an aircraft there are other things to consider, for example wind speed, this then brings the question do the speeds refer to Ground Speed, Airspeed (TAS or IAS). Hence the reason jet aircraft crusing speeds are normally given in Mach Number. The litereture that does give speeds in mph/kph is usually the Janet & John bit (i.e. for those who have no concept of the speed of sound). -- Rehnn83 Talk 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Standard practice? There's no consensus on WP:AIR for that across the board.  Boeing provides mach values and speeds for all its other planes.  Fair enough on the 787 since they don't have that listed on its pages right now.  But it will get spec pages like the other planes later.. -Fnlayson 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regrading standard practice - As I pointed out it's currently the Standard practice for similar aricles on WP. It's also the industry standard, IAS/TAS is only used when climbing or descending curise speeds are always given in Mach. (E.G. A NatX pos rep "BAW309 - at 52N30W FL360 Mach .82 at 1330Z....". -- Rehnn83 Talk 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as listing only mach numbers in similar articles is not true. Only the Boeing 727, 737 and 787 articles are like that and Boeing hasn't provided speeds for the 787 yet.  No mach numbers are listed for the 707.  Wikipedia is not limited to industry standards.  It's no problem to list conversions & extra data. -Fnlayson 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On reflection I can see there are arguments from both sides. Rather than have every article different - I have decided to garner the community consensous at WP:AIR see -- Rehnn83 Talk 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! South Carolina Trip
Hi Jeff. I have a chance to go to Vought in Charleston South Carolina in August and see the 787 being built. Would you like to go with me? You can read Bill's talk page for more info. Take care Marcus --Bangabalunga 18:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty good. Would that be a 1 day tour?  There's plenty of historical stuff in Charleston to see as well.  I'm sure I can do that.  Let me know a date when you are able to narrow it down. -Fnlayson 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I will. I asked if we can fly on the Dreamlifter 747 but of course they said no. I knew that. I said it in a jokish way. But we can peak inside and take lots of pictures of the dreamlifter. We can also take down specs for the dreamloader and all other stuff for wikipedia. Marcus--Bangabalunga 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Thanksfully the Dreamlifter is big and long enough so it doesn't look so much like the bloated Guppy planes. -Fnlayson 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina Trip
Hello Jeff, Yes as far as I know the trip is on. I have semi-distant family memebers living in Spartanburg and we are planning on visiting them around August. I dont know if this is for sure or not as flights are expensive. I will try and make it there for this summer. I will give you plenty of notice.--Bangabalunga 17:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll be driving and will probably take a most of a week off for that. -Fnlayson 17:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I think the empty weights on the 787-3 to be correct. I didn't place the numbers on the spec page but they do sound right. I placed a fictional calculation on the talk page.--Bangabalunga 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Aggies Band
Well folks, thanks to your reviews and comments, the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is now a featured article on Wikipedia. It should take a day or so to update, but it's a done deal. Thanks for the help,. — BQZip01 — talk 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad it came through.  -Fnlayson 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-25
Hi Jeff, I have some big plans with the Su-25 article (my final objective is to make it an FA until August), and I need somebody to give me advices and do some copyediting and other things like that. I started editing this article because I found a very good source, which can cover almost the entire article. I completely overhauled the "Operators" and "Combat service" sections, and I like to hear your opinion regarding them (because I think you are a truelly expert on the subject). Are you interested to help? Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do what I can to help. I don't know anything about the Su-25 right now, so I'll see if I can do some simply copy edit stuff. -Fnlayson 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I actually needed, somebody to take care of the minor things of the article (typo, copyedit; fixing links, templates, layout, etc.). Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bombardier CRJ
Jeff, although I didn not inted to do it this soon, anotehr jumped the gun, and split the Bombardier CRJ aritcle into the Bombardier CRJ100/200 and Bombardier CRJ700/900 pages. Could you break up the specs template on the main page, and move the correct versions to their respective pages? Thanks. Btw, if those gaudy border colors were "accidently" cahnged during the move, I wouldn't complain ;) - BillCJ 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look that. They split the CRJ into 100/200 & 700/900 (fixed your link above). -Fnlayson 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in. Would you like me to do the spec sheet? I love table making. --Bangabalunga 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did that saturday. I just had to copy the table from the CRJ article to the 2 pages and remove unneeded columns. -Fnlayson 13:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mikoyan MiG-29
Sorry for my snarky edit summary and reversion of your edit. Thanks for finding a compromise version. --John 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that big of deal. The NATO name thing got discussed on the Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29 page some.  It seems like a Western biased to emphasize the NATO names for Soviet aircraft too much. -Fnlayson 03:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, if we can find a good source that notes the Russia/other users use the NATO name, we should put it into the article. It's rare that NATO code names are adopted by the "enemy".
 * Soviet use of "Fulcrum" is actually in the article at the end of the Development section and referenced too. -Fnlayson 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, good! See, I'm just a bit slow, but had the right idea! We might look into moving that to the lead, if it will fit stylistically. - BillCJ 03:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Mentioned in the NATO sentence. -Fnlayson 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

B-2 weight in gold
Hey Jeff, I remember the B2 article for the longest time made the point that each B2 costs twice its weight in gold. I remembered this and just brought a friend to the computer to show it to him and its gone. Is this statement not true? I divided the cost by its weight and multiplied it by the price of gold at 400 bucks an ounce and it is really true.--Bangabalunga 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to but in, but there is a detailed discussion of this on the B-2 talk page. One important thing to remember: Gold doesn't fly, nor is it nearly invisible to radar, among many other things the B-2 can do. A pile of gold sitting on the runway does no one any good except the enemy that won't get bombed! - BillCJ 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very funny Bill, but the comparison to gold can bring the enormous cost of the plane into perspective for someone that doesn't understand what a billion dollar is! I was showing it to my kid cousin who loves military planes and B2 and B1 are his favorites.--Bangabalunga 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. If someone can't understand a billions dollars, they won't understand the real value of that gold.  It's along the lines of saying a plane can carry XYZ golf balls, imo. -Fnlayson 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I agree with Jeff. In order to include such a statement, you'd have to quote a verifiable source. As pointed out in the discussion, the quote cited in the articel was from a political speech by agovernor of IL, not a finacial or erospace magizine article or some such. But if you can find something like that, post the source on the talk page, and we'll take a look at it. - BillCJ 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh totally forget it. I am not serious about this at all. I have no feelings either way. Its just that i was reading it and I couldn't find the gold statement. Thats all. I thought it was an interesting trivia fact that had it been made of gold, it would cost half as much. Of course it wouldn't be a functioning plane at that point. I agree as well. Not a biggie.--Bangabalunga 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Costs
Jeff, I would like to replace the last paragraph of the Devel section to: The B-2 cost estimates per plane has ranged from 1.157 billion to 2.2 billion US dollars.

The 1994 Defense Authorization Act approved of 20 bombers with the following costs:
 * $28,968 million in 1981 dollars (currently equal to $44,656 million in then-year dollars)
 * $39,639.7 million in 1994.

It reads like a magazine article not an encyclopedia. Any objections?
 * (Side note... BillCJ is really ticked off! I understand! Hope he comes back.) LanceBarber 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine with me Lance. The comparison to an aircraft carrier seems silly. I'd like to keep the actual $150M manufacturing cost sentence, if I can find a reference for it. -Fnlayson 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

XB-70 Valkyrie
Just wanted to write a note of thanks. I'd been working a bit on the Valkyrie article, and submitted it as a GA candidate mainly to see where it was and how much further it needed to go. I've been so busy working on my thesis lately I hadn't had a chance to make many of the needed improvements. You've put a lot of work into the article, and I wanted to make sure you saw that someone recognized it. Twredfish 01:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for your work on it before. I got a little more on the background I can write. -Fnlayson 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your thesis work if it is not done. Writing my thesis was like pulling teeth to me. -Fnlayson 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bombardier CSeries
Jeff, I was looking at the Bombardier Aerospace page today, and realized that there was an extensive section on the Bombardier CSeries there (mostly unsourced). I moved the section to the Bombardier CSeries article, and rewrote a small blurb on it of the company page. Unfortunately, after spending almost an hour rewriting the Bombardier CSeries page, I lost it all by hitting the wrong key. I have tried to redo it, and hopefully it makes sense. When you can, could you look over the page, and check my edits? Thanks. - BillCJ 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles look alright to me Bill. I did a little clean-up but nothing major. -Fnlayson 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

B-1 Lancer UK link
Jeff, UK webmaster fixed the captions. Link added back into aritcle. Have a great 4th! LanceBarber 18:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I noticed you added it back, Lance. Thanks and have a great 4th!! -Fnlayson 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Got a series of walk-around pics for the B-1A, will load them in a day or 2... I'll create a gallery section... nose gear, bomb bay, tail section, main gears, intakes, and canard. LanceBarber 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good deal! Thanks for the update. -Fnlayson 12:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gallery added. LanceBarber 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

MD-80's closest competitor
Why is the really stub information about Boeing 737-400 being the "closest competitor" of the MD-80 being moved around as if it would be important. Unless sourced, that's really a piece of information out of the blue. The plane has been offered to customers and buyers for 30+ years, and it has been competing with a lot of aircraft types during those decades.

Appreciate the other edits you've made in the MD-80 article; sets the style, adds quality.
 * That sentence has been there for some time. Other airline articles have similar statements.  Most of the articles list the aircraft in service at the bottom of the section as it is usually the most current info.  That's why I moved the competitor sentence up. -Fnlayson 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Thunder
Jeff, you can keep an eye out for a Blue Thunder pic that we can use? If it's copyrighted to Columbia, then we can use it under fair use. We'll have to post it on the movie page if it's fair use until we get the copter page ready, since fair use pics can't be used on userpages. - BillCJ 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do there. -Fnlayson 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

M1911 A2 Project
The project was in late 2004. I added that in there and stuck it at the bottom of Current Users. Thanks, Matthew Biebel 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks. -Fnlayson 14:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question, assessment
Jeff, who is the person who usually promotes an article after an A-class review on WPAVIATION? Does somebody like Kirill Lokshin exist there? The other article which is on A-class review is there since May, and nobody passed or failed it... Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know Euroc. I haven't been involved with that.  Looks like you need to ask for assessment on WP:Air/A.  -Fnlayson 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done it. Can you have a look to see if it's right? Thanks, Eurocopter tigre 23:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looked fine to me. I added a link to that page on the Su-25 talk page. -Fnlayson 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Eurocopter tigre 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning II
Jeff, does it appear to be a whole lot of speculation in this article? I know that things are still up in the air but I wonder if it would be prudent to trim some of the other editor's ramblings? I noted you took umberage about someone's "babble" that crept into the intro. FWIW Bzuk 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Yea, that was an IP user's opinions about what's wrong with the F-35, all unsourced. No sure where you mean.  If you can cut back some ramblings without it losing meaning, go for it. -Fnlayson 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
Jeff, I won't go into detail here about the use of quotation marks, but sufficient to say is that the Wikipedia style guide in this area is mistaken as to use of quotation marks. I have dealt with this issue for a decade with editors worldwide so I know that it is still a contentious issue. BTW, I am an editor by trade and very pedantic to boot.

Briefly, The Properly Incorrect Use of Punctuation in Quotes as given in technical works:

The correct rule for punctuation within Quotation Marks, says:

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.

Example: He told us, "Put the period in the right place." Does this rule apply to technical writing?

No! Not always.

The goal of a technical manual and preseumably Wikipedia, is to tell the user precisely what to do and how to do it. Sometimes, grammar gets in the way.

Consider the following sentence:

Type your name into the from field like this: "Doug." Then press the tab key.

This is misleading in a technical manual.

Quotation marks are often used in technical document to show exactly what the user should type into an input field. In these cases, the quotations show what a user should type verbatim.

Should they type the period? NO! not in this case. So the period does not belong inside the quotes. Instead, break the grammatical rule and write this:

Type your name into the from field like this: "Doug". Then press the tab key.

Now is is clear to the user that they should type Doug in the from filed, without the period.

You can try to avoid these grammatical problems by changing the sentence structure, but this may lead to other problems. For example, you may change the need for a period into the need for a comma. Or you may end up with a longer, more convoluted sentence, hardly clear, concise and a quick read.

Follow the correct rules for punctuation whereever possible, but keep clarity and technical correctness (rather than grammatical correctness) as the priority.

Make sure information is easy to find and can be clearly understood, even at the expense of making a few minor grammatical faux pas.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it has established a variance in a grammatical rule as if it was the norm. FWIW Bzuk 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Gee, if that's not going into to detail, I'd hate to see detail.. ;) -Fnlayson 23:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I did say pedantic, didn't I? |:¬∆˙ Bzuk 06:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks - BAE Systems
Hi. Thanks for the reply regarding BAE. Since then I looked into it a bit more & I sent the webmaster an e-mail. I'll let you know what (if any) response I get. The phrase that set me off was "is the successor to many of the most famous British aircraft, defence electronics and warship manufacturers." -- I wrote that to "provoke interest" in the subject of the article as suggested by a FAC whilst also considering what might sound NPOV. The more I read the more I recognised it!! Mark83 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Want to hear something interesting? The section in question has been pulled from the website (http://production.investis.com/heritage/nonflash/timeline/1999_bae_systems/ original link now broken) and timeline with final entry (the one in question) removed. Mark83 18:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's the quick fix to it. Did they reply to your e-mail?  -Fnlayson 01:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Behind the making of the 787
Hello Jeff, James wallace of the Seattlepi wrote an article yesterday that is interesting. The part about the Sonic Cruiser is the best! http://seattlepi.com/business/321719_dreamliner29.html take care, marcus--Bangabalunga 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks Marcus! -Fnlayson 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Marcus and Jeff, I agree this is a great article, one we need to reference in the 787 and Sonic Cruiser wiki pages. In addition, http://fleetbuzz.wordpress.com/2007/06/27/history-is-coming-boeing-787-emerges/ has some great pre-rollout images taken by Jennifer Buchanan from The Herald. Charles Conklin took the pre-rollout pictures included in the June 26, 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article (http://seattlepi.com/business/321458_dreamliner27ww.html). --Dan Dassow 14:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, These are some pictures of the roll-out that are simply beautiful. http://blog.jefflaplante.com/2007/07/09/boeing-787-rollout/ "Boeing 787 Rollout: Yesterday I was fortunate enough to attend Boeing’s 787 Rollout party at the Everett factory. Having a wife that helped draw the trailing edge of the wings has it’s perks." --Dan Dassow 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. Those are very clean pics.  Good job on sourcing the 787 article.  Keep up the good work! -Fnlayson 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, thank you for clarifying that the drop test is crash test. I was somewhat reluctant to refer to this test as a crash test, since this may imply more than testing for a very hard or gears-up landing. Since you are a mechical engineer and probably have participated in drop tests, I appreciate your correction. --Dan Dassow 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it sorta read like they accidentally dropped a fuselage section during production at first. So I thought that should be clarified.  It's not a full crash test, but a partial one.  Thanks for adding that.  I hadn't seen any news on that stuff. :) -Fnlayson 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I have a Google alert for "787", "B787", "787 Rollout" and "Dreamliner". Most of this is repetitious, but occasionally I come across something of interest.--Dan Dassow 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Boeing's release on crash testing. "787 completes physical crashworthiness testing". -Fnlayson 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

C-23 Sherpa
Jeff, a user has added two commercial pics of the Short 330 to the page, so I am going to try to work on adding text to User:BillCJ/Sandbox/C-23 Sherpa page this week. I spent today adding pics from the DOD image site to the C-23 Commons page, so feel free to have a look, and add the ones you like to the sandbox. DOn't worry about blank space right now, just pic what you think are the best of each type. I'm also setting up User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Short 330 and User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Short 360, and hope to dump in some text in the next few days to expand them. - BillCJ 07:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Frawley pic credits
Jeff, I see you added The International Directory of Civil Aircraft, 2003/2004 to your books list, and so I assume you have it now. If so, check out the photo credit for the Short 360 listed at the bottom of page 193. Interesting, huh? There should be a few more throughout the book. PS, is the new Harrier II book any good? - BillCJ 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! He's not a relative that I know of.  I just got that one in the mail this afternoon.  I guess I should add some info on the Short 330 & 360 this week... -Fnlayson 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Another sandbox! (CH-53K)
Jeff, I've started a sandbox on the CH-53K at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky CH-53K. I don't expect to go live with it this year, but when more info, such as specs, does come out, we can have something close to ready. - BillCJ 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I added that to my watch list.  You intend for that sandbox article to eventually become a stand alone CH-53K article, right?  -Fnlayson 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so. The CH-53K is going to be largely new, even the fuselage is about a foot wider. I don't think it needs to be separated now, but eventually it will get to that point. - BillCJ 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine Bill. On something else.  Canada is very happy to get the C-17.  Look at all the CC-177 articles on the CF Air Force news page. :) -Fnlayson 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So are the Canadian editors here, who keep adding to that section on the C-17 page :) Soon, it'll be longer than all the other sections combined! I'm going to try to cut it back to the bear essentials once all the hoopla dies down. You've done a good job of keeping it trimed tho to this point. I hope we don't end up having to spin off the C-177, becasue it's not any different than late-model USAF planes. In fact, they actually ARE USAF planes, because the USAF allowed Canada to take some of their slots, and the planes were under consturction befre Canada signed on. I'm exicted for the Boeing people who make them, because a few years ago the C-17 was about dead. At least the RAF/RAAF/CF/NATO orders have given it new life for now, thogh the orders are relativley few. It's even more exciting for me because of all the bad-mouthing about the plane during its development, probably second only to the V-22's criticism. But with the War on Terror, the C-17 has demonstrated it's usefulness, and now "everyone" wants some, even Sweden! The Swedes don't usually participate in programs like this because of their neutrality, but they are part of the NATO buy. Anyway, McDD did a good job on it. (Isn't this the last McDD transport still in production?) - BillCJ 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut out a paragraph and half from the Canadian section last week. I say give it a month or two before cutting down more.  The C-17 was not a simple design; a large STOVL cargo plane that can use rough runways.  It's the only MDC support craft in production that I can think of. The AF will need more of them in a few years with all the hours the C-17 fleet is piling up. -Fnlayson 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Eurocopter tigre 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice but I have not signed up on the MilHist Project. Also, I don't recognize any other users bieing voted on.  Good luck. -Fnlayson 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jeff, could you please go and close the Su-25 review at WP:AVIATION. It has support, but nobody would ever close it because of the bad organization in the project. I would done it, if I weren't the one who requested it. Thanks, --Eurocopter tigre 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to close that out. I'll add it to the WP:Aviation assessment page under Requesting an assessment (link Su-25 review page). -Fnlayson 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

M1 Abrams not adopted by countries ....
The article is somewhat missing a criticism section where several negative effects of the M1 should be combined. Other nations trialling the M1 but not adopting him should be included there. Do you have any idea how to achieve this? --Denniss 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a good place for that now. I'll see if I can make a place... -Fnlayson 22:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A Critism subsection in the new Design features section might work. -Fnlayson 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Project organization
Since I see you already update Template:WPAVIATION Announcements/Rotorcraft, and chance of getting you to add your name to the WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal as the Rotorcraft liason? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, signed up. -Fnlayson 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat
Jeff, the issues that have arisen with this article do have an explanation. Please email me and I will fill you in. FWIW Bzuk 05:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * I only see 1 user complaining about US-bias and stuff. Looks like a hot-head to me.  I'm not that concerned.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Sand Box
Thanx Jeff for your help on staring the Sand Box. I got a Helicopters in Pop Culture- I'm trying to get back on (after being deleted : ( so if you have any contribs, please feel free to drop in thanx again ANigg 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out on that, Jeff. I know how to do it, but describing it left me. - BillCJ 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I guess this User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture is the sandbox article you mean? That really should be User:ANigg/Copters in Pop Culture so it is on your user space. -Fnlayson 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Jeff I think actually I do have it in USER space. If you get a chance can you chk. my page out to tell whether or not I do have in the right place. Also if so if you have any contribs, please feel free ( And no I'm not trying to pass the work on to you LOL)ANigg 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The link above is on your user page, sure. But the "User:DREWNIGG/" part of the link is not your account.  Anyway, I'll look at it sometime.  That's not a major interest for me. -Fnlayson 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Harrier news release
I don't know if there's anything we can use here, but I found this news release, which you might find interesting. - BillCJ 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bill.  Humm, that seems to be recent.  It mentions AV-8As, which I thought had been retired.   Also, the original UK MoD article is better formatted I think.  -Fnlayson 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AV-8A is a typo, I'm sure. the pics of the Harriers in the MOD article are definitely B Pluses. - BillCJ 17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II
Jeff, take a look at the recent edits in this article. Send me an email, I'll fill you in. FWIW Bzuk 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Alright, writing now.. -Fnlayson 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 797
Re this diff, has there been an announcement by Boeing of the 797? Or is this just pure speculation again? - BillCJ 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is just pure speculation. That's the only thing I've every seen of a Boeing double decker.  Their work on the 747-8 would be sorta wasted if they planned to do a 797 anytime soon. -Fnlayson 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, was just making sure I hadn't missed something this week with by slow-down! I Googled "797", and found a bunch of rumors on a Boeing 1000-seat BWB design named 797 dating to 2006, but that certainly wasn't a double-decker like the A380. Also, the best guesses out there have "797" as a possibility for the Y1/737RS, with the Y3 (777/747 replacement) to come later. - BillCJ 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the BWB thing sounds familiar. That'd probably require infrastructure changes at airports.  I was going to do a search on that myself later.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Qantas

 * What are you asking? That Qantas' subsidiaries should count with Qantas or something else?  -Fnlayson 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

yes they should count. Sparrowman980 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Well at Qantas page but at World's largest airlines i have to call it Qantas group but it really isn't called that its just called Qantas. Sparrowman980 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how i see it. Qantas transfers their planes to subsidiaries, so they should all count together, imo.  Where is this coming up at; Qantas articles or aircraft articles? -Fnlayson 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to its web site, "Qantas" covers the whole company & subsidiaries. They also total QantasLink and Jetstar with their numbers here. -Fnlayson 03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right and thats what i used now another one that means that all thos planes are under Qantas right and if that is can you back me up because every time i change something they always revert even if i am right. Sparrowman980 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help. Use the adobe (pdf) file above as a reference for changes. -Fnlayson 04:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanksSparrowman980 04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What i will do thou is creat Qantas group page and link it to Qantas think that will work. Sparrowman980 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a redirect page? Is that really needed here? -Fnlayson 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thats what i am asking?Sparrowman980 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Use a question mark then. ;) I see not need to create a "Qantas group" redirect, unless that a term someone might see used. -Fnlayson 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

K then i won't do it then.Sparrowman980 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel's Syria raid
Jeff, do you know of a good non-wiki article or source on Israel's raid on the Syrian nuclear facility earlier this month? I totally missed any good coverage of it, and thought you might know of some. Also, do you know if there a Wikipedia article on it yet? Thanks. - BillCJ 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know off the top of my head. Seems like I read about it in an article or two.  I'm not seeing anything on the aerospace/defense news sites I check.  Here's an article from the Washington Post though."Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site"  -Fnlayson 17:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Crimson Tide football
Before reverting, you may want to look at the contributions of, who originally added that link, and , his IP. He is the author of that book and was adding it randomly as a "reference" to articles. Putting ref tags around spam doesn't make it not spam. He understands now that this action is against our policies, so there's not a problem any more from that standpoint, but unless you have read this book and have something you would like to legitimately reference with it, please don't undo my removal. -- B 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but how is anyone else to know that? You should have given that reason when you removed before. -Fnlayson 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There were 50+ school articles that he added it to. Hitting the admin rollback button on all of them takes 30 seconds.  Reverting the "slow way" would take 30 minutes. ;) -- B  22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How much would pasting "linkspam" add? ;) -Fnlayson 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot more actually ... with tabbed browsing under Firefox or IE7, along with either the admin rollback button or a tool like WP:TWINKLE that simulates it, you can open up someone's contributions page and have one-click reverting for all of their contributions ... you just go down the page and wheel-click on all of the rollback links. To revert the "slow way", you have to wheel click on each diff, click on each undo link, paste the edit summary, and click ok. If you do a lot of vandalism fighting, I highly recommend WP:TWINKLE for the rollback button on the contributions page ... it makes bulk vandalism reverts very easy. -- B  22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I use Firefox 2 & tab browsing. Good job keeping linkspam/conflict of interest links off wikipedia. -Fnlayson 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessments
Thanks for the kind words. I was disturbed by an essay I read that mentioned the possibility that Wikipedia would never increase in quality, only in size. So I decided to back off from adding pages until I at least tried to help bring up the quality on the existing pages. When I saw that MILHIST had a drive on to update their assessments I tossed my hat in the ring. I have restricted myself to American and German Aircraft for now because I have been studying them for most of my life. As I learn more about editing I may branch out into more of the basic Military History areas I'm interested in, American Civil War, WWI, WWII. I have a large library of specific books I've collected over the years, and I'm learning how to scan through them to find those "things I know I read somewhere" to help with the sourceing craze. Bzuk has been patiently teaching me how to format citations.

While I was slugging through the F's in B-Class military history articles needing review I updated F/A-18, just after I did, I noticed you had recently nested the two project banners. Alas, when I updated it I removed the |nested=yes entries. I've been trying to do nesting for project banners greater than two. It just looked like convention to me from all the Talk pages I've viewed. Is there another reason for nesting besides the number of boxes? Please enlighten me. --Colputt 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've nested them when there's 2 or more banners and a lot of talk. No rule for that, as far as I know, just a space saving thing.  3 or more banners sounds fine to me.  Yea, I've picked up some cite formatting from Bzuk too.  I was using the cite templates, but manually formatting it is just as easier and simpler to read and check. -Fnlayson 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Archtrain
I submitted a formal request for a name change to Archtransit because I didn't like the "train" part. The new name was a compromise to retain a similar name rather than a completely different name. A bureaucrat accepted the request and transferred my entire edit history to Archtransit.

If you look at the edit history of Archtrain, you will see there are no edits. However, the signature (4 tildes) that Archtrain left remain. It's an idiosyncracy of wikipedia, I think.

Judging from your talk page, you edit quite a lot about aviation! Welcome! Archtransit 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not problem with me.  I was just wondering.  It seemed odd that the train redirects to your new one.  -Fnlayson 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered accepting a nomination to be an administrator? Some people think that a potential administrator has to be of a certain mold, i.e. looking for vandalism, participating in articles for deletion debates, and not necessarily a good or frequent editor of articles. I think that a good editor, like you, is the ultimate sign of commitment. With good temperment and a sense of fairness, you encourage others by example to edit. If interested, I'll nominate you. Archtransit 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I want to get into that just yet. Thanks for the offer and kind words. You work on some aircraft articles, you want to check out WikiProject Aircraft, if you haven't already of course.  Take care AT. -Fnlayson 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A-10 edits
Nice job on the A-10 rewrite and an EXCELLENT notation in the references!!! — BQZip01 — talk 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think I've done that much there.  The text has been pretty good.  -Fnlayson 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. user:GB-UK-BI
user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, --noclador 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

MD-12
I'll work on a cite for the panorama windows thing. I clearly remember the Aviation Week ad back in the late '80s showing the concept of a lower front deck. The views in flight would be amazing, but LANDING might be pretty disturbing, depending on conditions... A2Kafir 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've not seen anything on that, but have seen something about putting people in a lower deck on a concept idea for some plane.  I'll look too. -Fnlayson 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, found mention of that on Airliners.net MD-11 page. -Fnlayson 19:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey A2Kafir, in case you didn't see, I found a reference for the lower-front passenger deck with panoramic windows in the MD-12 article. It's mentioned on the Airliners.net MD-11 page. -Fnlayson 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed; good find! Next time I'm at the university library, I'm going to look for the ad I remember; it had a cool illustration (if I remember it right) and might make a good illustration for this article. A2Kafir 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm curious as to what it looked like.  -Fnlayson 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm too late. I know there was consideration of a panorama deck.  The L-1011 actually did have such a thing.  It was built for PSA.  The plane had strakes to provide additional crush protection in case of a wheels up landing. Archtransit 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. A lower deck is mentioned for the L-1011-1 section for Pacific Southwest Airlines, but the panoramia windows are not mentioned.  That be something good to add sometime. -Fnlayson 18:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

PW1120
Jeff, I just found the Pratt & Whitney PW1120 page, and it needs some work. There's been a "Too Technical" tag on it since last Dec, and it is that, making me think it's a text dump from somewhere. I've added a few things, such as ref section and ELs to Globalsecurity pages on the Lavi and F-4 variant with the PW1120 engine. Also, I haven't checked to see if there are any links to the F100, of which the 1120 is a derivitive. When you have time, could you take a look? Thanks. - BillCJ 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, it does look messy. I'll see what I can do there.  An unrelated question:  Does the U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947 book cover non-Army variants like the CH-53E and MH-53E?  Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Naw, the Army never bought any CH-53s. I thought they got early models. -Fnlayson 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

THanks. Nope, the book just covers aircraft which either served with or were evaluated by the Army. Sometimes it has some history on variants/usage in the other services, mostly as background, but not consistently.

PS, if you want to say, exactly what area of aviation/engineering do you work in? (filed, not company, as were in an open forum.) I'd just like to have an idea of where your expertise lies, in case I need advice/help in a particular area on here. Like, I know Alan is in helicopters, primariyl engine maintenance, but I believes he's a pilot also (or at least knows how to fly). So when we had autoratation questions on the V-22 talk page, I asked him for help. Born is an Army OH-58 pilot, so once in a while I'll toss a questiong his way. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My education is in Mechanical Engineering and I work in Structures (stress analysis).  I've dealt with space hardware (Spacelab), missile/rocket hardware, no aircraft yet.  So I can generally cover structural failures and structural integrity matters. :) -Fnlayson 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Have you done much editing with the (fairly-new) WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and aircraft incidents pages? Alan has worked on some of those articles, esp copters, and I try to watch some just to watch the flakes, and the new incidents. Just asking. - BillCJ 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. I might look n on it, but that's not a big interest for me. -Fnlayson 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Thought I'd ask. Anyway, if I run across a structural question somewhere, I'll keep you in mind. :) - BillCJ 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know plenty about metals and a little about composites too. -Fnlayson 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I would be glad to try and help on the helicopter accident work. My expertise is in Army helicopter crashworthiness and flight safety. I'm not an accident investigator, but I understand the helicopter technology incorporated in the aircraft.--The Founders Intent 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can help. If you like it and help regularly there, add your name to their participant list. -Fnlayson 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be great, but I find that the regulars seem to ignore anyone new. It's as though they speak passed you.  I could be wrong, but that's the impression.--The Founders Intent 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it takes a little time for folks to get used to seeing new users around. Don't let that bother you if you want to jump in and work on something or add a comment. -Fnlayson 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern Battlefield Warplanes
I see you finally got Modern Battlefield Warplanes. How d'ya like it? - BillCJ 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, it's very good. I've read the AH-64 and AH-1 sections.  Reading on some others now.  It's got a lot of good info.  Added some info on Fire fighting Cobras from it. -Fnlayson 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! The Harrier section has some good info too. It covers some different areas than the Harrier II: Validating V/STOL book, so the complement each other well. - BillCJ 06:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True. The Validating book focuses more political stuff rather than design info. -Fnlayson 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A-67
Because you'd done a few edits on the A-67 page, just wanted to let you know why it disappeared...the entire article was a cut-and-paste copyvio, so it was deleted. Would probably be a good subject for a "real" article, though.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed some copy & pasting after looking at one article. Dang, I was trying to write a lead in sentence.. -Fnlayson 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, didn't mean to mess you up. Do you need it restored to rework it? It would probably be better to move it to a different title, though.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I copied it over to /A-67 Dragon. I can at least make a basic stub out of it. -Fnlayson 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

F-22 stealth generation
Sorry, I overlooke this : And by the time we got to the fourth generation, we were able to add supersonic speed,

I thought this:

Q: To what degree are radar absorbent materials used on the F-22, and are they of similar sorts that were used on the F-117?

A: Just by way of comparison, the F-117 is completely covered with radar- absorbing material, and this airplane has a very small percentage of its surface covered with radar-absorbing materials. And the materials are, if these are second generation, then these are fourth and fifth generation.--HDP 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that up about the RAM. Looks like you're quoting from the 1999 briefing.  Not sure if I understand what's asking.  I'll try to answer... The shape of the airplane's exterior allows use of less RAM on the newer aircraft designs such as the F-22 and F-35 (also F/A-18E/F vs. F/A-18C/D).  I think the main differences in the newer RAM is maintenance.  The newer ones are easier to maintain and repair from what I've read. -Fnlayson 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * []Ref 19 regarding RAM : "A: Just by way of comparison, the F-117 is completely covered with radar- absorbing material, and this airplane (mean F-22) has a very small percentage of its surface covered with radar-absorbing materials." What Gen. Bruce Carlson not mentioned, CFK absorbs radar waves therefor need the F-22 less RAM. The electrical conductivity of CFK is low. Radar energy arriving a CFK structure has a hard job setting up the electrical an magnetic currents which reradiate the energy. --HDP 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AH-56 Cheyenne
Jeff, I've seen you working on the article. Wondered if you would look at my sandbox article. I've been working the History section to include up to the award of the Engineering Development contract. I'll be looking to cover development work by Lockheed in the Development section. Let me know what you think. --Born2flie (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your History section looks pretty good to me. My main source on the AH-56 is the Abridged AAH history report.  So I don't have a good knowledge of all details.  -Fnlayson (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm currently searching for the test flight program and other development details on the part of Lockheed, including weapons testings and integration. I found an interesting tidbit about the tail rotor gearbox being redesigned to turn the opposite direction for aerodynamic reasons but would like to be able to substantiate more of those kinds of developments. --Born2flie (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you people come into possession of this sort of data? I need you as sources.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do various internet searches using phrases and such. Sometimes I do advanced searches on *.mil sites or something like that.  You can also use the references/bibliography in reports to find other sources.  I don't know about Born.  He seems to find all kinds of things. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, the Internet is all I have (no access to libraries in my remote location) so I guess I've gotten into some more detailed searches. Google is a decent search if you know how to ask it for what you want. One term leads to another, which leads to another. I'll build up some print sources when I go back home. I would like to own a couple Jane's AWA yearbooks. I think 67-68 and 69-70 would be good ones to own for now. I only plan on buying other books if I find they work well for me. But if I had libraries, that is where I would go. --Born2flie (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

USS Constitution
Jeff, the Specs table at USS Constitution is too narrow,and has text beside it that bunches up at 800x600. Do you know how to fix this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's letting the next section float up next to the table. I'm looking into it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you fixed it. I don't know much about table formatting, and didn't have a clue here. I did spend about an hour yesterday trying to fix a ref tag that was messed up, and blanking part of the text. Whew! - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Yea, forget a slash to close out a reference and it'll do that.  It does something werid if is used instead of as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

707 edits!
I found out that there are edit counters. I have 707 mainspace edits. That means I have to stop editing today and enjoy the number. 707 is a lucky number, just like 747, etc. You can remove this silly message if you wish. Archtransit (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Good deal.  I'm not even sure how to check that.  A special page of some kind, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_counters Archtransit (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that's cute about you limiting your main edits to 707, 747, etc at the end of a day. Here's another one BillCJ had on his page. Wannabe kate edit summary tool -Fnlayson 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Assessments: importance ?
Hello Fnlayson, I read your question on the aviation discussion page. As the Assessment Coordinator I wish I could answer this question. Ever since the merging of the various aviaton projects we have only used the quality scale. This issue could be voted on at the aviation discussion page if you wanted. Marcusmax (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's alright. Not that important (pun) to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

F-15 AESA Radar

 * Nothing readily accessible. Air Forces Monthly magazine had it pretty close in an issue a few months back but it referenced only the 18 ANG units.  I'm the ACC F-15 Avionics Manager and deal with this daily.  I didn't mean to get so far in the weeds with this, just wanted to correct the V2 vs. V3 thing and the total number of aircraft that were programmed for upgrade (which is now 177 after the Missouri ANG jet crashed).  There are a few other errors in the article but I'm not real sure about editing them wholesale and coming across as a cad. Feckzhere (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have to go by references available. I really doubt the 28 year old one that crashed in Missouri was on the 178 "Golden Eagle" list. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it was. I can provide the entire list if you'd like.Feckzhere (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's alright. I forget how old the F-15Cs are.  The Golden list is likely to change after the accident investigation and probable inspections afterwards. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right about that - we just ran a drill to compare repair costs to modification costs. If a jet is long term (Golden as they've been unofficially coined) it will most likely get repaired - the cost of JHMCS, V1 or V3, EGI and new AAI/IFF totals about $10 mil.  The cost to replace longerons probably will not tally that much.Feckzhere (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hum, hopefully the detailed inspections (NDE, other) work out OK with little repair needed. Yea, I can't see metallic parts costing anywhere near that.  Thanks for the info. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eight aircraft cracked so far (none with dual longeron cracks, only on one side or the other). Cost to repair is not nearly as much as the amount spent to modify so it does not look like the list will change.  Right now it looks like the options are to repair or retire, repair being the leading option. Feckzhere (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the update, Feckzhere. I've read about them finding 8 from ANG units with cracks, but that was it.  I guess if they have already done other upgrades to them, they'll repair them too.  Beats the cost of new aircraft, especially F-22s. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit of clarification - only two of the eight are long term aircraft. Feckzhere (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Firefly Minor Characters
There has been a call for deletion of the List of minor characters in the Firefly universe article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. Shsilver 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have kept my mouth shut on that... -Fnlayson 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, the guys who are citing all the Firefly stuff for deletion would have found it eventually.Shsilver 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Sutter's 747 book released in 2006
You mentioned that you read it. Is it worth getting on interlibrary loan? Interesting? (probably) Useful as a WP reference? Archtransit 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a very good book to read. It doesn't have a lot of technical details or dates.  But it had enough for me to write most of the 747 design section.  If it is not too much trouble, get it. -Fnlayson 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sutter book handy?
In 1965, Joseph Sutter was transferred from Boeing's 737 development team to manage the studies for a new airliner, already assigned its model number 747.

Reference available, perhaps in the Sutter book? Archtransit (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved! Found a reference that even says he was working on the 737 before. There are tons of references for the latter part but I found a reference for the first part of the sentence.

After we "finish" (never finished!), I would like to submit the article for peer review (opinion?). Not so much as a pre-GA or FA stamp of approval (though it could be used for that) but just so we can say that we did a reasonably good job and someone else agrees (or gives suggestions). Archtransit (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sutter was ask to "head up the companies studies for this bigger jet" (747) in August 1965. But you have it covered now.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can use his book to replace some web links if needed.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

XV-1
Been working the XV-1 sandbox article over in my neck of the woods. I dropped Apostolo out of the picture since he didn't have any unique information. I've staged the Operational history section covering the research flight testing, but I still have a lot of text commented out of sight for the Design section. I have also considered using the GlobalSecurity.org page as a reference, but can't seem to establish the source. Knowing GS.org, they cut and paste a lot of their technical information on equipment and systems, so I'd like to determine whose work it is to avoid copyvio before putting the article out into the wild.

I know you and Bill have a bazillion pages on your watchlists and get spread out over the other subjects you cover. I just pick one that sounds like a good one to work and start putting it together. I think Robb had something on the 16H in his article in Vertiflite, so I might work on that one next. I'll get back to Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Helicopter soon, but when I hit writer/researcher's block, tackling a new article helps. --Born2flie (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're weren't sure, the XV-1 sandbox was Bill's. I moved/copied a bunch of his stuff a few months ago when he was thinking of leaving or getting rid of that account.  I've barely looked at some of it. I've been working on the CH-46 Sea Knight some and helping with the 747 article to get it to GA or better level.  I usually try to rewrite/reword all the text I find.  On another matter, I compressed the Bell 533 reports down to about 40 Mb total.  Any idea of a web site I could upload them to? -Fnlayson  03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's PD, you might try Wikisource. - BillCJ (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I reword all the text as well. Sometimes it comes out sounding similar, because the way the text is presented, there are only one or two ways to put it that other writers have already come up with. That is kind of why the Operational history section looks the way it does. I put all the parts into order and remove the blocks of the original text, then try to reword everything into a cohesive section that covers the material. I just ran out of time when I was working it last night, before I had to go to sleep. --Born2flie (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point about Wikisource, Bill. I'm not finding anything there on the XV-1 or related by McDonnell Aircraft though. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Need your help again.
Jeff, just did a whirlwind redo on Helicopter to submit it for the contest. Mostly because I want to find it on Veropedia some day, although $100 wouldn't hurt. I left the early history a bit messy because I focused on everything else that I felt other editors wouldn't whine and cry about while I was trying to get the editing done. Anyways, if you get time, run through it and tell me what you like, don't like. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look at that later on. I'll remove the bulleted lists.  No reason for that with the subsections there. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Jan Bahyl paragraph was added by an editor and I suspect it was a nationalist attempt to portray his accomplishments as greater than they really are. The editor argued that Bahyl flew on the helicopter but flying a model and flying a helicopter, as similar as they may sound, are two different things. I am really wary of putting that paragraph in the First flights section for that reason. If you look around the web, there are references that attempt to cast him as the inventor of the modern helicopter because he used a combustion engine where so many previous efforts used steam. I don't know when the first combustion engine helicopter (model or otherwise) first took flight. There were so many attempts. I would suspect Liberatore of knowing, but I don't have his book. Anyways, just wanted you to know more of why I put that paragraph back in the Early developments opening section. If you don't agree, you can move it back, and I'll wait until a more authoritative reference establishes itself.


 * And, all the references in the current article are in MLA format. That's why I asked Bzuk to proof them. He already fixed the ones he had the issues with. They look different, but I find they have a more consistent appearance than using all the various cite templates. --Born2flie (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I just missed the model part on that paragraph.  I've been using MLA format mostly.  I prefer to link the title to save space and appearance sake.  I'm not sure if the format in 1860-80 paragraph is quite right.  If they were all 1 sentence entries, I'd use semicolons between them.  -Fnlayson (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I may go back and edit some of that stuff. I would prefer a line of people who made real contributions. For instance, one person I know is not presently in the History but who influenced a lot of the early builders is Sir George Cayley. There is someone who was methodical and scientific about his work. Very few of the successful inventors were not scientific about their approaches. Consequently, those who made contributions or who demonstrated real applications of the theory of those who went before, are the ones that I believe should be included. Octave Chanute documented a lot of crackpots who wanted to be scientists, or at least appear scientific. He talks about some who made claims that just didn't hold water.


 * Re: MLA. That's fine. Now I know that's what you're doing, I won't think I need to fix it if I see you changing it. I do like being able to see the link, though, for some odd reason. Maybe I'm just weird? --Born2flie (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

F-86 operators
Jeff, I've been adding basic data to the F-86 Sabre section, this afternoon. I need to take a break. Would you mind proof read the section and correct any grammatical/format errors that I may have. When I get done, I will review my edits back with the book, one more time. I probably should have copied the section to my own sandbox add all the stuff in, then replace the section in one wack. Didn't think it would take that long. Would appreciate your review. I hope to finish it tonight. Thank you so much. Lance..... LanceBarber (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks fine after a quick scan. Some of the entries look long.  Try not to repeat info that may be in the Variants section (a possibility, I didn't check).  I'll try to look it over better later. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Back from dinner... thanks for the check. I will check on dup info. Already eliminate one dup in the History section. I tried to keep it short, just to quantity, type, dates, squadrons, and few s/n's for short entries. Thanks again. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I've removed the uncited text and subsections from the Operational history section (renamed it Conflicts in history) the were better reference in the Ops section. Added and adjusted pics, and H-model specs. LanceBarber (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Good work. I think it'd be fine to stick standard section headings.  Operational history includes combat and other non-combat stuff if needed.  Just my opinion though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, Changed the section names to WP-Av guidelines, and created a couple of sub sections, and a new article List of Sabre and Fury units in US military. Please review and comment. Thank you kindly, Lance.... ps- Article still needs info on Iraq, Iran, and Ethiopian AF... any thoughts? Thanks again. LanceBarber (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Think about splitting off a separate Design section. That'd be a good place to go into more detail on design features, armament, etc.  I moved the F-86D speed records to the Break the sound barrier section (adjusted section name too).  Check the last 2 sentences there.  I might have moved too much. See if there's a better place to put some info from those long Variant entries.  Hope that helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch Lance. I need sleep ... -Fnlayson (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything I could help on? Let me know.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Take a look at F-86 Sabre and see if it's missing info.  It looks like it could use more early development info.  Any help would be appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

F-15 inspections, Miniture pigs?
Jeff, I read this report today, and something stuck me as odd. In the eighth paragraph, it mentions a "boar scope". I assume this is supposed to be "borescope", and that boar was a typo, but I really don't know much about it at all. Plus I couldn't resist sharing the image of little pigs running around inside the F-15s with cameras or sensors strapped on! :) - BillCJ (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be borescope. BOARscrope, LOL!  Or they borrowed them from A-10 maintenance crew. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An overview article on the F-15 situation that mentions this from the AF assoc. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Warthogs - I should have thought of that! Very cute! THanks for the link. - BillCJ (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Air Force Assoc magazine has updates on the F-15 inspections and all on the Daily Reports for December. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

747 upper deck
I think that the external dimensions of the upper deck of the -300, -400 (except -400F, which doesn't have a SUD), and -8 are the same. The inside structure of a -300 SUD is different because of the flooring (which cuts down the main deck cargo space when converted to a freighter).

Anyway, I believe that the wingbox and fuselage barrels over the wing were redesigned for the 747SP and the -300 and later versions used this same design. That's why the -300/-400/-8 upper deck all end at the same spot. Since there is a lot of design work going into this, they must have reused the design. Otherwise, the -400's upper deck could have been longer. Archtransit (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back, ArchT (works for your old user name too). The -8's fuselage is longer, so the upper deck would be longer if it ended at the same distance from the wing.  They don't use the upper deck for cargo on the freighters.  I guess there's no practical way to load cargo there without putting a side loading door in for it, right?  -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're on to something. There was a drawing in Aviation Week within the past month or so.  I'll look.  As far as references, "access date" is ok with me.  But will someone cite this as a reason to use "Retrieved"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style  The reason for perfection is that I'd like to get this article as a featured article on the main page on September 18, 2008, the 40th anniversary of the first 747 flight. Archtransit (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

http://seattlepi.com/business/251973_air14.html The upper deck will be bigger, too, part of stretching the 747-8 to accommodate about 34 more passengers. Archtransit (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Stretched with a longer upper deck too. :)  I don't really care whether it is Accessed or Retrieved, although the former seems more accurate. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of the holidays, but also in recognition of your help:

(Wiki wings moved to main user page)


 * Thanks. I'd happy with the 747 article making GA status. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that an A class article is higher ranked than a GA. 747 is an A class article. Unless you object, I would like to work on the article for a week or two (or however long it takes) and submit it for Featured Article consideration. I was looking at some FA and our article beats them. Archtransit (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter much to me. I just think it is GA or better quality now. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

747 cleanup, getting old
accurate comment! Both of us deserve a barnstar (or 2) for ref work...need to finish because this is not fun unlike article writing! Archtransit (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I mainly meant about the layout stuff, but yea it is all getting old. I wouldn't have caught a lot of this format stuff and all.  Just too many references to try and check for one person. Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that in no way, was my comment on the 747 talk page, nor on Archtransit's page meant as any kind of insult or slight, as you both seem to have taken it that way, my apologies. I was looking for a FAC that could use some help, and I guess that you took my comments in a way I did not at all intend. My apologies, and good luck with the FAC. Ariel ♥ Gold 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I thought explained about the note.  O brought up a related issue on the FAC page.  Oh well.  Sorry for my tone. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Sutter book, don't get too ambitious! It's fine with me but I'm tired of fixing references if someone doesn't say "ref #219 is objectionable." Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As you may have seen, I've outsourced a job! Per the suggestion of a FAC criticism, I asked a League of Copy Editors to review the article.  I think it's next on their list as he/she has just finished their current task.  Hopefully, that review will get the LOCE stamp of approval.  That's outsourcing that I support!  I never heard of LOCE before now. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOCE, huh. I'm sure they'll help a lot.  I've read the text far too much to have any better ideas left. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Before I didn't like outsourcing, now I like it. It's in progress.  Maybe an FA star is getting closer to reality.  Hope you have a Merry Christmas or at least a pleasant day off next week.  I don't think I'll edit much today though I could make a liar of myself. Archtransit (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I keep a long watchlist to keep up with things. You managed to recruit plenty of help on this.  Thanks and Merry Christmas to you!  We get week or so holiday break at work (balanced by few 1 day holidays rest of year). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't SandyGeorgia and Raul654 just hurry up and give the article a FA star! FA is not cooked up to what I thought it would be.  Full of reference work and trying to make everyone happy. Archtransit (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I helped with the FA review comments on BAE Systems and there was a lot of work involved and I did very little. Some of the comments on the 747 seem to come from left field. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL
Hello Fnlayson, a cut&paste repair has been requested regarding the F-4 Phantom II page, because User:Nigel Ish copied a section to that article, at which you've participated with two edits. I'm not 100% sure, but I think a complex repair can be avoided if you release exclusively this and this edit under the public domain. If you don't want to, a history merge is necessary. Happy editing. --Oxymoron83 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I release my work. They were just small edits.  Is this sufficient or do I fill out something? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sufficient, but we'll wait if someone opposes this procedure as I'm no copyright expert. I think this way is the easiest one :) --Oxymoron83 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas to you, Jeff.--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year 2008! No edits for today. Probably tomorrow. Archtransit (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and have a good time. I've still got over 14 hours left in 2007 here. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AH-1Z Viper
Jeff can you take a look and see what you think so far. User:ANigg/AH-1Z Viper I talked with Bill & he says even if this dosen't become an article it could be incorporated in to the AH-1W Artcl. ThanxANigg (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it. My books don't say anything about the Viper name.  One says it will retain its SuperCobra name. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a pic I want 3 views of the Viper, can you give me the quick summary on how to do that. ThanxANigg (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean a 3-view image? Is the image from a US government source or what? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes "3-view Image" I have made on my own, based on Bell Heli. Specs. If you have an e-mail address, I can send to you & tell me your thoughts I'm at AKANIGG@aol.com / PS thanx for the help on the Viper Pic ANigg (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you made it yourself, it'll be easy to tag. I'll e-mail you. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)