User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 8

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invite
I have initiated a discussion on Talk:List of aircraft to consider whether the many Talk pages related to the many "List of aircraft ..." article might be usefully consolidated into one. Would appreciate you taking a look if you are interested. N2e (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Rockets
Hmm, I'd wondered about that. Thanks for the correction, I'll fix that right up! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mountain-Top Road
Hi Jack, I've rearranged your recent edit to High-speed rail into a separate "Mountain-Top Road" sub-section, partly because I think the place you had inserted it was confusing, but also because there's a topic in the Talk:High-speed rail about too much of the Interurbans in the History section.

I've also added links to the UP and the places, discovering that the Keddie Wye page gives a start date for the line of 1931, and added the top speed (with conversions for that and power), plus a few other changes, mostly from the Popular Science article.

I also added a tag, with the reason: "Did this train actually run (the 1933 reference was published during construction)?" I don't know if you know the answer to that, or if you just found the 1933 article and added the info to the page. Tim PF (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Tim, Thanks for looking into the recent posting I did and your attempt at some order and research. Like myself, I see you ran into a stone wall.  I can't find out what happened either.  Whether the depression killed funding and it never ran as a passenger line or what.  But I thought the article with its drawings, etc. made a nice addition.  But it would be nice to discover what happened in the next few years after that article? Also, thanks muchO for finding that Keddie Wye info. Just wish they knew something more. Sounds like the line got finished but did it operate the new high speed locomotives and pullman cars?Jackehammond (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's possible that FDR's New Deal may have saved the line itself, but less likely that it would fund those trains. The line itself is interesting for the article, as high speed rail only really works on lines built to take it (apart from the slight advantage from using tilting trains, such as the Pendolino and Acela Express).  Even the legacy lines here in the UK that run at 125 mph, such as the Great Western Main Line, were built in the 1830s to be fast. Tim PF (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tim, Didn't the tilting trains fail due to the passengers getting massive motion sickness? JackJackehammond (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, tilting trains work fine nowadays, and there were other problems with the Advanced Passenger Train. I for one had no problems riding on Pendolinos and Super Voyagers on the West Coast Main Line last year.  The main problem with the Acela Express trainsets is that they are too wide to tilt on some parts of the line.
 * BTW, I took the "&lt;br /&gt;"s out of the talk; they're not really needed alongside ":" indentation. Tim PF (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tim, I am going to post an invention that I came across in a 1930s issue of Popular Science that a Swiss came up for tilting trains in the TALK section on high speed railroads. I think you will find it of trivia interest, but I have never heard of it being adopted.  If it weren't the tilting high speed rail cars, which type did have the problem with motion sickness when they tilted at high speeds?  I could have sworn I read something about that problem about 20 years ago. JackJackehammond (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was the APT, and it's all there in the link I posted above last evening.
 * I wonder if that 1930s invention might be better added to the tilting train article (if it's not already there)? Bear in mind that, whilst tilt technology can permit higher maximum speeds, it also allows trains to travel faster on sinuous routes, even at moderate speeds. The West Coast Main Line follows some rather twisting mountain valleys in Cumbria and southern Scotland, but the line speed in those areas is much lower than the 125 mph those trains can run at, eg 80 mph for non-tilting and 95 mph for tilting trains.    Tim PF (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Piaggio PD.808
Jack, could you take a look at Talk:Piaggio PD.808, and see if you can help out with sources? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bilcat, I doubt it as the date of first flight and the movie is to close. But I went and asked the biggest smurfs on aviation over on Key Publications. If anyone will know they will. They will even provide a publication or other kind of reference. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jack, pardon me but I've followed you there too (lurking again, you see?) and I must say the chaps there are better than Handy Smurf when it comes to these things. Wish they are as helpful when it comes to the naval matters below, though. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Hello, Howdy

 * Hey, Jack. On the article page of Bofors 57 mm gun, I have initiated a motion to merge two other smaller but closely related articles into the aforementioned page... care to air your opinion on the discussion page? And another thing, I've been wanting to start the new page of Bofors 76 mm gun and was wondering if you could help me as well? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, I usually agree with you on these cases, but the older 57mm cannon and the newer one are while the same caliber two different animals. Just as the Italian 76mm cannons are. As to the Bofor's 76mm cannon is that the limited production one that is designed only for surface to surface engagements that Norway bought decades ago? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Jack, I know the many differences and especially the fact that they are like the Bofors 40mm/L56 and L70. Anyway, I have very limited data to write on the older 57mm/L60 single/twin gun and as you can see, I have set aside a section (Bofors 57 mm gun) for further expansion later and if you can help me too on this. As for the Bofors 76 mm gun, indeed I was referring to the one you're talking about, which was used aboard Norway's Storm class FAC as well as on Singapore's Vosper 110ft Type B patrol boat (both classes retired now). You got anything up in the attic you can find and share with me? (PS: Please recast your vote, thank you!) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, I still believe that the Bofors 57mm/70 Mk 2, and follow on versions, should be in a separate page. It is like the difference between the original 76mm cannons developed by Oto Malara and the version so popular today. As to that Swedish Bofors surface-to-surface 76mm cannon that was employed by the Norwegians and Singapore navies, this link from Jane's Pocket Book of Naval Armament is the best I have without really having to do some deep digging (which then might not turn anything up).  It was published by Collier Books/1976 and the ISBN 74-10317.  Hope this can help.  Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack! With that book entry, the Bofors 76mm article is as good as up. As for the Bofors 57 mm gun, please see NavWeaps.Com: Bofors 57 mm/70 Mark 1, 2, 3 & Mk 110 Mod 0 and NavWeaps.Com: Bofors 57 mm/60, do let me know what you make of it. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, I have always found NAVWEAPON to be extremely reliable and detailed in information. Also, I have some folders that Bofors sent me in the 1980s that includes some information on their single barrel 57mm cannon systems.  I will try and find that folder next week. Btw, on the Bofors 76mm have you taken a photo of the Singapore gunboats mounting that cannon???? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, there's nothing I can use here since very much of my photo collection was misplaced (aka lost!) during my house-moving a few years back... it is moments like this that I really wished I hadn't stinge on getting myself a scanner to scan those old photos of mine. As for those old patrol boats and their Bofors 76mm gun, I had fond memories of the old RSS Sovereignty, going for joyrides back in the wee part of 1990's. Good times~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing, I have not a solid lead to write on Singapore Navy's Type A & Type B patrol boats (all retired back in mid-1990's) which are virtually identical to the Norwegian Navy's Hauk class and Storm class patrol boats minus the installations for SSMs... best I have come up so far is this site, this image and this image for comparison. Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave, I would go with this photo just before that one. It shows the cannon mount a lot better.  Also, go newer and there are two good photos of the original one barrel manned 57mm mount.  What is the rules one Flickr anyway?  Can the photos be used like public domain or do you have to track down the person who took the photo and get a general unconditional release? Btw, I think you have found out what I have over the years about photos, drawing, etc -- ie as soon as you do some house cleaning and throw a photo, etc, etc away you need "that photo" really bad! GRIN Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MAT-120
Hi Jack, you did a superb job on the article and the research behind it &mdash; and your description of the complex technicalities of this weapon makes them easy for any reader to understand. I couldn't have done any of that, and I would like to award you this barnstar. Jason. Jll (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear JII, When I free lanced weapons articles back in the 1980s and early 1990s I was told a good writer is either a good editor or knows a good editor. I am a terrible editor. And with out editors like you and others on Wiki, the articles I help on would be worthless. So thanks for the Star. But I realize what put together would not be good without the editors working after I post the information. Also, I am glad we all got to the bare article as soon as we did. Check the page view statistics for the last three days. JackJackehammond (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

M113 Gavin
Talk:M113 armored personnel carrier
 * FYI, there is an ongoing debate and had been very heated at most points of it. Do you know anything about the M113 APC being nicknamed as "Gavin", officially or unofficially? IIRC, and I can't remember where the reference book is now... the M113 came about as a direct result of General James M. Gavin's personal experience whilst serving in the US airborne troops during WW2, he wanted something that the ordinary foot soldiers could use as a battle taxi and as well as something compact and light enough to fit inside the C-130, correct me if I got it wrong. Anyway, this is one of those situations when your expertise and immense knowledge would be of very important use to us all. (PS: I kid you not!) Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dave, Starting shortly before the US entered WW2, only tanks in the US Army had names like Patton, Lee, Grant, Pershing, etc. Other armored vehicles had numbers. The M-113 was always known as the M-113 series. Then in the 1980s the US Army started numbers over for major armored vehicles that entered production: The M-1 Abrams main battle tank and the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. New antiaircraft tanks and self propelled artillery, etc also got number designations and names. Then came the US Army's decision to develop lighter armored vehicles for the new medium divisions that could be deployed faster and required less a logistic foot print. The US Army favored a wheeled armored vehicle, but the makers of the M-113 in the US was pushing an advance version of their M-113 which they called the "GAVIN". Whether the US Army at this time in the last 1990s and early 2000s had anything to do with this name, I have no idea. But I have checked old reference books on armored vehicles printed in the early 1970s and find no reference to the M-113 as the Gavin and I have checked the Association of the United States Army Green Books for the year 1984 and 2000 in the weapons section (ie the 1984 sections was written by AUSA staff and the 2000 sections by the various US Army commands) and none refer to the M-113 as the Gavin. So I am inclined to believe it was a marketing ploy by FMC. Hope this is of some help. Last, there are a lot of people in my country going ecstatic over the death of bin Laden. But I wish they would show some maturity and stop acting like fans at a football match. For what ever reason, the secret service organization gave us the information where bin Laden was. I wonder what their price was? JackJackehammond (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)