User talk:Jmcc150/Archive2

Gliding
Noticed the entry for Jonker Sailplanes is listed as "Jonkers Sailplanes". No "s" in Jonker surname, not to be confused with aircraft manufacturer Junkers of Germany.

Your scolding tone is not appropriate either. I do not want to start a reversion war, so I will leave it alone for now. Tomorrow, we need to reconcile the content between Gliding and Motor gliders, since I moved the info there. I suggest that the gliding article only have an overview of motors, since starting an engine ends a gliding flight. Perhaps my version was too brief, but I do not agree that the gliding article should have many paragraphs about using an engine. I suggest you re-revert it and summarize some of the content from the Motor glider article. And please add to the Motor glider article, since it is kind of short.

Most people would consider "butchery" to be judgemental. Dhaluza 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the Motor glider page, content a lot. Why don't you take a crack at paring down the redundant content in the Gliding article now. As you can see, there is way too much info to duplicate it all in the gliding article, so there should only be a summary on motors there, with a link to the main Motor glider article. I think it's enough to talk about using a motor to prevent a land-out, and leave the actual details of using the motor out.

P.S. I fly a Janus out of Ridge Soaring Gliderport. I have been an instructor for many years, but now I just take 500km pilots on 1000km training flights. Dhaluza 03:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Slipstream
That is interesting that it refers to the propeller also! I also consulted Wake turbulence, which refers to only the wingtips, but perhaps there is more to this story. -nbach 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, just think about transitioning from a high to a low tow (i.e. when boxing the wake... I'm not sure if that is a required maneuver in the UK, if not it's just what it sounds like). The wake is noticeable 200 feet behind the towplane. That's why there are the two positions; you want to be above or below the wake for a comfortable and safe ride. -nbach 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the comments, your right about the length of it. That process seemed like a marathon. Do FAC's usually last this long?  YDAM  TALK 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Prime time
Gliding will be the Main Page Featured Article of the Day on November 23. I know you're not an American but ... it's Thanksgiving, which seems appropriate, no?

Take time to keep an eye on it that day as vandalism is a certainty, although it will be less severe than usual because school is out. Daniel Case 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul must have just made the decision ... the talk page didn't have on it yet. Daniel Case 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't apologizing, just explaining. I personally don't feel they were that big a problem.

(Rule of thumb with every FA, though: No matter how much copy editing you do on it, someone will always feel they know better) Daniel Case 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and since I didn't say so, I'm sorry if I caused any offense. Probably prose problems are on my mind since I've been busy this holiday working on Spyware, whose prose was in embarassing shape when it was featured on the Main Page a couple of weeks ago. I think I've improved it, but it will probably have to be defeatured due to some POV issues and unsourced material. Daniel Case 00:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, good job staying on top of the article all day. Daniel Case 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Goppingen / Gottingen
Apologies. I checked only a GFA text which gave the incorrect name.Geoffrey Wickham 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Aviation
I haven't a clue why I chose them! My plan was to add 10, but the database on their website isn't so easy to use as the one at Guinness World Records. I was choosing ones that would be used in the other aviation record articles, and I haven't completed them either. I do think the data looks better in tables, don't you? Which ones do you think should go there? Do you want to chose 5 and I will choose 5? Take a peek at the individual record articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The charts you made look great! I guess you changed your mind about including them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoover Dam
Hiya! About a year ago, you added this edit to Hoover Dam. It's an interesting story! Today, someone slapped a citation needed on it. The only place I can find any mention of Ed Kraus and the Hoover Dam is this TV documentary episode. Can you help? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gliding
I deleted Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg because it was licensed for noncommercial use only, which is Criteria for speedy deletion. I hope that clears things up. Good work on the article. Jkelly 02:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gliding talk
I've left a couple of comments on flight computers etc.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Glider markings
My glider registration is in half-inch high letters on the fin just below the tailplane and complies with British requirements. JMcC 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's good to know. I shouldn't assume that US requirements (formerly 3 inch numbers, now 10 or 12 inches) apply in other countries. Did you update the article to provide more accurate information? or should I? —SaxTeacher (talk)  16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Shenington GC
Apropos my link to this you suggested an article on the club - surely that would be a no no as advertising? What would you think about one to Shenington Airfield - the history is interesting as it used to be known as Edgehill a WW11 bomber and testing site? But as the history is given on the gliding club site to which the link goes anyway...? DOuG 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Gliding
I started WikiProject Gliding and would like to invite you to join in. Dhaluza 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining. Feel free to update the project page with an "other side of the pond" perspective, and tag any Commonwealth specific articles you may know of. Dhaluza 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation proposal
There is currently a proposal to create an Aviation WikiProject, which would serve to clarify how all the aviation related projects relate, and help with interproject editing. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft for how the projects hierarchy. Part of the reorganization proposes that WikiProject Gliding become a task force of WikiProject_Aircraft (or perhaps the Aviation Project itself). For an idea of how task forces work, take a look at WikiProject_Military_history. They have a number of task forces, listed here. As described by them, "task forces are informal groups of editors gathered for collaborative work on a particular topic within the field of military history; all project members are encouraged to participate in any that interest them." The benefit of such a system it that the sub-topics have all the resources of the overall project at their disposal. For instance, the Military history project banner, is placed on every military history page, and the related task forces are listed at the bottom of it. All miltary history related articles are thereby joined under one roof. If you have any ideas or comments, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Public/Private
It's really something that should be brought up at WikiProject Airports. You have military airports like Alert Airport that are closed to the public. You have public airports that are owned by the Government like Cambridge Bay Airport that are open to the public and don't require permission/prior notice to land at. You have public airports like London Heathrow Airport that are owned by private companies, open to the public but I would think that turning up without permission/prior notice is probably not a good idea. You have publicly owned (government) airports like Tanquary Fiord Airport but are closed to the public. And last of all you have private airports like Obre Lake/North of Sixty Airport which you can't land at. The current Wikipedia system (Military/Public/Private) is a bit simplistic and at the same time a bit confusing. In your opinion is Lasham public or private? Is the "PPR" because the place is busy or is it because the place is a privately owned airport and is closed to the general public, like Obre Lake/North of Sixty Airport? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessments
I assessed the gliding article FA, you can see my edit here. Anyone can assess articles. The main page for assessments for all the aviation related projects is WikiProject Aviation/Assessment. You can also see the instructions for adding the project banner to a talk page at Template:WPAVIATION. If you have any questions let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A new FAC
Hi Jmcc. A few months ago you helped greatly with prose on my Barnard's star FAC. I have another on the go: Featured article candidates/Norte Chico civilization. It hasn't received much commentary after a two days, so I'm looking around for reviewers. If you have a few minutes to pull out poor prose, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Marskell 12:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A WikiProject you may be interested in...
Hi there! I notice you're from Surrey - please take a look at WikiProject Surrey, which I started earlier this afternoon. Cheers.--Vox Humana 8&#39; 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary Seacole
Thanks for your note, fellow Kingstonian. I thought this was gospel truth, complete with blue plaque somewhere in the High Street. However, my googling has been fruitless. I think I must have had a brainstorm and confused Mary Seacole with Cesar Picton! Nunquam Dormio 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Private - Public
I see that there was no reply on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports page. I just thought to look at the Canada Flight Supplement to see how they defined PPR and PNR. PPR says that the airports owner or operator's permission is required to land, except in an emergency. PNR says that the airports owner or operator is to be notified prior to use for updated information. I assume that the UK AIP has a similar definition. If so then I think that you are correct and that Lasham Airfield would more correctly be a "Private" airfield. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have thought to look it up before. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move of man-powered flight
If the words "man-powered" are that important to you I'll leave it alone. "Human-powered" seems to me a more accurate description, is consistent with related wikipedia entries, and is the generally accepted term. But it's not that big a deal to me, if you look at my edits you won't find any PC police activity, mostly corrections of spelling and syntax. Gr8white 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fyfe Robertson
Hi Jmcc, I just spotted this article, thanks for creating it. I'm astonished that none existed before for the man who roved so enigmatically across our flickering black and white screens all those days ago. Something to add to my list of stuff to work on. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I subscribe to the ODNB RSS feed, and often find interesting and useful material in their open reading room and "Lives of the Week" feature, but am not a subscriber. In theory, my local library membership should grant me full membership also, but I have never been able to access the restricted database properly. Something else to chase up next week :) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My works in progress page
hi i was just going through my works in progess page which is located in my own userspace and noticed back on January 22nd you moved a number of the softball related pages which were un-finished and had not been copyedited, worded for wikipedia and have a number of working notes inserted in them still, i was just wondering since you moved them into the mainspace when you were going to finish this? seeing you moved them out of my userspace i gather you are interested. thanks --Dan027 09:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Everton Userbox
I'm afraid the box looks fine on my browser, both in the code and on your userpage. I can't seem to recreate the error. If it is persisting, I can only suggest to either check your browser's settings or try reloading again, as it may be a slight glitch on Wikipedia's side (which is not unheard of). -- BlueSquadron Raven  23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingston names
Thank you for your positive comments about the notable people for the Kingston-upon-Thames page. I agree about the odd ones you mention but they do have a wiki page. I hate murderers or notorious people in the notable section as they do not define the town, plse delete them. I did though make a page of Andrew Doughty and if you delete him he'll be orphaned. He was down as living in Thames Ditton where he doesn't live hence I made him a page and put him here. SuzanneKn 14:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another very eminent person has just been added. I have the same query with all the towns and feel there should be a separate list. Readers so like a list of the people though why is quite lost on me, but then if I'm honest a lost of things are a mystery. It would be wonderful if we had a list of people section with county and then town within it, as a matter of policy really. I'm glad Andrew Doughty has found a rightful home SuzanneKn 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

hoplophobia
I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should definitely avoid this discussion. It isn't political, but you may find it just as, if not more, irrational.  Thanks for the note anyways. —BozoTheScary 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:-)
Nice work in And did those feet in ancient time! With the trivia section integrated the article is more of a piece, plus it is less tempting for people to add in every single time Jerusalem has been performed or refered to. Good job. Skittle 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Birkenhead and capital of Wales stuff
Hello. I Noticed you've been cleaning up Birkenhead, and was struck by what I immediately think is an incredible claim - that Birkenhead was once some kind of capital of Wales. This claim was added at 18:20, May 6, 2007 by User:172.159.243.212. I wonder if this is one of those things that can be immediately deleted, on the grounds that it is incredible and needs immediate verification? Of course, I may just be ignorant, but my work on the history of Cheshire would seem to indicate that this really is quite unlikely to be true. It would be far better to mention the Welsh Eistedffordd in Birkenhead at that point. What do you think? DDStretch   (talk)  12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John Ford
Hola! You added: "He tended only to shoot the footage he needed and in the right sequence, minimizing the job of his film editors." Do you have a citation/reference for that? Carry on. WikiDon 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jmcc150, do you have a link for that? I'll be in the area through out the day. WikiDon 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I was looking at the JF page and not my talk page....WikiDon

Gliders and Gliding
In an effort to streamline the subprojects of aviation, and given the fact that the Glider task force has four members and a total of 51 articles tagged under its scope and the Gliding project has 7 and 56, I'd like to mere the WikiProject Aircraft/Glider task force and the WikiProject Gliding into one project, WikiProject Aviation/Gliding task force. Any objections? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Birkenhead School
Depends what you mean by interesting I suppose, but it may be of more interest to a complete outsider wanting to know more about the arcane practices of a minor public school at that time, rather than to an ex-pupil. The author is User:Futureobservatory by the way - thankfully I don't know him. Do I know you ? - I was there 1963-70. Ghmyrtle 09:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * E O'Hara no less! Good to run into you anyway. Ghmyrtle 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I got your message - what vandalism are you talking about? I was just practising how to add entries into wikipedia, not adding anything on the main page! If that's against the rules, I am sorry. Chrisman81 (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[chrismans81]

Duly noted. Though I think you might use this information next time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1. It just seems a little friendlier and less judgmental in my opinion. Peace and love. Chrisman81 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisman81 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aviators Model Code of Conduct
Thanks for your explanation (re: link deletion from the “See also" section of the Glider page). You raised two issues: relevance and notability. This message addresses the former; I'll respond to the latter in a separate message shortly.

You state that the Glider page is about "the objects themselves, not how to fly them (or how not to fly them)." Nonetheless, the Glider page’s "See also" listings include "Gliding competitions" (focusing on advanced flying and flying skills); and most of the remaining “See also” listings include flying, flight safety, training, and human factors content. For example, "Hang Gliding" and "Foot-Launched Power Hang Glider" include training and safety sections, "Gimli Glider" includes human error and aeronautical decision-making issues, and "Paraglider" includes flying, safety, and learning to fly sections.

Additionally, aircraft POHs and PIMs address some of these “how to fly” issues (at least) in the context of "emergency" and "normal" procedures, and are integral components (of “the objects themselves”) in aircraft certification, airworthiness, and some voluntary aircraft standards.

The proposed link is relevant as a navigational aide, does not repeat links already present in the Glider article, could reasonably be made into topic text, or, in your discretion, perhaps could be included as a “Related topic” listing. In any event, the mere identification and reference of such glider safety considerations (such as the proposed reference to the Code of Conduct) may enhance continuity of issues treated among the aviation aircraft pages, and takes a responsible approach which may benefit the readership.

Thank you again for your explanation.--Michaelsbaum 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, to the extent that one of your concerns is that references should focus exclusively on “unpowered aircraft,” please consider including an “External link” directly to the Glider Aviators Model Code of Conduct, at . Nonetheless, your Glider page’s “See also” references already include powered aircraft (e.g., "Foot-Launched Power Hang Glider"). Thank you.--Michaelsbaum 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You said, “After a little research ...” Please explain what is meant by “a little research” so that I can thoughtfully respond to your intervention. Also, upon what are you basing a claim that we don’t seek to improve Wikipedia? The motivation is to the contrary. Also, the key objective of the initiative is to advance flight safety. The entire project is a voluntary “give back” to GA. No participant in the project has ever sought or received compensation, and all work product is made available to the aviation community without cost.

You said that “the Article is mainly aimed at publicizing ...” The mere fact that the submission may advance its awareness in the community should not prejudice the submission. The end-result of such logic has the unintended effect of precluding a broad range of otherwise conforming, legitimate, and useful contributions. Please, if there is specific content that needs revision, we’ll certainly respond.

You characterized the Code of Conduct as a “new publication.” In fact, the Code of Conduct has been formally published and distributed since 2003. The core work product is now in its third version -- approaching its 5th anniversary. My read of the “Notability is not temporary” policy finds that the Code of Conduct submission conforms. How “old” must publications be to satisfy the notability guideline?

You quoted the Notability guideline, “The number of sources provide the most objective evidence of notability.” The Code of Conduct submission includes approximately 10 verifiable, nontrivial, and quality sources, each of which is from recognized independent organizations. Nonetheless, if you like, we can add addition third-party independent sources as required to satisfy the notability guideline. How many additional sources would you suggest?

When placing your notability tag on the site, you stated that it “Appears to be a single source by an author. . .” Please visit the project’s home page at www.secureav.com to verify that the project is a broad collaborative initiative. Drafting teams with domain expertise author each version of the Code, which is then rigorously peer-reviewed by the Permanent Editorial Board as well as by many external experts. For example, the drafting team of the Glider Aviators Model Code of Conduct included Richard A. Carlson, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Soaring Safety Foundation, Jim Kellett, Director for Region IV, Soaring Society of America, FAA Safety Counselor, and CFI(G); Martin Weaver, retired chief of the FAA’s Light Sport Aviation Branch; and (the late) David Wiley, ATP, MCFI, DPE(G), A&P, and IA, and me. In sum, the work product and initiative are highly collaborative and certainly not “single sourced.”

You stated, “I would prefer a link to the Code through Airmanship, because that has direct relevance to your material.” Airmanship is merely one (albeit an important one) of more than thirty subsections of the seven provisions within the Code of Conduct. Thus, a single link from “Airmanship” would largely miss the mark and utility of the Code of Conduct. Please see the scope and content of the seven Code of Conduct provision for further consideration.

Separately, you inquired about the meaning of a POH and PIM. A POH is a Pilots Operating Handbook and a PIM, a Pilots Information Manual (search www.faa.gov for many versions of such). Finally, thank you for the reference to Gliding and Motorgliding International.

Thank you again. --Michaelsbaum 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You stated, “you are the author” – As previously presented, I am not *the* author, but one of many coauthors of this project’s highly collaborative work product. If you desire further substantiation, I am pleased to present it.

You claimed that we’ve “scatter[ed] references to the Code in arbitrary places.” To the contrary, the proposed references were few, purposeful, and highly relevant – a mere total of four (4) references. The list and corresponding rationale for these references include: “Aviator” (the title and material subject of the primary work product), “Glider” (one of the Code’s five versions giving focus to gliders; we’ve already had this discussion), “Flight training” (one of the Code’s seven provisions is entitled, “Training and Proficiency”), and “Light-sport aircraft” (one of the Code’s five versions; expressly directed to light sport). These references were certainly placed other than “by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.” arbitrary

You asked, “why it merits an article in an encyclopedia, any more than any other publications.” As a practical matter “it” is much more than a “publication.”  It is also an organized initiative/project which develops diverse “Innovative tools advancing GA safety and citizenship” (see the home page of www.secureav.com). Moreover, it is largely unique in the aviation safety world for having rigorously researched, developed, and advanced a general model code of conduct for GA. Sample/model passenger safety briefing materials are another area of its inquiry. Your argument seems akin to claiming that “It’s unencyclopedic” rather than presenting the specific policy that would preclude its retention (and, you rightly acknowledge that your example is “extreme”).

You assert that there are “several other equivalent sites” on the FAA’s list of on-line resources. I am not aware of any other such resource on the FAA’s site focusing on codes of conduct. Please identify them. In any event, my best understanding is that this is not the litmus test.

You rightly acknowledge that “Notability is a tricky thing to define.” My (nonexpert) read of it fails to find that the guideline precludes the proposed page.

You say that the “article on the AMCC merely mirrors what is on its web-site.” Actually, the proposed article is an original contribution providing a useful synthesis about the project and its resources. And, as an aside, while certainly not a conclusive test, my cursory review of various aviation association Wiki pages suggests that such pages generally (and legitimately) share considerable content with their respective websites.

Our respective definitions of airmanship are likely consistent. My earlier response to you concerning airmanship was not intended to dismiss your suggestion for an external link from “Airmanship” but instead to communicate that such a link is not an appropriate, exclusive substitute for the proposed Code of Conduct article. Finally, you may find the AMCC Commentary on Airmanship of interest and instructive regarding yet another dimension of the project http://www.secureav.com/Comment-AMCC-I.b-General-Responsibilities.pdf.

Thank you.--Michaelsbaum 18:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Laura Greenwood
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jmcc150! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule photobucket\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Akaflieg Berlin
Thank you for your help! Knickflügel = perhaps kink-wings? Trägflächen-V-Winkel not wing-v-angle? Alex -- Alex M. Volz (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC) PS: I am member of "the elder-men-club" AFV and also glider- and motor-glider-pilot. Lot of great flights next year! PPS: i am also the author of the German Wiki-article about the history and objects of the Akafliegs generally. Could you also help there, my English is quite limited. -- Alex M. Volz (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for correction of my article about history and aims of the Akaflieg! -- Alex M. Volz (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Schempp-Hirth Discus
Yet a comment to your article "Schempp-Hirth Discus". You wrote: "Studies had long shown that the ideal wing for minimizing induced drag should be an elliptic planform". Correct would be, not the planform should be elliptic for minimizing induced drag, but the lift-allocation (Auftriebsverteilung) of the wing. That show not only studies, it is drawn also on long known aerodynamic theory. Nevertheless a elliptic lift-allocation arise from something similar than an elliptic planform. -- Alex M. Volz (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverse pulley launches
Following your recent edit, you may recall that we used the RP method to launch gliders at Aston Down until about 2000 (the year, not the time of day!). If you're interested, I could ask around to see whether anyone at the CGC has a photo of a RP launch.

Whether or not you use a photo, it might be worth pointing out in the article that RP gives much higher launches than straight auto-tow: at AD we often got well over 2,000 ft (600 m) on our mile-long (1,500 m) runway. With good conditions we used to get nearly 3,000 ft with single-seaters such as the Ka8. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll ask around. I don't think copyright will be a great problem. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: no one seems to have such a picture: pity ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

here is something: http://www.sac.ca/images//car%20launch.pdf

Dansco2903 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks: this is a nice illustration. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And did those feet in ancient time
Hi there. I'm glad you've written the article about my erstwhile drinking pal Alan Rouse (from when he and I lived in Montpellier Crescent, New Brighton). As regards "Jerusalem", however, the performance by Emerson, Lake, and Palmer is an adaptation by a world-class progressive rock band and therefore, I would contend, notable. I was intending to cross-link it from the Brain Salad Surgery article but got rather bogged down in a flurry of vandalism to Beatles' songs. The Monty Python version is truly trivial and does not deserve to remain, but please let me know your opinion of the ELP version. Trivial, it is not. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's already cross-linked, which saves me the time. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Having spent some time thinking about this, it occurs to me that it might be worth trying out a link in the See also section along the lines of "for the Emerson, Lake & Palmer version, see Brain Salad Surgery"; this way, the reference is subtle and not within a heading that necessarily invites additions. Since I am on WP for 12 - 16 hours a day I could easily monitor abuse and revert if things get out of hand. As to whether it is proper to be there, my experience of pop music articles for songs is that they tend to have "Notable cover versions" sections (See, e.g. Video Killed the Radio Star), without much trouble. Worth a try? -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thermal analogy
On the Lasham XC webpage some genius has come up with this description of thermals: "If they could be visualised, they would be like the blobs in a lava lamp". Surely too good to omit from the Gliding page! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you too! Maybe the lava lamp analogy should be on the Thermal page itself. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And did those feet in ancient time (cites)
I actually agree with the criticisms of the song that you mention. However, I'm not a reliable (citable) source for Wikipedia purposes, and as far I know neither are you. If we can get a solid cite or cites for this material, excellent. If not, it's just our opinion, and can't be included in Wikipedia. Have a good one. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your response at Talk:And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time ( "[I] will replace it with some references shortly. I can recall reading them, so they are out there somewhere" ) struck me as so entirely reasonable that I felt obligated to see if I could find any cites for this myself. Spent about ten minutes or so Googling with no luck, though of course that very likely just means that I wasn't searching the right keywords. I did find an IMHO interesting bit from h2g2 / BBC:


 * "From the 1920s Jerusalem became virtually the second British National Anthem. It was adopted by The National Federation of Women's Institutes (the 'WI'), sung at their Annual General Meeting in 1924, and has traditionally closed their AGMs ever since. Since the ladies of the WI are known for their expertise in making jams and preserves, the organisation is often affectionately known as 'Jam and Jerusalem '." --
 * -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for correcting my English! --Vierzehn (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Children's Favourites
This is a bit embarrassing, but I didn't intend to tag cleanup on the article. I've reverted my edit to the most recent one prior. Terribly sorry. DJBullfish (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gliding - recent edits removed
Dear jmcc150

you say my edits "added little to the article".

While I am old enough and, I hope, mature enough not to take things personally, I felt that the contributions I had made were worthwhile. Nevertheless, I have not written this excellent article, and may not have the same understanding of the parameters which guided the author.

Would you mind explaining why you felt my edits were not worth keeping? Specific answers would help me to understand when I'm putting my feet in someone else's mouth!

Regards

David FLXD (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate your explanations. If I said that the approach seems to be a step-by-step (or sectional) tight focus on the purpose of the information, would that be about right? By which I mean that within each section (as well as, of course, overall) you keep closely in mind the purpose or message which you want to convey within that section (or the whole article), and that therefore your writing must be disciplined by that purpose?

With your explanation, I am happy to agree with everything you have done to date, with one (very small) quibble. The reason I added 'high-tensile' was because I have had many people ask me if we use fencing wire! Nonetheless, I am content to abide by what you think best.

Regards

David FLXD (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speed to fly
A comment from you on a current discussion would be appreciated. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. Googling the phrase "speed to fly", I see that the majority of the hits do indeed include the effect of a headwind—but only when flying to a goal on a final glide.  I suppose that is one interpretation of STF; but the more general interpretation, involving the MacCready setting etc, relates specifically to a classic series of climbs & glides on a XC flight.  I contend that in those conditions the windspeed is irrelevant: it's a given fact of life which will of course affect your average speed on the task, but that's all.  I'm pretty sure this is explained in an appendix to the BGA Introduction to Gliding (or whatever it's called): unfortunately I can't lay my hands on my copy at the moment.


 * If the conditions are such that your best average speed through the airmass is 45 kt, say, & the windspeed happens to be 50 kt, you won't make any progress—however much you may want to. You can't buck the laws of physics & aerodynamics!  (Here again, I'm referring to a series of climbs & glides, not a final glide).


 * Perhaps it would be useful to coin the terms short-term STF (for final glides) and long-term STF (for XC flights). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not coin other terms:

final glide concept is simple and STF is calculated to meet a goal, mode final glide

during XC flights you fly straight and you circle

mode straight flight

mode thermal flight

it is possible also the dolphin straight flight under cumulus street,

and no calculation or computer can suggest you what to do........

nor can evaluate if you are doing well???

confused???

Dansco2903 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Or tactical STF (when turning TPs & on final glide) vs. strategic STF (the XC version I'm talking about). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * John, I've finally found the booklet I mentioned above. It's Modern Elementary Gliding, published by the BGA (my edition bears no date, but I got it when I started gliding in 1998).  You probably have a copy somewhere too!  In App D (Making the Most of it), they begin by discussing best L/D and the effect of wind & downdraughts, all using the polar curve.  Implicitly—though admittedly they don't spell this out—they are talking about single glides to a destination (my "tactical STF").


 * Then, in a section entitled Flying for Speed, they state:


 * When travelling across country ... [t]he correct speed at which to fly a given aircraft depends on the average strength of the thermals on that day, and is independent of the strength and direction of the wind. (My emphasis.)


 * They discuss an example in which


 * ... the optimum airspeed for rapid progress is 82 kt, and the highest average airspeed possible is 42 kt. This indicates that, with 3 kt thermals and a headwind of 42 kt positively no progress can be made (without coming down).  This point is often not appreciated.  (Their emphasis).


 * Now, we all know the BGA are never wrong ... don't we? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to score points—honest!—just trying to get at the truth. Funnily enough, when I did my 300 (Aston Down/Caxton "Giblet" o/r: the summit of my achievement so far!) I had to battle against a 10-15 kt headwind on the way back.  And guess what?  I consciously flew faster, pressing on all the time, determined not to waste time at the top of thermals etc.  In retrospect I think I must have been doing the right thing for the wrong reason (I'd probably simply been flying too slowly on the downwind leg, ignoring the strength of the thermals).  The implication of our protracted discussion on STF is that my optimum airspeed would have been exactly the same even if there'd been no wind at all. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)