User talk:Minorhistorian/Archive 2

Greets
Have you get a look to that links above? fashinating, isn't? One thing about Spit ex-AMI: after their weared airframe were phased out between 1950-52, 30 were totally refurbished and sent to HHA. Later, in 1954, HHA sent them to Birmanya. So go figure, IF a fighter's airframe is well preserved, Spitfire is second to none in service life. After all, they still flies. About the accidents, they could had been (maybe with Macchi too, at least Spit weren't victim of some nasty vices like in MC.200), but they had been surely very few, since i didn't heard about none of them. In 22,000 produced, this not wonders me too much, BTW. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Partire è un po' morire

Grazie, ma "Partire è un po' morire", come si dice in Italia. I wish you all the best as well... regards from S.P.Q.R. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallo... How is life going, MiniHistorian? Please could you have a look please on my last contribs on Spitfire page... I worry that I could write something not in good english.... saluti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for answer... I am glad to do something for the article... in fact I have some more stuff about post war Spitfire... I will put something more but please try to check it my english!!

regards!!!!!--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Onward and upwards. Dapi89 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. But is is true - on every article. But I appreciate the concern. Dapi89 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That deserves a big LOL. Dapi89 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dodge WC54
Hi, I've just created the article and would like to invite you or anyone else you know who is interested in the subject to edit it and help it grow. I'm pleased to find that you are a modeller too, I'm in the process of painting a model of the WC54 and was surprised that it did not have an article, while flatulist does. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, it was just nerves as it is the first article I've started. It now looks alright, it got around 400 hits so far so I guess there really was a need for an article on the WC54. I'm building the one from Academy in 1:72, I specialise in 1:72 North African Campaign models. Recently bought some oil paints and I'm still hesitant to use them, as I think that it's quite easy to overdo it with the weathering sometimes. Going to Tankfest at Bovington tank museum on Sunday, so if you require any pics I'll put them on the commons for you. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your post at my talk page. CIreland (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Macchiing around
Copy/edit form my tlak page: "I see you're still cleaning up after me! There is still a lot of work neded on the C.202 page; I'm reluctant to delete too much, including Visconti's claim of two Spitfires lest I tread on some sensative toes (eg: I decided to pull back on imposing too much on Gian Milanetti's work because I have been causing him some unintended frustration). Personally I think the paragraph on the action belongs on Visconti's page with perhaps a general comment about his claims as a Macchi pilot in the C.202 article. I'll leave that to your good judgement.

On to something more vexing; as you are probably aware I have once again been at loggerheads with Kurfust - I admit this is partly my fault and I could have handled things better; however he continues to insist on using self-published websites as a source, when he insists that others stop using them, and contrives to bait me with ridiculous comments. Personally I think they are more of an embarresment to KF than they are to me. All I can do right now is let it ride and continue to attempt to bring some order to the disputed articles. I have removed as many of the websites I have used in the past and replaced them with secondary, published references where possible. Any other thoughts on referencing? Minorhistorian (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * Hello again, we haven't talked in awhile, but nice to get back in touch. As to the Macchi C. 202, I agree that a great deal of commentary is related to individuals who flew the type and would be better placed in a biographical article. That type of focus needs to be applied to other articles on Italian wartime aircraft; somewhat of the historical revisionist tract I fear is still going on.


 * In regards to the other conflab, you have probably answered your own questions sufficiently as on reflection, you have made some valid observations as to both parties' love-hate relationship. Providing verifiable and authoritative references is always the "bugaboo" of academic writing. The only thing possible is to adhere to standards and good practice in terms of seeking validation. The Wikiwonderland rules do not often have any bearing in the outside world especially in publishing as first person, second and third person accounts are routinely utilized. Talk later... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Salve Minihistorian

how is it going? I need your help!!! Could you help me please? As i am watching parts of the italian page of Beurling... I have translatd it from some books but there are some words that I dont understand, even with the dictionary... may I quote you the parts I am not sure to understand well? They are from Glancey "Spitfire". About Beurling, he writes...: "If jumped from behind, he would pull back on the stick of his Mk Vc Spitfire so hard that the aircraft would enter a violent stall, flick over and spin... (what is flick over, to turn upside down?)Or he would ram both aileron and rudder into a sudden and violent turn, causing his Spitfire To flip over and drop like a stone." Again, what is "Flip over"? What does it mean, exactly? thanks for your eventual help!! saluti da Roma gian piero

--93.148.101.2 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Grazie, very interesting and very useful... "Voltafaccia" means that somebody totally changes his behaviour towards you... we dont use in plane slang...  but I have some doubt that what they say could be true, that Beurling could do such a 180 degrees turn to face an opponent on his tail... unless opposed to a very green pilot... You know... I was reading a part of Brian Nolan Biography about him, Hero (sic!), and I discovered that: "One of my can shells caught him (a Macchi 202 pilot, probably tenente colonnello Aldo Quaranotti) in the face and blew his head right off. It was a great view anyway, the red blood down the white fuselage. I must say it gives you a feeling of satisfaction when you actualy blow their brains out." Do you understand why I called him a killer and not a pilot? But I am afraid we could not write this kind of things in his page, right? :)

saluti da roma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I can see this has been going on since 2005. Kurfurst is obviously has an agenda - know we know (by the evidence provided) it extends well beyond wikipedia. Dapi89 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Licence Check
Hi Minor, as to your query on my talk page, absolutely, I'll be your wingman here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Cheers for helping. It may be strangely fortunate but I'll be very busy this week. On Monday I shall be visiting Kew. I might have the time and opportunity to secure some interesting information for you if you care to make a wishlist (re Aircraft of the BoB). Dapi89 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just need things crystal. Would AVIA 10/282 discussing the 5th, 7th and 9th (dates, 2/4/40, 18/5/40 and 7/8/40) Meetings of the Coordination of Oil Policy be of interest to you?
 * Would No. 611 (21 March 1940), No 74 (16 March 1940), No 602 (16 February 1940), No 611 (26 June 1940), No 609 (28 June 1940), No 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, (16 February 1940) be of any interest? - in which they discuss the use of 100 octane?
 * If so I can get them, copy them, post them on wiki' or send them to you. If there is anything else specific that you want, let me know within the the next 36 hours of the message (its currently 20:55 GMT). Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

NA
I got my hands on Avia 10/282, but had little time to copy them. But I can confirm all of what is said is there is present. I will be going back down on 20th anyway, so I can do it then. I did secure the said squadron files, which were all on microfiche. How would you like them? If you want the direct AIR digits I can mail them to you. If there is anything that springs to mind in the meantime, you can always ask. Dapi89 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bf-109's interesting issues (IMHO)
Hi. I would say some consideration about Bf-109. It seems that his main weakness were : undercarriage gear; 2-short range and 3-lack of enough armament. It was so even planned to replace the aircraft with G.55, that had all that. But one thing is not clear to me: had Germans considered to implement in the Bf-109 design that futures? G.55 failed because it was too costly and too slow to enstablish the production, but there were plans to upgrade the Bf-109 designs? What wonder me, it's the size: Bf-109G  was almost as big that MC.205V, but this latter had 2 MG151 with 500 rds and two 40 lts tanks. Had Bf-109 had that wings, he could solve all of his problems (or almost all, at least). FW-190 was just a little bigger, but it had 4 MG150 with 750 rds. But what wonder me more, is that Bf-109  with bigger wings existend really, the T version. And even more, the sum of the modiphics need for the Bf-109 to be an updated fighter already existed in 1941: the Ki-61 Hien, from 1943 with 20 mm guns (as soon they were available). This fighter had a sort of DB-601, but despite his weight, he handled well and was faster than Bf-109E (except in a climb, after all it weighted around 7.500 lbs). So i wonder if for the Bf-109 was ever planned to adopt this solutions, just logical to match the needs. Instead, neither G.55/55LW/56 was produced, nor Bf-109G had the necessary modiphics (it seems that the undercarriage gear is the less touchable part of an aircraft..)

Second issue: why Bf-109G became so heavy? Bf-109G  was far heavier than Bf-109F, but it had only 150 hp more, and even less if it was restricted to 2.600 RPM. What's caused that weight increase? I would add, if Gustav was so heavily re-engeneered, then it would had been a lost occasion to make bigger modiphics (the ones above: wide U/C, additional tanks and internal wing guns).

Third: about internal wing guns: it sound bizarre to me, that Bf-109G hadn't space for MG151 (that yes, affected the handling in their pod, but only slightly the max speed), while HA 1112 Buchon had 20 HS 404 in the wings, just that Gustav needed. It sounds bizarre to me, also because HS were bigger than MG.

Excuse me, but since more and more these issues are raised about Bf-109 evolution (the Gustav was the first one that wasn't liked, too heavy for the original layout), it would be interesting to know if there are explaination for that above.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the issues above? BTW, the increasing difficult to edit anything has really bored me to help in this site, even with obvious comparasations that are found to be 'POV' or OR (but nobody says nothing when Spitfire is compared to other aircraft, it's quite strange..). I am even rollbacked because i dared to make 2 kb edit in a plot movie because 'too details' (2 kb..). If there is a manner to sink Wikipedia, it could be the weight of burocreacy.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will do not it. It's so interesting to read about fighter comparations. My Take Off encyclopedia has 3 numbers about Spit vs Bf-109 and this was a really interesting reading, i wuold be ready to kill to know this stuff.. My tough would be to extend, not remove, these stuff, after all it's what almost all the aviation fans want to know. Without relativizing the fighter's performances you would be clueless about them.

BTW, let's return to your post, since i am pretty happy to have someone that at 20,000 km away show how the planet is small with modern tecnologies.

Bf-109s, maybe them had not much re-engeneering to became the powerful HA-1112. What a plane! The two HS-404 shows how the Bf-109 could be made with a proper armament and without much modifics (that we don't know in details, but they were very few). The max speed was about 674 kmh, and the climb almost .. 30 m.sec. Far better than the G.59 (ex-G.55, with the same Merlin engine), it would be a real winged rocket. It's a pity that LW had not them, expecially in 1940 (in the movie 'the battle of England'). And they shows how the potential of Bf-109 was not ended in 1945 (and even better than G.55, i'd say).

My idea about Bf-109s  armament: if the wing could withstand with MG FF/M (i read they were good up to 12 g), i'd grab them: always better than nothing, expecially if you have a belt feeding, like the last Type 99 (100-120 rds). And more, you say about the weight saving for g-resistence: but the gunpod with MG 151 were heavy as well, even more maybe than the MG itselves, so it's not the real problem. Bf-109G were even tested -and used- with 30 mm MK 108, go figure if Bf-109 would not hold the MG151.

My funny idea: if the Bf-109G had 2 MG FF/M plus the armament in the nose it would had been OK. Another configuation, even more funny: if the wings had the capability to hold a MG 17, well, they could have instead two MG81. Thus a Bf-109G could have, let's say 6 MG81 (in the nose as well) and a MG151/20 or MK108. I'd grab this solution, it would have been spectacular (10,000 RPM overall). Another possibility: the excellent MG131: 2 in the wings, two in the nose, the MG151 et voila. Or even better, two MG FF or MG131 in the wings, one MG131 and one MG17 or 81 in the nose, to leave free one of the nose's sides (forward view), until the nose would be re-engeneered as happened with Bf-109K (no MG bulges). Or, even, the MG151/15 in lieu of the other wings armament. All by all, Bf-109  in Spain showed how it could take even the Hisso guns, so it would had been no problem. Can you imagine a Il-2 combat with a six-MG-81 Gustav? A lot of fun.

So, given all, some wing possibilities: 4 MG81 -2 MG131-2 MG FF/M-2 MG151/15-2 MG151/20-2 HS-404 (..).

My guess: if Germans were too afraid about G.55 production, why they simply gave to the Bf-109 design some few innovation, as a bigger wing and a wider undercarriage, and even more fuel? The funny side is that this aircraft already existed: ..the Ki-61, a Bf-109 with 20 m2 wing, internal wing guns and 550 lt of fuel. Give to him/her/it the original DB-601-605 engine and it would had done a hell of fighter, since Ki-61 turned almost like a Zero (equal to a FM-2 Wildcat).

Do you know how italians made DB-601? 30-40 kg heavier and 30-40  hp less powerful, this allowed enough reliability. This speak a volume about the technology level in Italy, even in the experienced Alfa Romeo, a supposed master for high-performance engines. Japs did an engine 30 kg lighter, this proof wrong, if they resisted to the tentation to make a lighter engine..

BTW, i think Bf-109, basically, should had been modified so, it's funny that FW-190 had four 20 mm and 750 rds in the wings, while Bf-109G had none.

Another example that i like, the D.520, with a wing rougly equal to the Bf-109s one, but with 120 lts tanks and four MG. Not bad, expecially because the D.520 had, like the P-36,  very light flight controls, even at high speed (830 kmh), better than the ones of the Bf-109E. And D.520 has 1,250 km endurance: i'd grab it instead of the Bf-109 for the BoB, if i could decided so.

BTW, the Germans wasted their engines in a manner not understandable: why hell they had decided to use the DB-603 with Me.410 and other junks, when they could go with the FW-190 design and make a ferocius fighter for all the altitude? I don't know. They decided finally, only when it was too late.

Finally, the last thing. I have descovered that yes, German thinked even how to improve Bf-109 in the way i imagined.. The first step was the Bf-109T, with a larger wing. One of them shot down the first B-17C, i bet that it would had been advantaged at altitude because his wing. The next step was the Bf-109H, with a larger wing and over 14,000 m ceiling. Finally, the big-wing design was evolved in the Me.155, a wide undercarriage design (finally..). But BFW had so much problems, that the design was sold to B&V and became the BV155, another marvellous aircraft that never became a true danger for Allieds. So this show how much the Bf-109 could be stretched if there was the willing to do it. I wonder how hell, with Bf-109G, designers weren't inclined to transform the undercarriage and make the wing larger. This would had been the right step, without mixing with the G.55 production or the Me.209/309 and more models (a Me.209 with DB-603 would had been a real rocket..). Germans, i think, did really a lot of mistakes (another wasthe second bomber generation, none of them run properly: Ju-188, Do-217, Me.210/410 etc) in wartime.

Talekaakka-kaie-ka-kka-haaka-ka. Or whetever else.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Macchi 202
Hallo Minishitorian this is a quote from a maltese book with foreword of Laddie Lucas... who are we (you9 to judge the work of true published historians? You see it is always the same old story, when you find something that you dont like, yo start to question... the text say "few others " etc... obviosly the author was speaking of fighter available at that time, in 1942... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

il forte Macchi
Buon giorno... It is always interesting to read what you write... but what i noted most is the you several times write: "What you write is etc." Well in fatc i just did no write, I quoted... literally! There is not a word of my own! Are you serious when you ask me: which other planes could broke etc? YOu know that it dont work that way... I mean, who are we to question about what historians write? We decide if they write well or note? ANd then we decide what to write in the article? How? That's a very slippery slope... The historian take the responsability of what he writes, it is not my task to add: they could break in a dive those planes: x, y, z... I dont put the bias on you but i note that some people sometimes there become touchy when I start to quote something positive about italian planes or pilot and that is not revisionism like bzulk says if i do it quoting anglosaxon authors that could not be suspected to have special simpathy for italian planes... thanks for the links i will see them but i prefere usually books and here in Malta I havfe plenty of interesting historical books and I am going to buy some more... About my student i always tell them the more versions about the fact... planes or not... but I dont accept never the typical idea of italian that we still can read in some books. I read in a book off a RAF pilot that was in Malta something like: "Well, the Italians pilot, were... Italians! And with this word i say all of it!" or something like... Well if not to accept these words is to be revisionist, i am proud to be revisionist! Gesù, povera Italia!! Saluti da Malta, the fortress-island! gian piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta 'Qali
"Merhba" from Ta 'Qali, Beurling and Laddie Lucas airport.... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Yes You should... take a cheap flight and then you dont spend that much... think that in Gozo i could buy a just cooked "pastizzi" for 25 euro cents.. nothing... but not in july, I get blisters on my feet looking for what is left of fighter airfield like Ta'Qali, Qrendi, Hal Har and the spot where under which took place the air combats... Contact before the war musums, they will help you to get around.... Besides Malta. I think that this part of the world for us that love avition is the best... even if I would like to visit some place like Rabaul, Port Darwin, Lae... over which Saburo Sakai built his legend and where you can find a crashed plane in the jungle .. here to see some wreckage you must dive deep and I cant swim... saluti da Roma--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Kurfurst
Thanks for your note - frankly the dispute seems bizarre to me, but I'd been watching the article talk-page  with some dismay as it appeared we were heading for the same place as before... I hate to be right sometimes :( I've blocked for two weeks this time; will indef if it happens again.  EyeSerene talk 12:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's no bother at all, it goes with the admin hat (and I didn't have to accept the RfA nom). I'm just glad to be of help - I think the nonsense on those articles has gone on long enough, and frankly I'm surprised we have any decent editors left who want to work there. EyeSerene talk 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Work
It is as we say, "coming along". It is quite liberating to be able to do my own OR. Delving into the archives gives a fascinating insight into just how forward thinking the Allied governments were in some respects while totally ignoring other aspects of warfare. I find myself either singing their praises or cursing their stupidity!

The last year has been rather spoilt by one individual. I’m almost certain it will not stop until someone on the outside takes action. Until then, two weeks from now, I think normal play will be resumed (unfortunately).

Stick at it, you do a good job here. Dapi89 (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Too well
What do you want to do Minor, half world is on the opinion that there is a sort of persecution by the other half. But you cannot explain the continuous rollbacks that recently i had. Can you explain why in the DB-603 article it's possible to remember the Ta-152C but not the G.56, as example? It's a bit frustrating, because G.56 wasn't a experimental aircraft nor a unbuilt fighter, it was on the same class of the Ta-152C. And what about the comparation tables, or the datas (referenced) whipped out? Why i cannot write that, in 1942, 33 Hien were made, or that the total fuel onboard was 550 lts, when i have and gave sources? It's frustrating, but it has not to do with grammar, as a recent research has shown. And finally i don't buy the difficult of understanding. How many foreigners came in Italy with their italian knowledge limited to an hundred words and without the capability to speak a single right phrase? Strangely enough, they are often understood. I wrote dozens articles in the past, now suddently i cannot move a word without being rollbacked. This is outside the reign of wiseness. Wikipedia would gain more if it was not more and more run in a so intollerant manner. Withint few years, this could cause some problems for his credibility, but who bothers? As for me, if these attitude will not change, i'll arguably quit wikipedia, you are right it's not funny, just frustrating to see every day the same stuff.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire contributs
Hello, sorry if I disturb You but I have a problem with a contributor that is deleting wildily my contributs to the Supermarine Spitfire even if they are pertinent and referenced with notes... I had warned him not to do it but he did it on proposal i think... could you tell me how to solve this problems? Can you have a look please to the page? Can yuo tell me how I can stop this guy... i dont rember the nickname... BilCat if I remember well.... I asked help to Bzuk as well.... saluti dall'Italia

thanks gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Achtung, Spitfeuer!
Welcome back... I know what you mean, sometimes I get lost in the reading... I added the consumption (?) (consumo) of the Spitfire because it seemed interesting to me and there is nowhere (I have not found it) detail about how much petrol those plane burnt.... but of course if is necessary a sacrifice... Speaking of other things, I found in anglo-saxon historian authors writings of the extraordinary performance of German planes... but in wikipedia there is smaller acknowledge of their value... am I wrong? I am speaking of people like Gunston and Boyne that you know well.... I thin I add some more details over there... saluti da Roma --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Achtung, Spitfeuer! 2
Is always a little pain to cancel our writings... but, again, I won't do a drama of it... yes thanks I was in my new school near to the main station Stazione Termini and the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggioe, in the very heart of this Holy City... and was nice to discover that we start... on the 7th of September.. so I have some time for my writings... did I tell you that I finish my novel about Italian pilot of world war two? The editor of my first novel (going to be published next June 2010) is reading it... I sent it to the Regia aeronautica ace, Costantino Petrosellini, and he told me is technically almost perfect... I did only some mistakes... writing that the Cr.42 had flaps :( and that in some dogfight the main character slowed down to fox his opponents when he told me that he always flew at full throttle, in combat... (but I read that Marseill did this, at least one time: undercarriage down, flaps out and throttle back...) Saluti da Roma I hope you are doing fine... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Merlin references
Hi Minor, I hope that you can help. A reference you added recently (about the 16,000 ft operating altitude) says 'Price 1980, p.22'. There is no 1980 Price book listed in the current bibliography. Thinking it was the 1982 'Spitfire Story' and that 1980 was a typo I checked page 22 but there is no mention of it there. Are we missing a book or is the page number and date both wrong? Sorry if I am being overly fussy but preparing an article for featured article review is a completely different ball game. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On a similar subject do you have the Glancey book used in the Spitfire bibliography? It mentions the cost of a Merlin as £2,000. It would be nice to use it, from some OR in the Price book I made it nearer £6,000. There are some strange extra bullet points at the bottom of the Spit article at the moment? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Caldwell and the Macchi 202
Ciao.. sorry I dont understand the question and if it is referred to me... How is it going? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * God, now I understand!! You want to put it at the beginning of the article? Just like a title? It should be great and should be a re-balance for all the undervaluations suffered by the macchi....

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Caldwell
I write you down the whole quote... "L'asso australiasno Clive "Killer" Caldwell che si scontrò con tedeschi, italiani e giapponesi dichiarò dopo la guerra che l'MC.202 fu "uno dei caccia migliori e più sottovalutati." (Chris Dunning "Solo Coraggio", Delta editrice (original edition by Hikoki Publications Ltd. 16 Newport Road, Aldershot, Hants. 1998) I dont understand what Glancey should have to do with Dunning... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire Armament
Williams and Gustin don't give a specific source for the four gun buisiness - although the book does contain a seven page bibliography individual facts are not cited to their sources. The whole armament section was an almost direct copy from Williams and Gustin - I did try and re-write in to minimise the copyvio.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

An alternative!
That's a good pic you've found. Here's an existing one with an alternative caption - sorry, it's a habit of mine but I am getting treatment for it! --Red Sunset   19:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fighter Command's radio sets in 1940.
Hi Minorhistorian. I'm not satisfied with your explanation at the Battle of Britain. What does Winston Ramsay mean by "limited in range"? HF has a longer range than VHF, that's a fact. Did the T/R 1143 set (VHF) had more transmission power and/or receiver amplification than the TR9 set (HF)? Did he mean less frequency bands when he wrote "limited in range"? When I read 'range', I think of distance. The Wikipedians could get the misconception that HF has a shorter range than VHF, because of this. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Winston Ramsay (1989) was the source for the TR9 stuff. So the T/R 1143 used more watts than TR9, fair to me. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Minorhistorian, well done! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographies
Contrary to many perceptions, authors list all the reference sources that contribute to a work, not merely the ones individually cited. See the Hawker Typhoon article where a pruning actually removes legitimate sources that may be of use to researchers and other editors who will require references to corroborate information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Canadian Aviation Heritage Centre
Thanks for adding the redlink to Canadian Aviation Heritage Centre to the List of aerospace museums. I have also added it to the nav box Template:Canadian Aviation Museums. If by chance you plan to write the article, can you also add the nav box to it? - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Noted. The editor in question has one intention only. He's not interested in the debate and his reasoning hasn't been reasoned at all. I am wondering what has happened to your logic though Minor. How can you be convinced the fate of prisoners has anything to do with military doctrine or myth? Dapi89 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Minor. Doesn't do it for me. Its justifiable criticism. Dapi89 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Merlin superchargers
The two impellers of the two-stage supercharger were coupled together and were always rotating at the same speed 81.129.252.50 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your efforts to make things calm down with respect to the issue of the fate of Soviet prisoners in the Blitzkrieg page. Steel2009 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Buon Natale

 * Ehi, would You believe me? I was missing You in en wiki... How are You doing?

I am ok, as You can see in my new user page, I am waiting for my first novel to be published and my fighter pilot novel is beeing evaluated by some publishers... Sì here we have a lot of snow but not in ROma... I had some slippery I am ok, as You can see in my new user page, I am waiting for my first novel to be published and my fighter pilot novel is beeing evaluated by some publishers... Sì here we have a lot of snow but not in ROma... I had some unpleasant slippery experience on the mountains with my. I envy You of course and I am sure that the New Zealand girls and summer could be wonderful, but I am going to Thailand for a trip, so it is not so bad… So… Buon Natale e Felice Anno Nuovo!!! (And if I can speak of work at Christmas eve, I would prey You to help me to put a picture in the article about the pilot that I started: I mean Mario Visintini and Leonardo Ferrulli… there are some pictures. I would appreciate it! Sincerely, regards, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Buon Anno

 * Thanks the same to yoiu but look i am not that far as i am in thailand.... let s hope to have a better new year for usa and the old dear wikipedia as well.....

saluti da Phi Phi Islands, Long Beach... regards, gian piero

Hello
I managed to miss your message until now. I'll be investing in some new glasses (about my 50th pair). Snow has been abundant. More of a drag than anything, it caused chaos with flights and ruined many plans - you ain't missing nothin'. I hope you abused your kidneys well into the early hours. How does it feel to be the first to celebrate the new decade? Feel special? Thanks to the bankers we have another ten years of hell ahead. Happy 'new' year! Dapi89 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A blur at altitude
Hello there Minorhistorian. I had my doubts about the sentence in the first place (hence my checking it last month), but I thought I'd better give anyone the opportunity to ref it in case it had just been lost in a move around. I know that the elliptical wing is a distinctive feature of the Spit (although I personally think it's the whole shape of the plane) and the fighter did of course achieve a legendary status in 1940, but I don't think these 2 things went together quite as perfectly as that sentence suggested. I'd agree the wing was probably less distinctive at 10,000 feet! I'm pretty sure I can find a ref stating the Spit "achieved a legendary status during the Battle of Britain" if it helps though (I thought about switching the para to that but then thought I'd better just see if there was a ref first). I've posted another suggestion on the talk page too. Cheers and happy new year, Ranger Steve (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling Patsy Cline
Apology not accepted--none was needed. ;D We all have bad days. (I wasn't having my best ones, either...) And Xmas is often stressful. Hope your year starts off well & gets only better.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:34 & 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
Thanks for that. There has been several discussions on other pages about recognition of Canadian contributions in other battles, often being subsumed into the larger 'British' pictures. This is not a reflection of reality, since Canada and the other dominions were by all means independent by 1931. McMuff (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Units
Those two articles were a total mess. Note that it wasn't me who put those wrong units of lb/ft² which you recently changed to per square inch in those articles. I fixed some of them; good to see you partially fixed some more of them. But let's get over the silly notion that ambiguous, technically improper and unencyclopedic colloquialisms have any place on Wikipedia. The pressure units are not "pounds" and they are not "inches". The element mercury is not capitalized, and the link shouldn't be to the element anyway when we have an article about the units of measure at inch of mercury. Those are just a scratching of the surface of the problems so badly in need of attention in articles like this. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Review
The comments made by PBS are outrageous, and I'm actually quite angry. Some people just cannot distinguish between the good and bad much less know when to call it a day. Fortunately, three editors (counting the blocking admin) are in favour of maintaining an indef. block. I hope it stays that way. I honestly have no idea why, after all Kurfurst has put us and others through, PBS thinks he has any capacity for change. Dapi89 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is our answer. I didn't think it would be an different. It ain't his fault, its everyone elses. No appology. I suspect that if for some inconceivable reason he is allowed back, its going to be worse than before. Dapi89 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The weight of Fire

 * Priviet, Minihistorian, kak dela? :)

Nice to see You again on the scene... I need to know: why the weight of fire is regarded as not useful or interesting? really, I dont understand! :) Saluti da ROma! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

University work
I saw your notice - good luck with your studies! - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The burden of fire
Salve, thanks for the answer, you are right... but You know, I found in many books datas like only referred to one or a couple of planes... Anyway, I dont give so much weight to that querstion... I didnot know that you work in university, it is one of my dream... but I am "relegated" to junior high school... What kind of work? Historical, I bet... (P.S. i HOPE I dont break any rules if in my page I write about the literary contest that I won along with Malizia and about my novel, do I? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Work
I hope everything is going well. I'm guessing exams are nearly upon you hence your sporadic edits. Keep burning the midnight oil. Dapi89 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your breaks are only a few days long? Damn. Dapi89 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you shot up a Ford, lately?
Re this edit: I'm not inclined to change it, really, but I wondered if you strongly disagree with keeping "in the chin", the usual description for where the guns would have been mounted. (Actually, from what pix I've seen, "beard" is more accurate...) No need to reply; if you agree with me, change it?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic, IDK, maybe not; commonplace in the references, yes. As to "actual chin", I don't see too many that would fit the description,:) but I'm not going to fight over that one. Nor did I mean to remove mention of the interrupter; IMO, it might do being added to all the cowl & cheek mount refs on prop birds. (I honestly never thought about it past the WWI birds before...) As noted, this isn't a sticker, more of a "hmm... maybe?" Thanx for answering.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 19:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)