User talk:Nimbus227/Archive 4

BoB offer
Many thanks!

I concur with you on absolutely every point; in particular with your characterisation of these articles now as "Fred said this, George said that" and that the claims of the stability of the articles were based upon having driven off contending views in disgust.

The mediation was in fact opened (here) but is now a moot point since I reluctantly indef-blocked one of the disputing parties a couple of days ago for behaviour too depressing to recount.

Any help that you could bring to the table now would be most welcome; but in truth, these articles are such a mess now that it will be hard to know where to start. Take a look at this section on the mediation page. I seriously wonder what would be lost by finding an earlier version of each of the affected articles to roll back to...

But please - by all means, wade in. I seriously don't think there's any COI issue here. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the mess is so great that I wouldn't be concerned about making big changes "in one fell swoop". If you wanted to tread more carefully, perhaps you could upload your revision to a /Temp page of the article and invite comments on the talk page; but even if you did upload a major revision all-at-once, I'm sure you'll hear about any opposition soon enough. Perhaps the question would be better directed to the parties involved? (I'm sure you know who they are) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think I could have handled things better; editing while on a short fuse isn't recommended. As far as I'm concerned I have no questions at all over your objectivity as an editor and it is not good that you should feel a need to defend yourself. Having to defend myself against personal attack and questioning of my objectivity is one reason why I lost my temper in the past few days.
 * As you've expressed elsewhere, it is time for everyone involved to step back and take a good look at what has been happening. As a New Zealander and someone who tries to be objective - despite what others might think - I find it interesting that the Battle of Britain and opinions on the Spitfire can produce so much heat. I do know that there is an opinion amongst some aviation enthusiasts that there is a "Spitfire conspiracy" dedicated to making out that the Spitfire was better than it actually was while, at the same time, mugging the poor old Bf 109 and Fw 190. Like all good conspiracy theories this can be proven by citing lots of facts and figures out of context, while at the same time claiming that those who are running the conspiracy are doing the same thing. Lack of evidence of the existence of such a conspiracy is just proof of a (gasp!) cunning cover-up by the conspirists!


 * A great way to counter the Spitfire conspiracy is to find any and all references to the inferiority of the Spitfire and cite! cite! cite! regardless of the quality of the information being used. Anyone who dares to try and counter such information with something a little more concrete must be a part of the conspiracy. My citing Shores and Thomas to refute Clostermann is evidence that I am one of these sneaky, possibly commie pinko, rose tinted glasses and sandal wearing, tree hugging, Spitfire conspirists (GAAASP!) who will stop at nothing to rule the aviation world! [cue evil laughter] (SHOCK! HORROR!) In all seriousness this has also led to a degredation of the quality of several articles, something which I find a little depressing.
 * Even worse there is a Battle of Britain Conspiracy!... Minorhistorian (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Minor, chin up! The dispute did not affect me (was not really watching). The Spitfire and the Battle of Britain are both approaching 70 years old, of course both subjects are important to the British people (but how many now?). I heed Rlandmann's edit summaries 'not encyclopedic etc'. He is always right ;-) To get bogged down in trivia in any article is not good. Edit warring is not my idea of fun so I duck out usually. Will see if we can put things right. Nimbus (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorta avoiding these subjects for now, besides which I still have a pesky problem with the script on the operational history page not loading properly. Avoiding computer jargon I've done everything I can think of to sort this one out barring tearing my system apart and reprogramming it! It's bound to be something small and inconspicuous...Anyway the Battle of Chancellorsville is quite interesting and needs a little help. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Look for a friendly admin to help, as for the American Civil War I could only copy edit. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sig.
Hi Gary, glad to know you're back in the swing, but a little time off occasionally for whatever reason is a good thing. Re the sig. thing – the best thing to do is look at mine in 'edit' with reference to the colour codes from Web colors and Hexadecimal HTML / Decimal RGB colour codes to see how to create letters of different colours. Then in "My Preferences", you need to fill the new sig in the space provided and tick the raw sig. box – et voila! It's possible to do other things like changing the font type but I can't remember how I did that when I was experimenting. Hope that helps. Cheers:) --Red Su ns et    22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've got it sorted, and I like the subtle grey/blue cloud tones BTW. It seems there's been some fun on the BoB and Spitfire pages – I'll have to be nosey and take a peek – the last time I looked at either was some time ago, and I thought what a minefield they both were and decided to make a tactical withdrawal rather than wade in with my size tens! Cheers :) --Red Su ns et    18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Trident
Hi Gary, just got in from work myself (no extra hour in bed for the wicked!) and taking a quick look at wos' hapnin'. It's surprising where you can find yourself getting involved on the Wiki – I suppose that's what makes it so interesting, not to say addictive. Never in a million years would I have thought I'd see myself editing a Shakespeare-related article, let alone create three new ones this week (well, two and a list), but there you go! My better half has decided what I'm supposed to do for the rest of the day, but I'll certainly drop in on the BEA Trident crash when I get the chance. ;-) --Red Su ns et    11:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(Heseltine still alive? – don't believe everything you read, this is the Wiki after all! Lol)


 * Been a shocking couple of days here too – yesterday's gales and torrential rain dumped a mountain of leaves in our garden so guess what was part of the orders for the day (first on the list prepared by the Fuhrer Commandant love of my life)! OK; finally got round to reading through the article and initially it looks fine. IMHO it's logically presented and well-written, but just needs a few consistency and style tweaks! I'll standardise on using "co-pilot" and "takeoff" (as opposed to "copilot" and "take-off") as they are the forms adopted for their own articles. On my way – tally ho :-) --Red  Su ns et    19:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never come accross the use of 'ibid' and 'op.cit' before either – I can understand how it works but I don't see there's any advantage in using them over our usual referencing format.
 * What's this about a new job? Hope it went well for you today, but what about the old one – was it the green socks that put you off? How will they cope without you? ;-) --Red Su ns et    19:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, what do you intend to do with the RR Merlin sandbox? I stopped tweaking when I saw your note on the Project talk page. --Red Su ns et    19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, it's been many moons since I did any dyno work back at engineering college, but I do remember being involved in trying to coax a few more foot-pounds of torque out of a 1147 cc Triumph Spitfire engine! Under the new regulations for next season and its effect on aerodynamic packages, I'd say that a move to the dyno dept is the way to go, so good luck with it.
 * Good work catching the leading edge device wl and tracking down the correct one – from an understanding of engineering and the laws of physics I can usually work out how things work, but I'm not familiar enough with the whole range of control surfaces, and it takes hands-on experience to know the exact type. I agree with you that there should be a mention of droops (and perhaps Krüger flaps to differentiate them) in the "slats" article – maybe I'll change the wl in the article in the light of your message. Out of interest, when you say Krüger flaps deform to form an aerofoil shape, is that by mechanical means or simply by air pressure acting on them? On the subject of pushing the article on, if you feel it's worth it then why not, but it can be an arduous task. Maybe there should be a seperate "Inquiry conclusions" section at/near the end?
 * Delete the sandbox Merlin; however, it wasn't such a mad idea to clean the article up – there were a few things that IMHO benefited from tweaking and you could still incorporate a few of the changes. --Red Su ns et    23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some very good points, and glaringly obvious now you mention them! The official report is an obvious choice of reference source – very odd that it isn't used – must have a look at it; and I wonder if Stewart possessed paranormal abilities and contacted the spirits of the crew (Lol)? Anyway, it's good to note that the FA article is not up to the same standard; however, the FA criteria are more stringent than they used to be – when the F-4 was first granted FA status, Emt, the main proposer, hardly provided any inline cites at all, and several paras also were unreffed! I brought this up at the FARC and commented on the inconsistency of reviewers, and that Baugher and Goebel had both been accepted as reliable sources back then (2–3 years maybe); but it didn't make any difference and probably didn't endear me to SG and Marskell either. (Hope they have short memories in case our paths cross again.) Still, nothing to lose giving it a shot once the points you mentioned have been addressed.
 * Strange thing is, I can barely recall the crash, unlike the Lockerbie disaster which happened just a few miles north of us. I had just finished work and looked up as I was opening the door to the house and saw a trace of flames high in the sky as the 747 passed overhead. I neither heard nor felt the impact, but some time later, I can't remember how many minutes, there was a lot of emergency vehicle activity on the main road by us, and the crash was announced on the TV shortly after. It chills me to think that had the explosion taken place a little earlier, yours truly would have acquired his wings sooner than expected! --Red  Su ns et    20:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

P&W R-2800
Hi Nimbus - yes - got it in one: it was a botched rollback in the process of correcting false precision errors introduced to the article, as you've already surmised. I've had a go at explaining the problem in more detail to the user concerned. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that I've succeeded very well in communicating the problem. If you have the time and inclination, I wonder if you might weigh in? Another voice might be helpful. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive response. Just out of curiosity, what was the other book you purchased? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll see my copy of Gunston 6th from the top in the "stack" - yes, great on breadth (I haven't yet found its equal in a single work) but a little disappointing in depth. And quite Anglo-centric IMHO. Lumsden sounds great - I'll have to spring for it one day, and a work of apparently similar scope on Soviet engines by Victor Kotelnikov that I'm aware of.


 * Wikipedia goes through phases; actually I think the current goings-on are pretty mild compared to the middle of this year. The worst I've seen it was in mid-05, when I got so fed up that I left and didn't come back for nearly two years! Ironically, precision issues were a hot topic back then as well. The legacy of those battles is enshrined in aircraft specifications - they're the reason why the (practically never used) "more" and "original" parameters exist in the template. This now sticks in my mind as the posterboy example of why "top down" rules don't work in a collaborative project like this (well, that and the sad tale of wing and power loadings) and why good policy simply codifies and standardises what has grown from the ground up.


 * But, the good news is that it always seems to get better again :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting exchange with AMCKen and I've temporarily put his page on my watchlist. I'm commenting here since RL has made an unintentional error in his stating:
 * Remember that 5 7/8" is already a number with an implicit "roundedness"; to express it as 5.4 " preserves exactly the same degree of precision (and indeed accuracy) that is present in the original value. I'm sure RL intended to write 5 7/16".
 * I also wonder if AMCKen has avoided the common pitfall of converting the units before making his calculations instead of using the original values and tolerances, and then convert the result afterwards thus reducing cumulative conversion errors! --Red Su ns et    09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there is any mileage in embedding the convert template into pistonspecs? Might make it harder for some editors but more convenient for others. Would also possibly remove the problem of false precision. We don't usually have a problem, just one editor 'swimming against the tide'. Off to see if I can get the TM to go backwards. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    10:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a sensible way of avoiding the problem to me.
 * Theoretically it is possible – flying (or trying to) at an IAS of 60 knots into a 70-knot headwind will result in a -10 knots groundspeed, i.e. backwards! (Yes, I'm being silly now) --Red Su ns et    18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Easily possible, it's blowing 40 knots at 2,000 ft at the moment, with the slats out (remember them?) at 35 knots I can hover or go backwards relative to the ground, must take the GPS next time I try it. In those conditions though it's getting off the ground and back safely which is the tricky bit. Left the TM in the hangar (damp, low cloudbase) and watched the F1 'Qually' instead, should be fun tomorrow at Interlagos. An editor has e-mailed me and offered his collection of references for the Rolls-Royce R which is very kind and thoughtful. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Head in the clouds, as per usual ;-)...I've just added a note on R-2800 suffixes but I must admit I forget if the -S14A-G thingummy refers to military engines for export or a civilianised equivalent. And how do I get fancy colours/gimmickry/gubbins on my username? Minorhistorian (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Am having an afternoon of deleting my own posts (got some kind of 'jumping back to the previous page' problem, had it for a while). Don't know about P&W suffixes but guess they are similar to Lycoming ones which denote compression ratio, accesories fitted etc (got a full breakdown of them here somewhere). If you put the right code in the 'signature' box in 'my preferences' and tick the 'raw signature' box it should work. You can try it in a sandbox with the four tildes. See Red Su ns et   's talk page for some more gen. Cheers Nimbus  (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Actually, both the articles you've linked use the same infobox; it's just that there are some inputs missing in the Merlin article. Or, more precisely, the final form of the infobox supports a few more parameters than it originally did. (Remember that not every parameter supported by a template needs to be supplied in an article).

So the solution is simply to add the "missing" parameters to the Merlin article - the template reached its current version very quickly, so it's unlikely that many articles are missing the full set of parameters. The only way to fix this with automation would be to have a bot go through the articles and insert the missing parameters when it finds them; but programming the bot would probably be more labour-intensive than fixing the relatively few affected articles by hand!

Thanks for the feedback on the other issue too. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the Genet uses the same template as the other two, but not all possible inputs are provided (perhaps because the Merlin article was used as a model?). I note that this was added as late as September, so perhaps this is more widespread than I thought. But it remains an easy manual fix (I just pasted the relevant fields into the Genet as a demonstration). As an aside, this is precisely why I so strongly oppose people "tidying up" aircraft articles by deleting unused parameter fields from the specifications sections - it means that when someone else comes along and uses that article as a model to copy-and-paste into a new article, they don't get the full range of options.


 * Confirming that the templates used in the Merlin and J79 articles are identical; maybe your eyes are being tricked by the fact that in the J79 article Infobox Aircraft Engine starts a new line; when usually (as in the Merlin article), it shares a line with the closing "}}" of Infobox Aircraft Begin? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LiftSystem
I think I've touched on the important points and cited refs wherever possible; however, I couldn't find a reference for the thrust values (copied from an unsourced article) of the system when driven by the F135 engine, other than the F135 itself is capable of 40,000 lb afterburner thrust (no use at all). I think this is an essential one to provide, and would rather not remove important unsourced info – any ideas? Secondly, I'm a bit undecided about the "Engineering challenges" section – the information I dug up seems to be reasonable and doesn't contain anything contentious – so I suppose the source is suitable enough?!? Thirdly, I basically padded the "Specs" section out with whatever I thought would be suitable, but it could be much better if I could find the info. I'd be grateful if you'd give it the once over and see what you can do in readiness for release, or take it from here and release it yourself – no problems either way. Cheers from a PITA! (Lol);-) --Red Su ns et    21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work on the tidies, and the airflow and components image is spot on! That's exactly what the article needed, and in view of its usefulness in illustrating the concept, I'm wondering if we should force the size a bit in spite of opinions to the contrary? I think it's positioned correctly, and we should leave the infobox one where it is. No tendencies towards arson here tonight, but fireworks may be on the agenda later!?! :-))--Red Su ns et    23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the editor in question appears not to be a frequent contributor so it may be some time before he looks in again and I'm not holding my breath. I'm going to have a look at how to reword what we do know for certain so that the article can be released in the meantime. If and when reliable sources come to light we can add stuff back in. According to this it seems that development of the F136 continued in the hope that Congress would not approve the Pentagon's wish to drop further funding for 2008. Perhaps funding did continue; I'll have a ratch around at some point to see what I can turn up. --Red  Su ns et    21:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your latest tweaks have given the article the finishing touches: time for release I think.:-)) --Red Su ns et    19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What a shocking article (Lol)! Seems to have received a decent reception so far I'm happy to say – sorry 'bout the trade mark thing though. :-( Should have realized there'd be a MoS ruling regarding its use – there's one for everything else it seems. AAK has kindly replied with this for a source for the F135 dry thrust figure of 17,600 lbs, but sadly that of the F136 isn't mentioned independantly, and the wording could be interpreted to mean a blanket figure for both engines! Must keep an eye out for something more specific. TTFN --Red Su ns et    19:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK ... that the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem article was viewed > 10,000 times on 16 November 2008? And no vandalism – not bad!!! --Red Su ns et    23:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Grob image
Concur that this is almost certainly unfree: the way to handle such things is through WP:PUI. The specific instructions are here.

Wiki time is a little short this week (as you seem to have noticed!) - I've just started a fantastic new job which has come with a steep learning curve; so real life has taken its toll. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne found the original source here; I've gone ahead and deleted the image.
 * You're right - it's a very annoying waste of time. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Guess the copyright was clear enough there then! Thanks MilB1. Was just wading through the PUI process. Good luck with your new job, I have recently started assisting another department at work which involves a stellar learning curve, one step at at a time! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    12:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Russian source
Absolutely; if we can replace a Russian source with an English-language one of the same reliability then we should do so. Shouldn't be hard for the British and American engines listed. At the same time, we should remove the link wherever we see; citing the book is OK, but since it was published in 1939, it's probably still protected by copyright... --Rlandmann (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On the Russian web site, maybe add (English translatation) to the reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't translate it if I don't understand it! Not even sure if it is a book or a website, seems to be a book but not one that many would have easy access to. I'm fairly confident that the books I have now can replace this reference and add more which has to be a good thing. I'm fairly happy that the British engine articles are at a good level (mostly referenced start class with some stubs and redlinks remaining) and I had been thinking of organising the Russian and German engine articles in to navboxes next (which I would then go through one article at a time), very much learning while editing and I enjoy it. Just too many engines (but will get there in the end). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that does not help any with the book being in the linked zip file on that page. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And also not helping is that I don't have the specs (or as many) that are given in the articles using that reference! Looking at P&W engines at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

P&W navbox
Nice work getting the Template:P&W gas turbine engines navbox started. I note that there are more engines to be added, and I'm trying to help with that as I can. I'll also try to add the group list formatting soon. I'm mainly trying to make sure we don't work at cross-purposes on the navbox, so I have a few questions. First, are you planning a separate navbox for the piston engines? Are there enough P&W piston engines to warrant a separate navbox?

Also, is it a good idea to lump the PWC engines in with the parent's engines? (Just asking on that one, as I honestly don't know.) Many of our Canadian editors like to claim that PWC is a completely separate company within UTC. While this may have been true for PWC's predecessor, United Aircraft of Canada, both the PW and PWC websites clearly list PWC as a division of PW, so having them on the same navbox makes some sense. However, if the PW navbox becomes too large, I wouldn't oppose splitting them up either.

Finally, how should we handle the military and civilian designations. There are several ways to do it, but we can discuss those on the template's talk page if you like. Thanks as always. - BillCJ (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry about the redlink scare - it's fixed now! There are definitely several ways to go in layouts on the templates, and I guess it's really a matter of what works best for each company, as there product lists and types are so different. I agree with you an the navboxes being a great too. We saw that this past year, with so many new aircraft articles being created to fill in the redlinks on the aircraft manufacturer navboxes. I suspect we'll see the same thing with the engine navboxes, tho probably not on the same scale. - BillCJ (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the MOS-wonks will permit "navbox clutter" on the List of aircraft engines page, but it's worth a try anyway! As a back-up to that, we might need to go ahead and start a category for the engine manf. templates separate ffrom the aircraft manf. templates. This way, it will be simple to just add the cat to the List page in the navbox cluteris deleted. Also, I agree it wouldn't hurt to ask for ideas on WT:AIR - the more heads the better! Anyway, I should already be in bed, and will be going there soom, so it will be a few hours before I respond again. Good luck with the flying, if you're able to go up. - BillCJ (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've fixed the cat page by copying the code from the original aircraft manufacturers cat page. I also moved the Gas turbines template to the new template name, and made the piston engine page a redirect. Once all the links have been corrected to the new template, we can probably speedy (CSD) those two pages, since there should be no question on their not being needed now. (Or just ask RL or MilB1 to delete them.) Also, I think it's best to keep the PWC turboprop and turboshaft engines under one heading, since the PT6 series has both types. Finally, I've doubled up a few of the civil/military designations such as J57/JT3C and J75/JT4, since, and choosing one over the other just doesn't make any sense to leave one out, as these are both well-known designations. I think this works better than having separate military and civil designation sections at this time, though in the future it may be more feasible as we add more articles. However, the PT6 is widely known by that designation in the military, so adding the little used T74 or T400 is probably unnecessary. At some point in the future, I'd like to make a list or table of P&W's JT and PT engines with their military and other designations. This would probably be best as a table on the main PW page. Whew! What next? GE? I'll try to start a sandbox on that one this week, but it should not take too long using the PW format (sans pistons, of course!) - BillCJ (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, User:BillCJ/Sandbox/GE aeroengines is up, have fun! I'll get to it later today or tomorrow, but for now it's time for watchingAmerican football on TV! As to the cats and not sorting alphabetically, you should start with WT:Air. I think it can be corrected with the sort feature, but I haven't a clue how it works. - BillCJ (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * TWO halves, or four QUARTERS! We still do maths correctly in the US, even if we call it by different names (MATH)! ;) -

I figured that, but just in case. . . Anyway, Template:GE aeroengines is finished and online. I ended up away from the telly with some time to play with, so there you go! - BillCJ (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interrupt your fun I have removed a space in the engine templates (before the pagename link) so they now appear properly in Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft engine navigational boxes. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, wondered what was causing it, will watch out for it in other cats. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Allison navbox will be fairly easy. The Allison section om the RR navbox starts with engines from 1995, so we can just use any engine in production or under development before that date. The only ones I can think of off-hand that were developed after 1995 are the new RR300 and RR500. Of course, Allison license-built several RR engines before 1995, but that should pose no problems either. - BillCJ (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done: Template:Allison aeroengines. - BillCJ (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Honeywell and predecessors
Gary, the Allison template was easy compared to the job for the next ones! Lycoming (turbines)/Garret/AlliedSignal/Honeywell is going to take some work. Putting the template togeter should be simple enough, but we aren't going to be able to use the company articles lists of engines, because, asside from Lycoming, there aren't any! In fact, the three non-Lycoming articles barely mention the aero engine businesses, and none give a good treatment.

The Lycoming Engines article is good enough as is, and its template should be easy to put together. Lycoming sold the turbine engine side to AlliedSignal in 1996, so listing all engines in production or under development before then should work.

The Garrett Systems article covers everything from the founding of Garrett AiResearch in the 1930s to the current company under Honeywell. Garrett AiResearch is currently a redirect to Garrett Systems, so I'd like to pull out most of the pre-Honeywell merger info for Garrett, and put it on the Garrett AiResearch page, with the focus on the aircraft engine line.

The next step will require more work, since there is no content on the turbine business in the AlliedSignal or Honeywell articles. I'd like to create the Honeywell Aerospace page to cover the tubine and other aerospace activities of Honeywell, and AlliedSignal to some extent. That will have to start out as a stub with an engine list, but hopefully it can be improved. Gunston's 2006 edition of his Aeroengines book does give enough info to make a good start.

Any thoughts, comments, corrections, or other options? - BillCJ (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, sorry I'm not being much use at the moment (tired from work, no spare time!). Great work with the templates, the 'ball' is certainly rolling. I'm not very informed on the history of the US companies (that's why I started on the Brit ones!) but I'm sure we can get there. My copy of Bill Gunston's book covers companies and most of their engines up to 1989, should be able to decipher who built what eventually from that, I didn't know there was a later edition, even better. The 'Flight' online archive has been useful so far and some of the company websites have been good enough to provide some history of themselves and their products. Hope to get more energy later this week. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No Problem, mon! This is WP - no deadlines! I'm not that up on the history of British engines, so it all balances out. I'll start on the Lycoming template next, then work on the Garrett/AlliedSignal/Honeywell engines on one template. I'm not sure those will be big enough to split up on there own, but we'll see how it looks when it's done. Take care! - BillCJ (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lycoming O-320‎
Good work on this article! It looks a lot better than it did! - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Grumman?
Hi again: no problem - that was just me trying to be over-precise!

If you are curious as to which aircraft we have owned I have a photo gallery of all six. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed the pictures - that is our home website! I had a look through the RR article. While it could use some work, it isn't as badly off as the Continental Motors article! - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the photos are over the top on the car side. I have my preferences set to 300px to show "worse case" for editing and the photos go way down the page far past the text at that setting! I agree that it needs an aero-engine photo!


 * Nope, not flying anymore - used up all the fun in 30 years, 4600 hrs and 51 types! I am working on an aviation novel, however from my days as a CF searchmaster. - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The cost was one aspect, but largely I had just done it all - I flew more than recreational, including jets, helicopters, aerobatics, formation, forest fire-fighting, soaring, gliders, paragiders, hang gliders, parachutes, air-to-ground gunnery, peacekeeping, SAR, medevac, cold war, test flying, IFR, VFR, etc, etc. Throw in a private airplane that I couldn't keep serviceable and a spouse who can no longer fly, due to illness (she was a flight instructor) and it added up to time for a change and to do other things! No regrets! It gives me lots to write about in Wikipedia and other writing!


 * If no publisher picks up the book I will web publish it on our own website. My wife already has one free book on our website. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruth says thank you for the kind words about her book! It is supposed to be a humourous look at life with MS - that is how she copes with it. Wow autism is no fun at all, although levels of functioning vary a lot. I have hand-propped planes (but not helicopters!) and still have all my fingers, too! - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lycoming O-360
Nice going taking that photo of a Lycoming O-360! I have been looking for the opportunity to get a photo of one for a while! - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Christmas came early! - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the nice thing about writing for Wikipedia - even the rainy days are fun! - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We like snow too, being Canadians we ski - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Eddie was a Brit classic! Actually I was born in the UK - just learned how to be a Canajun over time! Skiing is part of the indoc. - Ahunt (talk)


 * This is getting a bit personal for posting here where everyone can see it so if you would like to continue this conversation please do e-mail me at the address listed at the bottom of my home page! - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Snecma navbox
Gary, as far as I can tell, there is no navbox for Snecma engines. Since you created Template:Turbomeca aeroengines, I thought I'd touch base (wicket?) with you before jumping in. Snecma has not had a lot of engines, so the template will be a bit short. An option is to combine it with another manufacturer, of which two come to mind. Since Tubomeca is now part of Snecma, that is an option. The other is to combine the Gnome et Rhône engines with Snecma, since Snecma was created by nationalizing Gnome et Rhône in 1945. However, Gnome et Rhône primarily made piston engines, while Snecma has generally made gas tubines, and I'd rather keep them separate at the moment.

I know next-to-nothing about Gnome et Rhône engines, so I'd rather not do that template. I can do the Snecma template, and we can see what it looks like, and then decide if merging it with one of the others is a good option, or if we should keep them all separate. Any thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Snecma aeroengines is done!

Next?
Gnome et Rhône is next, and I hope to get on it in the next couple days. All I know about it is what is in the article, ans I'll take the engines lists from there. Hopefully it's accurate and comprehensive! Are there any major US companies I've left out? Westinghouse, perhaps, but I haven't found an article with a product list, and there are several subisiaries with articles, and I don't know which is the right one! Not sure where to go after this - any suggestions? - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, almost forgot Curtiss-Wright's Wright engines. Not alot of them, but it will make a neat navbox. And there is a list at Curtiss-Wright! - BillCJ (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Wright is done. Westinghouse should be fairly short also. It might take some research, but Williams shouldn't be very long either. I'm not sure what I'll do next, as I'm about finished with the engines I'm familiar with. I need to ask Ahunt about Canadian engine manufacturers. PWC is on the PW navbox, and the only other one I know of is Orenda. As you mentioned, the German and Russian companies need to be done, and the Japanese also. I'm more comfortable with the English-language companies, simply because all the major sources will be in English. but as you said, this is fun for me too, and a learning experiance. Not surpring far a guy who read encyclopedias as casual reading at age 14!

In a different direction, the US piston engines also need to be done. To my knowledge, the system started aout as an Army-Navy one, but it seemed to catch on pretty quickly with US companies, since it was easy to determine displacment,and then stick the correct letter in front of it. I don't think any organization supervises the system today, it just keeps on going. I'll probably do it next, since I still have the US companies fresh in my mind. I don't think we'll have the room for every potential displacement number, so we'll have to limit it to engines we know actually existed, though redlinks should be fine. The V, R, and O engine types should be the largest sections, and I plan on following the basic format used by the USDOD Gas Turbine navbox. The PW, Continental, and Lycoming templates, along with some of the others, should already contain the bulk of the engine types, at least the major ones and ones with articles. After that, it should contine to grow as others add to it, and new articles are written. Good luck on your reading - not too many people understand curling up with a reference book! Or encyclopedia volume! - BillCJ (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest the John Andrade's US Military Aircraft Designations and Serials book has a list of engine designators in the O, R, L, V, H and X sequences if I can help when you create the US Mil piston engine navbox. I used the basic information to create United States military aero engine designations. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be very useful, as we don't have the book could you start the navbox? Be interested to understand how the duplicate designations were got round (Continental O-360, Lycoming O-360 etc). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Started as USAF piston engines I will do some more work tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Marvellous! I should think that there are a few of them. Some navboxes I have seen have a 'see also' at the bottom, might be useful to squeeze a link in to highlight the designation article. I squeezed Rolls-Royce aircraft piston engines in to the 'RR' template but linked it as a left column header, could be too subtle. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting the template started, Milb1. I'll try to work on it this evening. - BillCJ (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce RB162
Gary, I noticed that you have been adding redlinks for the Rolls-Royce RB162, as I did last night. I was planning on asking you about the RB162 anyway. Do you have any info on the engine, and are you planning on working on an article near-term? Just asking, as I really don't have anything other than the Gunston encyclopedia. also, the RB193 appears to be a variant of the Spey, so we could probably add some info there, and create a redirect from Rolls-Royce RB193. - BillCJ (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm about to split the Dassault Balzac V off of the Dassault Mirage IIIV page. I don't think this should be a problem, as Dassault Balzac V and Dassault Balzac V are separate from their Mirage IIIV pages. Any thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the new Dassault Balzac V page. I got all the specs I could from the German page, as I've not been able to find them anywhere else. Have you looked at the German article? I skimmed though it with a translator, but some of the words didn't translate. I don't know if there is anything useful there or not. - BillCJ (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Your driving safely is far more important than any WP article! Ah, the perks of no deadlines! - BillCJ (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Well, I found out why the eng/met were switched, something I didn't know was possible: the first line of the template, where it usually just says "aircraft specifications", said "aircraft specifications/switch", which evidently switched the main and alt figures. I don't know if that coding is an older version of the template, but I've changed the figures back around to see if the other problem will be fixed. And glad to hear you arrived back safely. - BillCJ (talk)

J85
Sorry I just put the list of aircraft into alphabetical order (rather than article order) as it looked daft with a mixture of US designations and manufacturers name jumbled up. Do we have a naming convention for lists? I will go and ask. MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again Nimbus – as you can see, they're keeping me busy! I'm sorely missing hanging out here as much as I have in recent times.
 * Sorry to barge in on the discussion, but I thought I'd just clear up what looked to me like a misconception in a message you left on MilborneOne's talk page. The naming conventions (on WP:AIR but also on Wikipedia more generally) are strictly concerned with how an article should be named, nothing more. Therefore, an article may have one name (per the convention), yet a different subject/title (the bit that goes in bold in the first sentence), and a different "name" parameter in its infobox. Indeed, this is quite a common scenario! Furthermore, and more relevant, the conventional article name carries no sense that this is somehow the "preferred name" by which an aircraft (or any other topic) should be referred to in articles or lists; the whole reason we have pipes is because the article name is not always the best way to refer to a person/place/thing when linking to it. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi RL, I am glad that you can sense that this is bothering me. It could be perceived as a highly confusing way of doing things, especially for a new editor. I had hoped that it could be seen that there is a possible consistency problem here but I got a more or less 'don't be so stupid' reply. I think when I started on WP I questioned the article naming conventions but was also beaten down at that time, some of the article titles (mainly US military aircraft) I still personally disagree with due to conventions used elsewhere. The convention has been set and I abide by it but it seems that in article texts and lists the aircraft name is changed by piping to something that I and others are presumably more used to seeing. I think that there are currently no guidelines on WP:AIR/PC as to what convention these lists should follow. Have also got used to the infobox name being different at times (I try to keep it as a shortened version of the article title). It seems like we are doing the piping in lists for neatness.

I will clog my talk page not yours! Here goes:


 * F-100 Super Sabre
 * F-101 Voodoo
 * F-102 Delta Dagger
 * F-104 Starfighter

A neat list using unpiped article names.


 * Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
 * Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
 * McDonnell F-101 Voodoo
 * North American F-100 Super Sabre

Now alphabetically arranged by manufacturer but the numbers are out of order.


 * Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
 * Boeing C-135 Stratolifter and KC-135 Stratotanker
 * Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
 * Convair YB-60
 * Douglas A3D Skywarrior
 * Douglas F4D Skyray
 * Lockheed U-2
 * Martin B-57 Canberra
 * McDonnell F-101 Voodoo

A partial application list from the current Pratt & Whitney J57 article, a mixture of article titles with non-piped manufacturers, does not look good IMO. It can be corrected easily to:


 * A3D Skywarrior
 * B-52 Stratofortress
 * B-57 Canberra
 * C-135 Stratolifter
 * Convair YB-60
 * F4D Skyray
 * F-101 Voodoo
 * F-102 Delta Dagger
 * KC-135 Stratotanker
 * Lockheed U-2

Or not so easily (more typing) to:


 * Boeing B52 Stratofortress
 * Boeing C-135 Stratolifter
 * Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
 * Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
 * Convair YB-60
 * Douglas A3D Skywarrior
 * Douglas F4D Skyray
 * Lockheed U-2
 * Martin B-57 Canberra
 * Mc Donnell F-101 Voodoo

Even here the manufacturers are in order but the numbers are out of order and two aircraft don't have names (not much we can do about that). I agree that sometimes there is no easy or right way of doing it but a general convention guideline would be useful. I was basically annoyed that my edit was followed just 11 minutes later by a 'correction' also indicating that my edits that night were being closely monitored, I really don't like that behaviour but have to live with it. I hope that you agree that I add constructive content to WP, do not under any circumstances become uncivil with other editors and above all retain an open and unbiased mind. I have just purchased another set of books for the project and hoped to use them to fill more gaps, barring any 'style' distractions and nit-picking. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a bit concerned that you felt you were being followed, that is not the case I for example have over 3,000 pages on my watchlist and I check all the edits done to those pages whoever has done it, even our more experienced editors make mistakes and more than once other project editors have caught my mistakes. The other point is that when the changes to watched articles pop up you sometimes see things wrong that were not part of the current edit which is why sometimes an article that hasnt been edited for a while suddenly gets attention from more than one editor. You are doing a good job for the project and as you have seen we have good aircraft project like when you were concerned about the list order it was openly discussed to check consensus. Keep up the good work and just keep asking questions if you are unsure of anything. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying, the internet can be a strange place and things (events) can be taken the wrong way. I was definately 'stalked' recently many times by an editor regarding aircraft specification conversions and I was uncomfortable with it and have possibly become paranoid. If I see a genuine mistake in a watched article I deliberately wait a day or two before fixing it to avoid any possibility of them thinking the same. It goes against 'being bold' but I recognise that editors have feelings. The list concensus appears to be that I am wrong. I am trying to work to a high standard and consistency throughout the aviation project is part of that, I can't help it being a former serviceman as I believe you are. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood Nimbus, yes I did my 25 years before my trade was privatised! MilborneOne (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to the lists above I would say the last one is preferrable but that is just my opinion, using the non-standard american article names is really not a neutral point-of-view as it gives emphasis to one designation system. MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft
They have changed the template which has made a mess of your user page! MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, very good! Thanks for the 'heads-up', will see if I can fix it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    09:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

BMW
Eek-enheimer! Gary, I just had a look at the BMW page while looking at German aeroengine companies. What a messen! (Forgive the faux-German - my one-quarter German blood can't help it!) The article itself is quite a mess, but beyond my scope or desire to attempt to clean it up. For our purposes, it barely even mentions the aeroengines at all. I did happen to find Category:BMW Aircraft engines, which lists all (I hope) of BMW's aircraft engines. Could you look at the cat, and see if there are any engines left out? Thanks. The Junkers page wasn't too bad, and it has both an aircraft and engine list. However, the Daimler-Benz page has a one-sentence mention of aircraft, tank and submarine engines! And the article seems quite short for such a storied company. Again, that one is beyond my scope. - BillCJ (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jetzt ist alles in ordnung! Tut mir leid. Well I went a bit mad, I checked the category and the list of aircraft engines which had one engine missing, BMW X, which is happily here already as a stub. According to Bill Gunston's book they are all here apart from a couple of obscure experimental types that would not be notable enough for their own articles. I then went a bit more mad and created a navbox BMW aeroengines and added it to all the articles, I could see that there is a little work to do but the navbox makes it relatively easy. As for the main BMW article it is much the same as the Rolls-Royce Limited one where the cars get priority. Maybe when the engine articles are improved we could look closer at the company articles, unless your priority is the other way around. In the absence of page content guidelines (which should be fixed soon) I have been working to a format of 'Design and development', 'variants', 'applications' (or 'variants and applications' combined) then the same as the aircraft pages from 'specs' downwards. I don't think any of the BMW engines have infoboxes yet at a quick glance. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! I've been trying to inmprove company articles as I go along, such as with the Garret AIResearch page. I/m not good at writing prose from scratch tho, which is why I haven't tackled Honeywell Aerospace yet. On "Variants and applications", I assume you mean to combine the sections when one or both are relatively small. Another section is "Derivitives", which could be a list, a text section, or the article could need both. As I'm sure you've noticed, there are alot of dervived engines that are not variants per se, but still do not have their own articles, and some are not lonly ikely to either. An example is the JTFD12 engine derived from the JT12. It's only application is the CH-54/S-64, and there's really not enough info on it to cover it on its own. Anyway, I'll try to start out on the DB engines tonight/tomorrow, if I can. - BillCJ (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The company articles will take time, that's for sure! Someone cleverly got round the RR problem by creating Rolls-Royce aircraft piston engines, could be a way to go with some of the company articles. I had a whizz through the BMW articles and added infoboxes to all except the very short stubs and shuffled the section order while I was there. Yes, 'Variants and applications' could be a neat and informative way of doing it, I have done it here, in that case the 'list' is quite long. It was easy enough to do that as Lumsdens' book lays it out that way, might be more difficult with other existing articles where 'variants' and 'applications' works just as well. I notice in the Genet article that there is no 'Design and development' yet, it looks like it has been written from the bottom up! A Daimler-Benz navbox would be a logical next step. Way past bedtime here, we are really getting there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, the Template:Daimler-Benz aeroengines ist donen! Gunston's Aeroengine 'pedia list about 30 DB6xx-series engines, about half of them coupled versions or derivitives of the DB 600/1/3/5; the others are variants of new engines of other derivitives. I've listed most of them, but it would be good if you could double-check Gunston or any other sources, and see if any of the remainders should be there too. I also added all the turbine engines that Gunston listed, as I doubt most readers would know they even developed any, though none ented production. Those would probably work in a Daimler-Benz turbine engines article, as a historicalt novelty/footnote, if nothing else. FO you know of any good German-speaking editors active on WPAIR or MILHIST? They have have access to some German language sources, and be interested in helping fill in the gaps here. User:HDP is the only one that comes to mind right off. - BillCJ (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still up (04:00) but I'm on shift. Good stuff, there are a few mixups in the DB box at the moment. No, I cant think of any German regular editors, but I know of an Italian chap who has returned ;-) I have Janes Fighting aircraft of WWII and WWI which both have an international engine section at the back with comprehensive descriptions, images and specs. They also have info on the engine companies which could be very useful. I often look at the other language versions of these articles to see if anything is missing, I think a lot of the English articles don't have the 'interwiki' links yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    04:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I generally try to look at the interwikis also, especially the German, then French or Italian, pages, and also the relevant interwiki for aircraft from non-English aircraft/engines. The German articles can be supringly good or bad, as you probably know. Often their more comprehensive than English Wiki, even on aircraft from ENglish speaking countries, and sometimes they even have article we don't. However,the German WIki also has huge gaps in their coverage, even of German types! I do try to add any interwiki articles I find, and I even add some of our articles, esp. the new ones, to the relevant non-Engilsh pages of the more-important types. I find some good pics that way too. - BillCJ (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Frustratingly a lot of the German images are not on Commons so linking them does not work, I remember struggling with the RAF Tristar images (which were deleted shortly after transfer unfortunately). I think it is fair to say that the wp:en coverage of aircraft and engines sets the standard but the other countries are catching up. Bis Morgen. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving-off element?
An RLM engine designations template sounds good.

On an unrelated issue, I was looking over the MTU Aero Engines article to see if it was worth making a template, as all the engines listed are collaborations with other companies. Anyway, it stated it was partly formed by MAN AG, so I read through the article. The is a somewhat-confusing MAN AG. which does not in any way define what a "moving-off element" is, though it uses the term several times. By context, this might be a transmission output shaft, perhaps a literally-translated term from German. The section is unclear, and MAN page does not seem to have a similar section, but perhaps there are links to a relevant article there. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, torque converter makes more sense. I've tagged the section for refs and clarity, so hopefeully it can be cleared up soon. - BillCJ (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, just spotted this and thought I'd add my two-pennyworth. When a vehicle is at standstill, a device is required to enable transfer of drive from the running engine to the initially stationary transmission input shaft and bring it up to engine speed. This device is known as a moving-off element – a fancy term for something that most commonly takes the form of a dry clutch or torque converter, although there are other less frequently encountered forms. Hope this helps! --Red Su ns et    19:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it before but now we know! A propeller and some air is much simpler!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't either until I looked it up and found it here and here. Both of these have German connections in one way or another so the term could be a literal translation that seems to have stuck! (A more descriptive or correct term might have been Initial power transfer device perhaps.) --Red  Su ns et    19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The mighty Veyron, I know someone who has one of those but he won't let me drive it! Maybe someone can create a 'moving-off element' article, beyond my simple brain. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just ducking in briefly – that sounds like a challenge to me! It crossed my mind, but that might only serve to perpetuate what might not be a generally accepted term. I'd like to find it mentioned elsewhere in a reputable non- German-related source for peace of mind. BTW, what sort of g** wouldn't let you drive his Veyron?! He probably couldn't control a Civic properly (smirk)!!! --Red Su ns et    21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A rich one! Will have a surf through wiki:de, there might be an article there on the 'moving-off elephant'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I searched for 'Anfahrelement' which points first to the MAN article and then to 'Drehmomentwandler', the interwiki goes to torque converter from there. The fourth hit is Continuously variable transmission, same article title in both languages. There are some merge tags on the German articles. It's only a matter of time I suspect. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should ask on a WP automotive project talk page. (I haven't checked to see which one yet.) Might be interesting to see the answers, and there ought to be some German speakers around on some of them. - BillCJ (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, to be honest this is not my field although I've always admired German technology, I drive a Ford that is really a VW with a badge on it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance
Hello fellow glider pilot. I notice your offer of assistance in the discussion in the glider/sailplane debate. Looking through some of his previous talk pages, Wolfkeeper seems to be both misguided and determined, perhaps even bombastic. I am unsure how to deal with him but a start might be for you to support with Rlandmann's proposal on both the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Talk:Glider. Thanks JMcC (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer of support - as you know, my time here is very limited at the moment, so I could do with whatever assistance you care to pitch in with (and already have - thank you!) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried guys, if nothing else it has highlighted the low quality of the Glider article which should be up there with its FA sister article, Gliding. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect code
Yep - that's how to "un-redirect" a page! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, seems logical to me. I don't have any text yet though! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Years in aviation

 * Three actually, I have not made much 'noise' during all of this debate as I could see that many editor's genuine concerns were being flatly ignored. There is a chance that linking to 'years in' may be allowed to stay which may well be the sole remaining contextual date link in any article. I was very concerned that many 'years in' links had been recently destroyed and was privately incensed at the time. The RfC closes on Christmas Day I believe, I will abide by whatever decision is reached at that time. Please note that this issue can adversely affect an editor's enthusiasm to participate in Wikipedia. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great kudos to your considerable restraint. I trust you have expressed your views in the RfCs which are taking place. Please allow me to reply to your comments here, though. Whilst in an ideal world, I would strongly agree with you that linking to year article would be highly desirable. It has been argued that it would aid focus and set the context. However, The vast majority of year articles, with the notable exception of 1345 do not, in my opinion, provide that desired contextual setting for it to be worth linking to, because they are mostly a bunch of trivia about events in a given year which may or may not be related. Perhaps the fault lies in the definition or scope of these articles, but the current articles are whatever they are. I would have no wish to dampen your enthusiasm for the project - quite the contrary. I used to link dates and years too, admittedly somewhat blindly, but now I believe that context could be much better supplied by linking to another event or biographical or other article than a articles of unrelated trivia. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no desire to link to any days of the month or 1962 for instance but every hope of linking to 1962 which is entirely in context in the aviation world. This series of articles has been sadly neglected recently because of the uncertainty of the future of date linking. Used in the infobox this would be the only date link in an aircraft or aviation related article. The continued use of the bot while discussion is ongoing is very disheartening and does not reflect the spirit of an open, international community that is trying to evolve a fantastic educational resource. Yes, it was hard to remain civil and I did input to the RfC. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this comment? While I understand your concern, I do not see any proposal to ban year-in-field links outright. Although high level of transparency appears to be generally desired according to the RfC, inclusion of 1962 in an infobox would appear to be justified. If you permit, I would say that 1962 in aviation suffers from the same problem as 1962, but this is only negated to the extent that it is  about [related or unrelated] events in a specialised field, and as such your desire to improve these is commendable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Packard V-1650
Gary, the Packard V-1650 has been created, but I've not done any makor work on it yet. (It's copied whole from the Merlin page.) I'll be working on the Eurocopter Ecureuil split for the next few hours, so feel free to work on the V-1650 page, even tho I have an Inuse tag on the page. Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Bill, will do but I'm in trouble for spending all day on here already!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Take your time! I was just letting you know it was there, and that I was not going to work on it right away. I'll get to it later this evening if you aren't able to today. - BillCJ (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Roger, I am in there now though, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude
You know, I've just had it up to here with your insistence on using real facts and being polite in dealing with others in Wikipedia!! With that in mind, and, on behalf of others that have noted your stubborn belief in following rules and being compliant, versatile and well-meaning, hang this on your principles. BTW, your work has progressed remarkably quickly from a first submission to a DYK and you have shown some talent in writing while maintaining rigid adherence to high standards in research.

FWIW Bzuk 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much, I'm blushing now!! The system works if you follow the rules (although I don't know all of them yet). I will wear my 'Wikiwings' with pride. Nimbus227 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rules? What rules? Who said anything about rules? Joking apart, Numbsku...er Nimno...er sorry, Nimbus; people always get noticed for their shortcomings, but only too often don't receive recognition for the good that they do; so well done! BTW, I hope you don't mind me saying so, but it doesn't do to let these colonial chappies know that you don't drink tea; they may construe it as a sign of weakness. (I only drink coffee myself, but don't tell anyone! LOL) --Red Sunset 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year Mr Nimbus
Gidday Nimbus! Welcome to '09. I hope you had a good Christmas and have some time for pursuing your favourite activities. Maybe you've been able to add to your library? Anyway Cheers from the other side of the (now) very small globe! Minorhistorian (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, no new books for me (well one on an F1 driver), been tapping away on the keys mostly. Happy New Year to you too! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm breaking in a new computer and operating system (Linux Ubuntu 8.4 -ditched the Vista and replaced it with good ol' XP) so iny mistaxe arr knot mi folt...Minorhistorian (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you got me there, I'm still using a Sinclair ZX Spectrum, awesome! Off to do some glider towing today, weather is nice if a touch on the chilly side. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    08:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Patrie (airship) Assessment
Thanks for the initial assessment of the above article. As the original contributor I do feel that your assessment is a bit harsh. The "Start Class" summary states: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources". It goes on to say:"The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted." I have no experience in article assessment, so I bow to your knowledge here, but I would like you to have another look in the light of the following: Thanks for your time - I look forward to hearing from you. --TraceyR (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article provides more-than-adequate sources, and for an article of this length I think that it is above average in this respect.
 * 2) The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
 * 3) The article has a defined structure
 * 4) It is (IMHO!) reasonably well-written, contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly.
 * 5) Illustrations and an infobox are provided.
 * 6) The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.


 * Have replied on your talk page, purely a lack of time on my part to assess it properly. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message and for the time you put into this (often) thankless task! There's one slightly tongue-in-cheek (i.e. possible not encyclopaedic) paragraph in the article - about the Patrie's "unofficial firsts". That may have to go if the article is to achieve a higher ranking! --TraceyR (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Vielen Dank für die Vorschläge! I have moved one image a bit lower, deleted the 'records' para and sorted the spec-ref. Thanks for the help. Cheers. --TraceyR (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:WPAVIATION
The template is coded to require the use of the B-class checklist for C- or B-class ratings. If the checklist isn't filled out the template shows it as Start-class, and categorizes it accordingly. I've done this for several reasons. According to Template:Grading scheme, in order for an article to be B-class, it needs to satisfy 6 criteria (Our requirement was developed earlier, and is for just the first 5). If any one of the five are "no", for example if it was not suitably referenced (#1), then at best it is a C-class article. If it only meets 2 or less (or none if the checklist isn't done) of the five then it is automatically assessed as start-Class. By using the checklist the article is placed in a number of maintenance categories. If you say "no" to criteria #1, it goes in Category:Aviation articles needing attention to referencing and citation, #2 is Category:Aviation articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy, etc. I've put instructions to this effect at WikiProject Aviation/Assessment and WikiProject Aviation/Project banner, but if more explicit warnings are required, I suppose I could add code to the template to have a warning pop up, how about "You have assessed this article as (C- or B)-Class. Until you complete the B-class Checklist, is will be assessed as Start-Class."

Overall I had hoped this system would enforce proper assessing of articles and the use of maintenance categories for better editing. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Level four headers
Thanks for your input at peer review. At the top of the Peer Review page it says "How to respond to a request ... If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews." If you look at the chronological listing of peer reviews the numerical order of the Table of Contents gets messed up by headers higher than level four. I already do lots of peer reviews, mostly for requests who have not yet gotten any feedback at all, so I will pass on your kind invitation (and thank you again for your help there). Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation Categories
Hi please can you look at Advance Motor Manufacturing Company sometime and advise on Aviation categories and any internal links? It started off as a simple bike manufacturer but ended up taking me on a couple of crash landings - and to the South Pole with Captain Scott.... Thanks Thruxton (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your posting to RLandemann's talk page
Would you read through your last entry to check that it was what you really meant to say and to whom it was directed. JMcC (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kbely Museum
Thank you for your kind remarks, Nimbus, re my modest article on this fine museum. Thanks also for 'facelifting' the article's presentation. I'm relatively inexperienced and inexpert at contributing to Wikipedia. In particular, I'm hopeless at 'clever' formats etc. I just don't know how to put forward to 'DYK'! Very happy for you to do so, if you wish! I looked at 'your' article on the XF-104 - very interesting - it puts Kbely in the shade. I've pleasant memories of seeing Dutch and other NATO 104's performing their extraordinary sharp turns - never could make out how such a small-winged aircraft could do that! RuthAS (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Nimbus.FYI, the article needs to be 1,500 characters (not words) long for DYK nomination. Very nice work, btw. I think, that you - or RuthAS - can nominate it. Go go go :-) Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! Yes, my mistake, I misread it, will see what I can do. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Nimbus! Thanks for your efforts re DYK listing.   Mr Vejvancicky has added a citation already.  My source (Ogden 2006 pages 48-53), which is reliable, lists over 300 aircraft and I saw 125 aircraft on display there myself in May 2008. Hence the figures I quoted - but dont want to get into an argument! Leave it to you to decide what to do. Regards RuthAS (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

10,000 Edits
Congratulations on your 10,000th Wikipedia edit! - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, it looks like I got slack last summer though! Time flies when you're having fun. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    12:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey credit where it is due, you have contributed a lot to Wikipedia so far! Now get back to work! - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes well done Nimbus, keep up the good work. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, we have had a very productive start to 2009, all good stuff. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    13:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire stuff
Casting your considered eye over the elliptical wing section, does this look better? I've trimmed some of the extras and described the flaps which, as Binkersternet pointed out, were conspicuous by their absence. Amazing how such oversights still slip through even the most observant of editors! Minorhistorian (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do, I'm a bit busy at the mo producing engine articles, will have a look over the whole article over the weekend. Yep, if you forget the flaps you land quite quickly! I suppose it can happen when editors get stuck into detail. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Shaky Jakes
G'day from Oz. Nice work with regard to the Jacobs engine articles! YSSYguy (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I wondered whether to use that name, guess they vibrate a bit! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess so; I have never had the pleasure of flying in a Jacobs-powered aircraft. PS I see that The Stranglers are playing some concerts here next month. YSSYguy (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Make sure you go to see them, will probably be the last time in Oz, they're not 'spring chickens' nowadays! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    10:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Masterpiece
DYK that on 28 May 1931, a Bellanca CH-300 fitted with a Packard DR-980 diesel engine set a 55-year record for staying aloft for 84 hours and 33 minutes without being refueled?


 * Just a thought! Cheers ;-) --Red Su ns et    10:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's worth a go, I wonder if they ran out of sandwiches! Have to check the references as they like the hooks to be 'bulletproof' (and so do I!). Just having a scan through the Spitfire article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    10:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, will see what develops. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fingers crossed (and probably legs too on the Bellanca!!!). Damn cold up here today; could do with some of YSSYguy's weather for a bit! Keep warm. --Red Su ns et    13:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, but we don't have to wear hats with corks on to keep the flies off! :-) Now looking at Spar (aviation), needs a bit of a 'touch up'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    13:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow down, I can't keep up with you! You must be built for speed – ever thought about becoming User:Nimble (Lol)?! The Spit looks very good but spotted a few edit opportunities nevertheless; however, Spar (aviation) doesn't seem to gel somehow – not knowledgeable enough to do much about it though. --Red Su ns et    13:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I put some comments on the Spit talk page, you might be able to confirm some of the style issues. I'll add the 'technical' bits to 'spar' and you can sort my spelling and grammar out, deal?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough I've just taken a gander at the Spit talk page and noticed your comments – similar things occurred to me. I might just drop in there and do a bit of meddling after initial responses to your suggestions. No worries re the 'spar' – it's a done deal! --Red Su ns et    13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Roger, I struggle to remember all the MOS guidelines but I have a rough idea now. Happy meddling. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the DYK is "good to go"! Hasn't been put on the schedule yet though. --Red Su ns et    09:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I thought it had fallen off the end! One of the DYK bods added another good reference to it, nice and sunny down here today. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    11:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:22+35 left side.JPG
File:22+35 left side.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:F-104G 22+35 LashamGB.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bentley BR2
Bitter and changeable sums up the weather here today; still, it served to curtail the shopping ordeal (every cloud has a silver lining!).

I noticed that the main text gives the power output as 230 hp (covered by the Gunston ref at the end of the section I presume), but the specs state 250 hp (Jane's) – a bit confusing. Perhaps one or the other should be changed to match and re-reffed accordingly? I was going to transfer the displacement figure to the specs table before thinking that Jane's may differ on that as well (and I calculate it to be marginally less anyway); however, I was still a bit naughty and gave the bore and stroke values Imperial primary units since the metric ones do match. Any thoughts on these points?

I recall a discussion started by BillCJ some time ago over the confusion of radial and rotary engines, and "radial rotary" was a suggested way of distinguishing the radially-configured reciprocating piston type from the Wankel type rotary, but I hadn't realised that "radial" was only applied to the conventional rotating crankshaft type – oops! As a result, I've reinstated the radial wl in the later section. ;-) --Red Su ns et    19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunny down here (well it was till it got dark!), I'll have another scan over the BR2. I vaguely remember the discussion on rotaries, radials etc. Think it was settled using a lot of words to describe the Wankel type, I believe Gunston gets round it by calling them 'rotary combustion' engines. Very basically a 'rotary' engine (WWI style) has the crank bolted to the firewall with the prop bolted to the engine and the whole lot whizzes round causing gyroscopic side effects, the 'radial' is similar but the engine is bolted to the firewall and the prop turns on the crank, much more civilised! That's how I perceive it anyway. Will have a look at the BR2, might be conflicting references which is happening more often now. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just had a quick look at the BR2 and checked it against my refs. Gunston gives 234 hp (first run), Jane's give 250 hp and Lumsden (probably the most accurate) gives 230 hp and 245 hp (there were two different versions of the BR2 which is not mentioned in there yet). Will go through it again and 'consistify' it somehow, probably tomorrow. Interesting that Jane's only give metric units (I think they were copies of the French Clerget). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work; yeah, only metric values from Jane's and a mixture of Imperial and metric in the specs table just looked plain odd to me! Enjoy your 'consistification' time! :-)) --Red Su ns et    20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft components
Fantastic idea! Thanks for thinking of it!  AK Radecki Speaketh  21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a bit of a brainwave last night and ran it past Adam, the components and systems articles seemed to be a little bit neglected, having the navbox links them in a hopefully logical way and editors might dive in to expand some of them. It's intended as a portal really as it would be impractical to add all of them. I've never seen a Gurney flap on an aircraft but there is photographic evidence on that page! We use them extensively on F1 cars. The plan is to do two others, one for helicopters and one for aircraft engine components. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've seen a Bell light helicopter, you've likely seen a Gurney flap and not realized it. The photo on the page of the Bell 222 was taken by me, back before we got our 412.  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We always called it a "trim tab" on the 212 and 205! - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks very good! One thing I'm not clear on is what exactly "Alighting and arresting gear" means. "Alighting" isn't a term I'm familiar with in this context - to me, it implies geting on and off the plane! I assume this is a common Britishism. Is there a better word choice for this heaading, something more international? - BillCJ (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In North America "Alighting and arresting gear" would be called "Landing and arresting gear" - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Yep that's me! I think it dates back to my training and that term I think was the title of the phase of the course dealing with wheels, tyres and brakes etc. It is (or was) how those systems were grouped in the technical manuals, it is a bit quaint I agree. Will have a think how to reword it internationally. Glad you like it, quite pleased myself and it only took two nights to create and implement. PS: Probably the best solution Adam, I think Landing gear was redirected to Undercarriage recently might be wrong there, I struggle to keep up sometimes. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it now, just out of interest I did a little search and it seems to have been used on both sides of the pond, found this Grumman Avenger manual with it in. 'Alighting' gives the impression of touching down gently which doesn't always happen! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:AW23.JPG
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Armstrong Whitworth AW 23.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, the article that contained the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Glider
Hi Nimbus, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sayonara
I'm sorry guys but I've had enough, sayonara Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What?? Gary, What brought this on, if I may ask? Perhaps we can help. At least I hope I'm not the problem here, but if I am, I want to know about it. Anyway, I've had to take wikibreaks myself when the strees got to be too much, so I understand the need at times. I do hope you can return at some point. I consider you a friend, and you have doene great work in the AETF of late. Feel free to e-mail me in private if you'd rather not answer publically. Thanks, and good luck. - BillCJ (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, sad day...you will be missed!  AK Radecki Speaketh  04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shame Nimbus but thanks for all your hard work, welcome back at any time. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I echo the above thoughts. Thanks for your help. See you here some time. --TraceyR (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no! This is a very sad day for Wikipedia as well as for yours truly Gary; it won't be the same without you!!! I sincerely hope that you reconsider and contribute again, if only from time to time. Gonna have to look for someone else to stalk now – oh bugger! :-( --Red Su ns et    18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)