User talk:Outline of an editor

Shavrov
Please use page numbers when adding material from Shavrov, otherwise I will be forced to revert your edits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call, I'm referring to online version that omits numbering. Please don't feel being forced, the war's over :). Anyway, it largely conforms with your sources, although in more detail, and is just as dated (IIRC he compiled it it 1960s-1970s). The bulk of contemporary knowledge on SPB-D that is reproduced in various non-RS online texts goes back to Perov and Vasilyev's 1997 How SPB-D was trashed («Загадка СПБ, или почему пикирующий бомбардировщик не пошел в серию» / В. Перов, Н. Васильев, Крылья Родины №6, 1997) - have you checked it? This one has page numbers :). I don't feel confident fitting this text into wikipedia article, as it is, in fact, a study of the whole twin-engined dive-bomber program rather than SPB-D alone. Regards, Outline of an editor (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An afterthought: perhaps the whole line of Polikarpov's twin-engined prototypes should be merged into a single article. Outline of an editor (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is a B-class right now and I'd prefer to keep it that way, which is why I was getting testy. But since it's an online source, that can be worked around if the cited is formatted properly. I hadn't noticed when I looked earlier, but I'll check it again. I can only read Russian via Google translate, so I know that there is a huge amount of post-Cold-War literature out there that's very difficult for me to access. Which is why I have to rely so heavily on Gordon as the most recent Russian-sourced material. The translations are crappy enough that I only use them for simple things. I thought about combining the VIT-1 and VIT-2 articles since they're so closely related, but decided against it because I'd still have two descriptions, histories, etc. But feel free to keep on expanding the articles; what you're doing is great as it adds a lot that Gordon and Gunston skipped over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a URL added to the citation in the bibliography so people can access it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Online copies of this magazine were blacklisted in Russian wikipedia as copyvios. If you can feed PDF files into autotranslator, the 6/1997 issue is at pages 3-9. Outline of an editor (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if copyvio covers quoting from something uploaded illegally or just plagiarization; I'll have to look. This is how Google translated the first few paragraphs: For the first time the establishment of the USSR dive bomber, capable of carry bombing angles up to 60°, was considered Air Force in '1934-m. Be issued job on the car with the motor M34FRN VF Rentel, but the plant at which he then worked on Order refused. It failed attemptbring to this work and team VVIA Zhukovsky. In 1936 created the shipscout Beriev KOR-1. Tactical specifications provided its use in a dive. Plan experienced aircraft in 1936-1937 years was assumed to be the construction of single -dive bomber PB powered by the M-85 at the factory Number 1 with a maximum speed 400-450 km/h in normal rangeFlight 800 km. But in view of specialization this plant for scouts in 1937 touched on the whole plane PB M-85 transmitted to the plant number 135. What it ended up so far to detect failed. In the same year NN Polikarpov on own initiative began to develop twin-engined high-speed high-altitude triple bomber ISF with motors M-100. Since it did not provide use of the pressurized cabin and turbochargers, then we could go about creating conventional front-line bomber in accordance with existing concept. Soon Polikarpov identified industrial base plant number 84 in Khimki. Plant, recently passed in the aviation Industry of the GVF, characterized by obsolete equipmentand did not have sufficient qualified. By mid-February 1937 drawings ISF aircraft were fully prepared. But in production, he missed, and at its base designed double Air twin-engine fighter WIT-1 tanks. Simultaneously Polikarpov proposed twin -the multi-gun fighter (MPI). It should be noted that violated "Tupolev" theme, Nikolai Nikolaevich not only did not find supportin GUAP, but ran into a direct opposition to the chief engineer aviation industry. Air Force idea of an anti-aircraft not accepted and recommended Polikarpov focus on multiseater Cannon fighter for the speedy implementation of the project. Customer hoped that IIP demonstrate alleged flight data and becomes a kind of accelerator when you create a perspective cars fit in the concept Air Force leadership. January 31, 1937 First worked prototyping Commission on the plane IIP. 25July, the Government approved a plan


 * As you can see it's workable, but not what you want when dealing with subtleties. How about a link for Shavrov?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shavrov is at . Keep in mind that autotranslaters interpred SPB as St. Petersburg. Outline of an editor (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)