User talk:TSRL/Archive 1

Aviation contributions
Welcome and thank you for your contributions to aviation, especially the De Havilland Dragonfly! Rror (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Military interest in the Arrow Active
I'm sure this came from the World Aircraft Information Files (ie, the revised version of the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft), but the relevant volume is currently buried in an inaccessible part of the spare room - I will follow it up.

In the meantime - this contemporary article from Flight says that the intended military market was as a trainer. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Flight article is certainly citeable - and besides backing up this point, makes interesting reading in its own right! Note that Flight also qualifies as a Secondary source and is unquestionably suitable as a source for Wikipedia articles.


 * The sources we have to be more careful with are Primary sources - which in this context would mean, for example, a sales brochure produced by the company that produced the aircraft. For simple data points, primary sources can be fine too; people just run into trouble when they start to use primary sources as a basis for interpretation. It's not the age of a publication or document that makes it a primary source; it's the degree of independence from its subject matter. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawker Tomtit
I was apprenticed at Hawkers from 1943 until 1948, then became a stressman in their Design Office. During 1947-8 I work at Langley where the historic units were kept. At this time they were "The Last of the Many" Hurricane; The Cygnet, and a Whitney-Strait monoplane. In 1949 the Tomtit arrived, and the was quite an effort put in finding some of the drawings for it. The Abbey Test Rig was at Langley so I frequently had to visit from the DO in Kingston. I am now over 80 years old but a couple of incidents stand out in my memory. The first engine run-up after its arrival at Hawkers There was much spluttering and we did not think it would catch, but suddenly it was running, but not too smoothly. The other time was at a RAeS Garden Party at (I believe) White Waltham Aerodrome, When Duke flew it around the perimeter of the airfield. I think Sidney Camm's first love, however, was the Cygnet. I heard him talk of it mant times in the DO. I did not ever work on the Tomtit, but helped build Hurricanes, Tempests & Sea Furys. I was in the experimental shop during the assembly of the P1040, In the Stress Office I worked on the P1052, P1072, P1078, P1081 & Hunter (P1067 which should have been the P1066, but the obvious name "Hastings" had been taken by Handley-Page, so 1066 was never used). I don't know if I can help you in any way as memory is selective after this time, but do not hesitate to ask if you have something specific.

DonJay (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Westland Wapiti
Hi, you added a couple of cites to Jackson p.509 to the Westland Wapiti article, without it being clear what book they are referring to - by any chance was this to an early edition of British Civil Aircraft? I think I can cite the same info to p.364 of Vol III of the 1988 edition/reprint. if it is.Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you beat me to it.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was actually trying to adapt my usual ref style to that used on this site, but largely prefer the way you've done it. Personally, I tend to separate off general refs that inform the article from specific (paged) refs (and rate the latter more highly), but in this case we have a whole book on the aircraft.    Is it worth adding the later edition pages etc for those that have it?  I don't know which is the most common in circulation.  You might be amused to know that I got to the Wapiti via the Panther engine page, because of our shared interest in the A.W. 16.TSRL (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi again TSRL and thanks for the work you're putting in to expanding Wikipedia's coverage! I'd like to offer a few unsolicited tips to formatting your contributions so that they slot in better with the rest of what's here. Please tell me to shove off if it's not welcome! :)

Anyway, hope this is useful to you, and in any case, thanks once again - many hands make light work! :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Advice is always welcome, for I'm still a relative newbie.
 * Please don't be scared of redlinks, specifically, any manufacturer, aircraft type, engine type, or weapon type should normally get a link; if there isn't an article there right now, one day there almost certainly will be, and the links that incorporate it into the web of articles will already be in place. Indeed, hunting for non-existent articles with lots of links pointing to them is one way that Wikipedians identify articles that we seem to need.
 * OK, will do this. By the way, is there a way of linking to other language versions. I noticed when doing the Siebel Si 202 that there was no English article on the Hirth 515, but accidentally discovered one in the German version.  Or don't we talk to each other? I did put in a ref. Another by the way:  given that the agreed layout for RML names is eg Si 202, is there a preference for M 23 over M.23?  The more difficult choice is probably between Messerschmitt M.23 and BFW M.23; I did raise this on the discussion page.  I put in redirects to cover all bases.
 * It's possible to link to other language versions by doing something like Hirth HM 515 to give you this: Hirth HM 515. But we don't do it in articles. Why? The most fundamental reason is that when the English article on the subject gets written, the English articles that should link to it are instead pointing off to articles on German, Arabic, and Japanese Wikipedias! The only place that we "interwiki link" is the little link at the bottom of a page that links that entire page to its other-language version on the same topic. Note too that Wikipedia doesn't consider itself or its other-language versions to be a Reliable Source for the purpose of citation.
 * When filling out the "specifications" section, it's a good idea to leave all the fields in place, even if they won't be used in this particular article. Many new editors pick up our formatting by just copying-and-pasting from an existing article. If (for example) the article they've copied from doesn't show them how to add the specifications for a jet engine, they're stuck, since there's really no way of correctly guessing this.
 * Hadn't thought of folks doing this, but I take the point.
 * Finally, I note you making extensive use of the "Golden Years of Aviation" website. This doesn't appear to qualify as a "Reliable Source" for Wikipedia's purposes. Data from there really shouldn't be used in citations unless it can be verified from a source that is "reliable" (in the WP sense of the word), but in that case, you'd probably just cite the Reliable Source anyway! A Self-published source like the "Golden Years of Aviation" site may qualify as reliable if its authors have actually published in the field (ie, in this case, aviation history). If you'd like to go on citing this site, maybe that's something you could investigate?
 * I have found it very useful in checking assertions on other sites, but if it does not make the "reliable" mark I'll avoid it. It feels (vague, I know) quite professional and it has an impressive source list, but it is self published I guess.  I'll try to follow up.
 * Actually I was more concerned about using some material from the http://www.histaviation.com site, something I have only done in the Siebel article, where there is good data from JAWA38 but (of course) no history from them and only stuff on the 202A. That did not feel professional and in the end I only used it because of support here and there from Golden Years; I would not be at all unhappy to delete their information on marks etc.
 * histaviation also does not appear to be "Reliable" by our definition. On the other hand, on the scale of reliability, I would tend to place it higher than "Golden Years" if only because "Golden Years" seems to be someone's compilation from multiple sources whereas "Histaviation" seems to be "cut from the whole cloth" of a single source or small number of sources. The consistency of the little 3-views scattered through the site tend to confirm this. I only knew what that "ur-text" was so that I could buy a copy myself! :)
 * More pragmatically, the information provided by histaviation is of a very basic nature, which means that on occasion I've used them when the alternative was to have no specifications at all in an article. I've also been able to compare the data they've transcribed with data from other sources on a small number of aircraft, and in every case the values agree within the range of uncertainties we generally see in this kind of data. Still, I'd avoid using them in anything but extreme cases too, and would replace them with a reliable source if and when comes to light :)
 * Final question: should I be replying to your helpful comments here on my page, or on your?
 * Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The bonus of replying on the other person's page is that they get a message telling them that there's a reply. That has to be weighed against the benefit of keeping the conversation all in one place. You'll see people do it both ways. If you reply to notes on your own page, just keep in mind that the other person may not realise that you've replied, and you may need to "nudge" them on their talk page anyway to get their attention back. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - when you've done with creating an article, you might like to list it here to let other project members know about it. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * No problem - credit where credit is due! - Ahunt (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article names
Well done on the Barnstar, just a note articles on British aircraft do not normally include the model or type numbers (unless we have two with the same name) for example Blackburn R.2 Airedale would normally be Blackburn Airedale, refer WikiProject Aircraft/Naming. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely, though the Blackburn B.1 Blackburn is a bit confusing. Moved Airdale.TSRL (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to move the Blackburn F.1 Turcock to Blackburn Turcock, but am blocked because I had previously added the latter name as a redirect. As an admin, could you remove the redirect page then move then make the move? Ta.TSRL (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blackburn
No - nothing I have trumps Jackson; a specialist source like him trumps any more general reference works! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) PS – thanks for updating the "new aircraft" page; however, note that you have to manually advance the new article count... :)


 * PPS - what was the page number in Jackson that the specifications came from? --Rlandmann (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Mercury article is from p60-71 of the 1968 edition, with the specs on p71. By the way, the britishaircraft.co.uk link is dead.TSRL (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Another common dead link (not on this page) is the British Aircraft Directory. Are these likely to live again?TSRL (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They're the same site, and only the site owner knows whether it will be coming back! :) It's been quite a few months now, however, so it's looking increasingly unlikely. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gloster Gannet
--Dravecky (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwings
Well done TSRL, well deserved. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that is really appreciated.TSRL (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

B-50 Superfortress article
Thanks for your very interesting picture comparison of in-flight refuelling over on Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arpingstone. Please go there to see my reply. Best - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Chilton D.W.1
Hello TSRL! Yes, you're right, per the book I quoted, the two airworthy aircraft in 2005 were G-AESZ and G-AFGI. I don't have a later source. The same book quoted just three 'new' aircraft flying and under construction as at early 2005. I'm sure your information is correct and updates my information. Would you like to use it to improve the article? Regards Ruth RuthAS (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi TSRL! It was good of you to check with the gentleman who handles the Chilton plans. Its good to get back to basic information sources, as you have done here. I think your amendments to 'our' article are just fine! Regards. RuthAS (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ML-10
Thank you for your help with many of my articles, TSRL! Oddly, the aviafrance web page only gave the Regnier name, without quoting the engine model. Also, it only quoted the power in "Chevaux" - which is nice for us "Anglos" - so I gave the power thus. My relative strength is in the history of the aircraft - specifications and technical aspects leave me struggling, I'm afraid! RuthAS (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right about the Regnier type, but none of my own reference sources even cover the aircraft type, and certainly not the engine! I would rather leave it to some Wiki contributor (French?) to come up with the information in due course RuthAS (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin
Thanks for the note, just checked my source and it is on p382 it is in Appendix D which deals with aircraft without illustrations! obviously corrected later. Pity I havent the DH book (Just the Gloster and EE ones). Your help with any of the articles is always appreciated. MilborneOne (talk)

Hiya, Ive spent about 5 hours today searching the Flightglobal pdf archives for a photo of the DH Dolphin but have had no joy, any ideas? there is a side drawing on the italian Wikipedia http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DH92SideDraw.png but I couldn't get it to transfir over Jimmy3d0 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Evening. The good news is that there are two photos of the Dolphin in AJ Jackson's de Havilland aircraft since 1909 (2nd ed). These are the only photos of it I have ever seen; Heyes and King's well illustrated de Havilland Biplane Transports has none. The bad news is that both photos show only the undercarriage and starboard engine and they are probably copyright as well. The Italian sideview probably comes from Jackson as well. AJJ says "No three way drawings have been located but sufficient component drawing survive to form the basis of the accurate reconstruction made by Mr V.W. Clarkson in 1975 and shown on this page.", referring to the 3-view on p.387.TSRL (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Having looked again, the two side views (Italian and Clarkson) are not identical but probably related. The Clarkson view is of the port side and shows the passenger door on that side, as on the Rapide and as mentioned in AJJ's text.  The luggage door is shown dotted, i.e. starboard side, again agreeing with the text.  The Italian view is reversed, seeming to show the starboard side, but with the passenger door (full line) apparently on the starboard side and the luggage door on the port side. Some reference lines on the fuselage, engine and tailwheel in Clarkson's view are absent in the Italian version, as are the extended wheels.  I'm not sure where this leaves the copyright question, but think it would be better to use a left-right switched Italian image in the article to get the doors right.TSRL (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Saro P.531 and Bristol Babe
My source for the specs was Jackson's civil aircraft book which was not particularly clear - would appreciate your help with a tidy up, might be better to stick to PNU which I think had Turmos fitted. It would should the development if compared with the latter Wasp or Scout. Might be interested I have just added an image of the Babe replica to the Bristol Babe article you started. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do that tidy on the specs and look at the sub-types out of London's book. I suspect there is an ambiguous change-over period between Saro and Westland at about the time AJJ was putting his first ed together. Ah, I've just seen London on 'PVM, which was the one with the Gnome as AJJ says, though derated to 635 hp.  Thanks for the Babe image: a picture makes a tremendous difference to an article.  What is the history: was it a Bristol apprentices' exercise?TSRL (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont know the history of the replica all I can find is that is was started in the 1970s by a W. Sneesby and bought by the Bristol Aero Collection. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It does seem to have (from the valve gear) a (replica?) Viale engine rather than the Gnome, which would make it a Babe I. There is some cowling missing in either case.  Anyway, it's an informative picture, and looks much like the Babe I shot in Barnes' book.TSRL (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at the P.531. There is a minor issue about no.s built; 6 if you count 1 P.531, 3 -0s and 2 -2s. The first of this last group was G-APVL. Question is, whether to count the pre-production aircraft, which London labels P.531-2/Scout A.H.1. I was going to ignore them and account them Scouts, but they did have Saro c/ns. According to London the Army batch of 8 included 7 new builds + G-APVL as XN166. As well as these 7, Saro built two other flying P.531-2/Scout A.H.1s, one described as a pre-demonstrator (?) and the other which went to India, as you say in the article. So there are 9 more one could count in, making Saro production (their c/ns) 15. Perhaps this is your call, since you started the page?

One other very small point: as you say, XN332 and XN334 are in the RN museum. XN322 is the first -0, or second prototype, ex-G-APNV: I'd guess (no more) that XN334 is the fourth prototype, after XN333, though London does not say which of '33 and '34 flew first. Wrecks and Relics does not resolve this either.TSRL (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick summary:
 * No. 1 (S2/5267) G-APNU ff 20 Jul 1958 at Eastleigh by K M Reed withdrawn from use in 1964. Turmo powered said to have become XN333 ?
 * No. 2 (S2/5268) G-APNV ff 30 Sep 1958 delivered to the RN as XN332
 * No. 3 (S2/5269) XN333 del to RN 20 Oct 1959, sometimes described as previously G-APNU ?
 * No. 4 (S2/5270) XN334 del to RN 6 Nov 1959


 * No. 5 (S2/5311) G-APVL (Nimbus powered) first flown at Eastleigh 9 August 1959 later to Army as XP166
 * No. 6 (S2/5312) G-APVM (Gnome powered) built at Eastleigh 1959 reworked at Hayes during 1960 to Scout standards and delivered to Army for evaluation as XR493. First flew 3 May 1960.

Pre-production batch of nine P.531s built by Saunders-Roe at Eastleigh. During construction of the batch the company was absorbed by Westland. All are listed as Scout AH1s
 * (7) S2/8437 XP165
 * S2/5311 XP166 (former evaluation aircraft G-APVL)
 * (8) S2/8438 XP167
 * (9) S2/8440 XP188
 * (10) S2/8441 XP189
 * (11) S2/8443 XP190
 * (12) S2/8446 XP191
 * (13) S2/8447 XP192
 * XP193 cancelled

Total 13 - It looks like only six real P.531s as the Scouts although built by Saro as P.531s were modified to Scout standard before they were delivered. Seems to be some confusion with some sources showing XN333 as being previously G-APNU although the registration was cancelled in 1964 as withdrawn drom use, they were quite clear with the registration cancellation for G-APNV which shows to military marks as XN332. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your list agrees with London's almost exactly. He has G-APNU at Eastleigh all its life, no hint of becoming XN333. The only differences in the lists are that he does not mention the cancelled 9th Scout (perhaps saw no need); he does not have the serials for no.s 3 & 4 (maybe this uncertainty is connected with the 'NPU/XN333 confusion); but he does mention two other aircraft in that block of c/ns:S2/8442, the pre-demonstrator and S2/8444, the Indian. There was also a structural test frame, BTW, c/nS2/8445. If one takes these two flyers as Scouts, then the answer is six, with the proviso we should not mention the Indian in the article, I'd suggest.TSRL (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Highclere
Just a query on the de Havilland Highclere, Jackson's British Civil Aircraft says it went from Farnbourgh to Imperial Airways rather than the other way round! (Used by RAE Farnborough from 7.3.26 Loaned to Imperial Airways for evaluation 7.11.26 destroyed at Croydon in hangar collapse in heavy snow 1.2.27). MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Morning Milbourne; well spotted. I've looked now at three phases of Jackson's understanding of the Highclere history, using (A) British Civil aircraft 1959; (B) DH aircraft 1978 and (C) British Civil aircraft 1988 (presumably with corrections made by his son). (A) just has the CA and destruction dates and (C) you know. Between times, in (B) I think Jackson got confused over the loan to Imperial.  Paraphrasing, he says that because of Imperial's decision to fly passengers only in multi engined aircraft, " ... on 7/3/26 ... the DH54 was flown from Martlesham to REA Farnborough  [for experimental work].  On November 9th [sic] it was transferred to Croydon [for] Imperial Airways freight services  but a C of A was not issued until 23.4.26 and little flying was done." He then goes on to mention a trip in May [1926] which ended in Farnborough.  At least as confused as Jackson by this order of events, I wrongly though it had come back!


 * The latest version of the tale, in (C) makes complete sense, with the events now in a logical, credible order and the loan date explicitly (7) November 1926. G-EBKI was evidently only at Croydon about 12 weeks before the roof fell in.  Incidentally, Jackson says this aircraft, the property of the Air Ministry throughout was only housed in the old hanger because the Air Ministry would not allow DH to use the new hangers on the east side of the airfield;  "great was the jubilation" as the AM reaped where it had sown.


 * I'll sort out the para and cite (C). There's a moral there about checking the latest as well as the fullest.TSRL (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwings
Thank you again. The real Waco article maker is RuthAS.TSRL (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

M.15
Fast moving stuff - OK your message, came after my stuff on M.15 talk page.PeterWD (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing your discussion with PeterWD I have redirected your article to Miles M.15 hope that is OK - your text is still in the history. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that: I think the merged article is better than either earlier version now. It was one of those "surely I checked its non-existence thoroughly before starting?" moments!  Do you have a view on the name?  I prefer Miles M.15, but thought others might prefer a name (of  sorts) to a bare type number.TSRL (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Waco aircraft
Hi TSRL !

I'm not happy with the 'Standard Cabin' and 'Custom Cabin' articles, at all! The distinctive designs are indicated by their last letter, and the aviation writers of repute base their books and articles on that system - and I followed suit. The 'Custom Cabin' article is particularly poor, being no more than a listing, rather than a coverage of the features of specific aircraft type/s.

The addition of the year suffix by Waco does sometimes, but not always, coincide with a change of specification - rather like Beech with their A35, B35, C35 etc Bonanza.

I'm afraid that I've now 'washed my hands' of further Waco contributions - having in-putted what I can.

regards RuthAS (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Afternoon Ruth. I have to admit to having been curious about your response!  There seems to be a sub-group of Waco-enthusiasts who get over-focussed on the designations.  The S series article started off with a development section, but ended (until today) with just some comments about codes and nothing on the aircraft.  I'd added a load of text this morning, in irritation, before realising that material existed in the history. The Waco 10 piece was also long on codes and short on much else, which is why I put the codes into a table, to keep it in hand and help contributors concentrate on the machines and their uses. And as you say, the "Custom Cabin" article is particularly vacuous, though has always been so, it seems.


 * Until a few weeks ago I knew nothing about Waco machines, and don't know enough now to get into the Cabin/Custom debate (one design or two?). I guess there is a question about the overlap between the S series article and the standard cabin one.  Anyway, maybe I'll try, with the aid of JAWA 1938 (who uses S and C notation) to build a development section for the Custom article.  I'm sure you'll find another interesting group to write about and illustrate. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles
Thanks for all your help in creating aviation articles. The Missing Articles list is a list of articles that are linked to somewhere in Wikipedia, but don't exist yet. For example Bristol 148 (once a redlink, now not) was on the list because it was linked to in Bristol Taurus. Therefore a redirect should be created at Bristol 148, fixing any redlinks now or in the future. Once an article on the list is either created as an article or a redirect, it can then be removed from the list. I've gone and created the Bristol redirects, and removed them from the list. Thanks again- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've sorted a few more.  The great majority of the entries (at least in the big UK companies I've checked so far against the appropriate Putnam, A-W, Avro and Blackburn) are unbuilt types, projects, outlines: non-flyers.  CheersTSRL (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

cite book peculiarity
One strange feature of cite book is that it automatically adds ed. to whats in the edition field so that if you are not careful you get things like "Second edition ed." Nigel Ish (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I've checked my cite list and think I've taken out the "edition"s. I'll double check in future.  Oddly, it doesn't put "vol" in. Must read instructions.TSRL (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for fixing the typo on my page! Airplaneman talk 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome!TSRL (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Silhouettes
I have noticed you have added an number of silhouettes to aircraft articles taken from the Observer's Book of Aircraft 1952 which indicates that these drawings are still copyrighted (to at least 2022). Interested to know why you thought they were Crown Copyright and why the publishers would use crown copyrighted images of civil aircraft! Sorry but it doesnt seem right so I wanted to check first before nominating them all for deletion as copyright violations. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are OK on this. In this first edition of OBA, but not in any later one the Crown Copyright silhouettes  are identified by page number in an acknowledgements section on Page 5. I've been careful only to scan these and not the many others from unidentified or other identified sources.  They are all pre-'57, of course.


 * As to why they used this material, who knows? The later editions of OBA don't do it, but the same authors' "World's Fighting Planes" (1954), all military of course does list CC images in an acknowledgement section.


 * If you are still bothered, I could scan and send the crucial page 5 plus my own Excel file linking those page numbers to pages and types.TSRL (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer, perhaps it might be worth adding a comment and a reference to the Page 5 comments on the commons pages, (someone else is bound to ask the same question!). I suspect they may have been aircraft recognition material from either the ROC or RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. This first edition is very recognition-oriented, with types arranged by layout, not name and with a fulsome piece on the importance of the book and of aircraft recognition by Peter Masefield, President of the Aircraft Recognition Society (so he would say that!). Indirectly supports your ROC/RAF connection; actually my copy was bought by someone who served in the ROC in the war, presumably keeping his skills fresh.TSRL (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the second para I see I made an error. "not in any later one" should continue "that I have".  It's quite possible that the 1953-6 editions of OBA have Crown Copywrite silhouettes etc: be good to know.TSRL (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

On the editions of OBA and silhouettes: the first ed.that I have is the Nov 1952 publication. Later eds., generally likewise published in November 19xy were known as the 19x(y+1) ed. I now have the 1956 ed. and this does have identified Crown Copyright silhouettes in and I will eventually digitise non-repeats. So the remaining, unexplored OBAs are the second (1954) and third (1955) eds. Beware: in the '50s these cost £0.25 but are now sold at £40!TSRL (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great find! Just a note that 3-views (even silouettes) should generally go in the Specs section, unless the layout of the page otherwise prevents that. Also, 3-views generally dont use the "thumb" field, but take a sizing of 300px. Finally, I've noticied large blank spaces where you've added the 3-views on several pages, such as here. Perhaps they do not show up on the screen settings you use, but they do at lower resolutions. Just be aware of this when pleacing iamges. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll try to check low res layouts in future. I have another batch to scan sometime. I'm not enthusiastic about positioning in the Spec page though I know it is often done, so I though I'd start a discussion on the Project page. I will have set out my stall there shortly, so excuse me not debating that issue with you directly here. RegardsTSRL (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've seen the stall and the discussions, and I have a solution you may like. We'll see if it has any support, and if it works out in practice. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 22 September 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  05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

B&P P.6
Just to note did you realise I had just created Boulton & Paul P.6 today ! MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only after creating the article Boulton Paul P.6 and then entering it as a new aircraft! I guess there are two questions: what is the way to merge the texts and what to do about the company names? On the latter, I've had a little discussion with NigelIsh on the Boulton Paul Bolton page.  I don't have a position on this  but we need to think it through.  On the former, Brew's more recent and more detailed book has led me to write more ... Cheers,TSRL (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I assumed as the company was Boulton & Paul then that is what the aircraft are called, certainly that is what Jackson uses in British Civil Aircraft! Interestingly the caa doc for G-EACJ calls it a Boulton P.6! but all the others from the early era use B&P. We can sort out moving text when we decided which way to go! MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering whether to create a page on the P.10, an interesting aircraft that may or may not have flown, caused a stir at the 1919 show because of its metal frame (B&P's first) and plastic fuselage skinning (first); but if you have it in your sights I'll back off.


 * Not particulary looking at B&P so you can do the P.10, I tend to create random articles, two gliders (one american and one british), the P.6 and a jet engine today! MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Properly, the name changes from Boulton & Paul to Boulton Paul starting at the Overstrand; but there are many more complicated changes of company names eg British & Colonial to Bristol, Short Brothers to Shorts etc etc to confuse people using WikiP's rather fussy search engine. I think my starting position is to keep things simple, so that folk can find the article then be gently educated. Certainly, if they can't, they won't!TSRL (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You could argue that through most of its life (by time) the company was B&P, but then about 75% of their aircraft were B P Defiants, he only BP aircraft most folk will know. But I think this naming issue has to be argued from a wider base; special cases make bad law.TSRL (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should take it to the project page for a wider audience. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that's right. Shall you kick it off? What's the link?TSRL (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Percival Gull
Plese make any alterations you deem necessary as my involvement in the Percival articles was mainly as a "patch-up" job. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

DYK nom for Parnall Pixie
Hi. I've nominated Parnall Pixie, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I have given the hook a tweak to pick up on the wing changing.TSRL (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD Notification
Re: Your comment, the actual discussion is taking place here. VegaDark (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lympne light aircraft trials
Just created Lympne light aircraft trials which need better coverage, lots of holes and my access to flightglobal is very slow to load. Doesnt appear to be many websites covering the events so I will trawl through Jackson for stuff tomorrow. Any help appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The thought of such an article had crossed my mind, having started articles on a few of the contestants, but I'd been a bit daunted so it's good to see you have got it airborne. In the last few days I've printed off the Flight articles (two per event in 1923 & 4, not done 1926 yet), since flightglobal doesn't scroll. The 11/10/23 copy they scanned had been heavily used. I've also recently got the Ord-Hume book, but not really digested it yet; he has thought long on Lympne and its almost iconic status. I've also got a book on Parnall's aircraft somewhere in the post.  My feeling is to lean as much on contemporary records like Flight (why can't the Aeroplane, very much involved, provide a digital record?) as possible; it's clear from wording that both Jackson and Ord-Hume have done that, though no doubt with other, less easily accessible sources as well; they have also made the occasional inevitable mistakes or obscurities, if Flight is to be believed.
 * What do you think about the other races that happened at Lympne? Some of these, at the beginning at least seem tied in: the Grosvenor Challenge Cup seems to be what you did immediately after the Lympne events, if you and your machine were still fit. Lympne trials only, or events?
 * I'll do some more reading, then join in. Thanks for the note on the image rights of the Lympne non-contestant Zephyr.  Nadir, if you believe Ord-Hume, though he has several competitors for that title.TSRL (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks sounds like your Flight printouts may be useful. Agree that the Grosvenor Challenge Cup could be added as it was closely related to the trials. I tried to work out all the prizes from the online Flight but it is slow and slows my poor computer to a crawl. Seems a shame that a really important driver for light aircraft design is badly represented on the web, so to amend rights I will try to do our best. Did see a really interesting bit about the Transport Test in which they had to dismantle the aircraft so it would fit through a gate then rebuild it before it was allowed to enter the trial. Again any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions to the Lympne article I am sure we can end up with a pretty reasonable article as it appears not all these facts have been in one place, certainly not on the internet. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Found somebody interesting at Lympne who deserved an article so I have just written an article on Hubert Broad. Adds another blue link! MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed he did; good stuff. There are several resonant names from 1920s, half familiar that surprise on red-linking, but that's one less.  The Lympne article seems to be shaping up nicely, with a lot of info that has been hard to dig out before. I was wondering about an introductory section, how they came to be, the glider trials here and in Germany etc.  A conclusion might be harder - perhaps the trials identified problems more than solutions - but one can't read about British aviation in the 20s without meeting the L word.TSRL (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help much appreciated, another related new article Gordon Olley didnt realise he had a MM and 10 victories in WW1. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

de Havilland Gipsy applications
Hi TSRL, please note that the applications that you recently added to this article are Gipsy Major applications, a distinctly different type of engine. Basically any aircraft in this cited list should not be in the Gipsy article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think what happened was that I saw Gipsy Major listed as a variant and failed to realise it had its own article. Anyway, I've now removed those apps that only used the Major and will transfer them, where necessary, to the Major page.  About 25 of the apps I added used (in different variants) both Gipsy and Gipsy Major, so the two lists do overlap.  Let me know if there are any that you think should not be there and we can debate.  I've used 1st ed of Jackson's British Civil Aircraft, with some help from the 2nd ed, vol2.  Cheers,TSRL (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had a look in Lumsden's book and there are quite a few applications, he groups them by type (Gipsy I, II, III etc,) I will fix it and cite the list then we know that it is correct. Some of your adds will be going back in!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Trade Union userbox
Hello there. Further to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_2, I edited Template:User Trade Unionist2 to point it towards the renamed category - Category:Wikipedians interested in trade unionism. Taking a look at the category, making sure there were no problems, I see that while you display the userbox and your page displays the category Category:Wikipedians interested in trade unionism, you don't seem to be showing up when you look at the category itself. I've never been that hot with template syntax, but even so, nothing looks too wrong to me. Any ideas?

 X damr  talk 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer my own question (embarrassingly quickly), it seems that you are still showing up in the now deleted Category:Wikipedian Trade Unionists. I assume this is down to horrendous database lag.  Hopefully it should sort itself out soon.  --  X damr  talk 14:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)