hi Msa1701, in addition to Harry Grattidge's memoirs I think Commodore James Bissett wrote his autobiography as well. Bissett was one of the officers serving on the Carpathia when she took aboard the Titanic survivors. Bisset later rose through the ranks and eventually captained Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth. There's a new book out about the Aquitania. It's called "Aquitania: The Ship Beautiful" by Mark Chirnside (or maybe Chirniside). In old photos Bisset usually stands out amongst other officers in group photographs. He wears a mephistophelean style beard kind of like John Philip Sous so you won't have no problem spotting him. Koplimek (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I always noticed the Cunard rank system differed somewhat from White Star. For instance at White Star Chief Officer Wilde should've got Olympic when EJ Smith headed to Titanic(withstanding Smith's request for Wilde as Chief on Titanic). Instead Olympic was given to HJ "Daddy" Haddock. And what of poor Charles Bartlett. He may or may not have accompanied Titanic(I still can't place him on the ship but Bob Ballard has) down on her 500 mile trip from Belfast to Southampton. He seems to have been clearly next in line for a big liner command after Smith. He did eventually get Britannic in 1914. I've heard of Bertram Fox's book "Hull Down"(c.1925) and his notorious omission of anything Titanic or EJ Smith which from his pov makes sense as he never served on Titanic so he couldn't relate anything about the ship. A number of copies of Hull Down were available on Alibris.com. I wish Daddy Haddock or Charles Bartlett wrote biographies.[LOL]

I also find it interesting that of all the surviving Titanic officers Joseph Boxhall came closest to commanding a big liner when he was first officer on the Aquitania in the 1930s. If not for the Titanic disaster Boxhall IMHO would've made Captain a whole lot sooner with White Star. Thanks Msa1701. Koplimek (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those surviving Titanic officers' careers were certainly hampered by the disaster to that ship. But First Officer Charles Lightoller did command his own small ship "The Sundown" in WW2 rescueing soldiers from Belgium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if Im not mistaken she grounded in the Test River rather than the Solent. It doesn't take much to strain a vessel when she runs aground(which is an uncontrolled docking) without proper conditions. This nearly happened to the Queen Mary at the builders John Brown when she was being readied for delivery to Cunard. If she'd have jammed across the Clyde they would've had to junk the then brand new ship by cutting her in half to free other shipping traffik. Likewise the ex France/Norway now called Blue Lady is sitting at Alang India for scrapping and is immovable as her keel is broken for sitting on the beach. Koplimek

Thanks for your great work on RMS Mauretania (1906). However, I just want to let you know that it's spelled "Mauretania" with an "e", not "Mauritania" with an "i". Thanks! SchuminWeb

Thanks for the corrections, the major part of the information came from a book called "Mauretania" - Pride of the Tyne and sausage fingers kicked in during the article!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well yes & no. Certainly the Depression had a lot to do with it. One author, I can't remember if it's Bonsor or Maxtone-Grahame or possibly Eaton & Haas, who make the point that when Queen Mary was put into service eight older Cunard & White Star ships were sent to the scrappers namely the Olympic which had just had her engines overhauled and whose hull was diagnosed to be in excellent condition. Mauretania(no longer a Blue Ribbon holder) & Berengaria were having upgrade & machinery problems since the 1920s namely with boilers and Berengaria had serious electrical wiring problems. From 1936 Aquitania had to be run flat out at 24 knots to make a suitable running mate with Queen Mary. As far as the White Star fleet a certain prejudice existed between the two great rivals, Cunard & White Star. Cunard which was the stronger element of the 1934 merger, it was said, had a bias against perfectly good White Ships only because of their house colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your feedback on the KAA article, that makes sense now and I bow to your superior knowledge. However, as a non-aeronautical type myself, I thought that it would be good to have a speed on there as it gives people like me an idea of what a "high cruise speed" is. 70mph? 250mph? Hence my keenness to include a number. Incidentally, you may like to give some attention to the MD-902 article which I also looked at yesterday whilst looking for a source for my numbers. That article has a cruise speed only 1mph lower than the VNE, which even an novice like me can see is clearly wrong! Cheers Danno uk (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, i hadn't seen this message previously, but i have reverted your changes to Kent air ambulance as the information given was well cited, and as per WP:CITE, Wikipedia deals in what can be proved to be true, not necessarily what is true. I can see why a manufacturer would overstate the performance of their product, but before removing citations, i would like to put in an alternative. Can you suggest another reliable source which would back up you assertion of a lower speed? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I will have a think of where to find a more accurate info!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, we should retain the cited source, as per WP:CITE and WP:V. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your your message and a brief look at the MD 902 Wikipedia page and a telephone call to a 902 pilot the i know i have a few items to put to you.

1. The aircraft has a regular cruise speed of between 125 to 130 knots - which if you convert the lower on of the speed range of 125 (knots) times 1.15 (mph) gives you a cruise speed of 143 mph which is slower than the 150 indicated in the article.

2. The VNE is listed at 140 knots which i, as an rotary aircraft engineer know that from flying in helicopters for 20 years is the top speed of that type of helicopter and it physically cannot go any faster - unless the blades came off and it turned into a projectile!

3. The cruise speed of the helicopter is not 139 knots as a regular crusie speed like that instead of the 125 to 130 range consideably raises the fuel burn between the two engines and due to the natural vibrations of the aircraft causes premature wear of many moving parts - main rotor pitch links or airframe cracking etc. so a safe, smooth economical cruise is used.

4. Most 902's have apendages adding drag with items such as FLIR turrets, Skyshout systems and external steps and these item on Police and Air Ambulances slow the aircraft down by a good few knots.

Regards

11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional!

Your Sussex air ambulance article states the the aircraft can cruise at "Nearly" 150 mph - more of a correct statement???

Hi there again, i've replied on your talk page in line with policy on consistency. I don't disagree with your points, and i'm no aero engineer, but you should read the policy at WP:V which states the fundamental principle of Wikipedia that "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - i.e. it is not what is true, but what you can prove, that merits being in the encyclopaedia. As the information given is shown to be correct by a third party, who i would say are reliable in this instance (being the manufacturer of the equipment) and supported by an additional sources here, here and here, you need to be able to produce sources which are in line with the WP:CITE policy in order to make the change. I hope this makes sense, and that you understand that it's not because i don't believe you, but because Wikipedia only makes a reliable reference source if we try and stick to the principles outlined in the policies i've linked to above. I'm more than happy to change it to something that reflects a slower claimed speed, but we do need a published source. Please read the policies and then discuss further here if you feel you need to. I will try and look for a source, but probably won't get time until the weekend to do so, so in the meantime, please leave the article in place as it is. Regards OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the third wheel in this particular menage-a-trois (no-one else seems to care at this point), I have to side with Msa1701. Whilst WP:V may apply in situations such as "Band X has sold 30m albums", "but that only includes their first 2 albums, not their third which has been out for 2 months", "but there are no figures for that album"; this debate, to me, appears to fall more under the auspices of WP:UCS. All of the cited references stem from the same common source - the brochure specs. If a helicopter engineer and a pilot both posit that those numbers are at best "optimistic" suggests to me that the figures aren't robust enough to guarantee their inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't think that this constitutes WP:OR, just that it renders sufficient doubt on the given citations to preclude their inclusion as inarguable, verifiable fact. On that basis, I propose reverting to Msa1701's last revision. I'll give it 24 hours and I'm also shifting this discussion to the article's talk page as that seems the more sensible place. Danno uk (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Msa1701, thanks for your edits at Buzz (dinghy). I noticed that you disagree that the Buzz is the successor of the ISO. You seemed to take the stance on because that they were on the market at the same time, however, they were actually designed a year apart from each other, see 12. So it is the successor from a timeline point of view, although it is also the successor in comparison with the ISO. Any objection if I change it back? Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am afraid that the Buzz is not a successor to the ISO as it was marketed as a smaller version whilst above the ISO Topper had the Boss.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]