WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Aviation: Aircraft Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the aircraft project.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

I am considering tagging this article, Singapore Airlines Flight 368 for lack of notability. Do you believe this engine fire incident should have its own article or be solely covered at Boeing 777#Accidents and incidents? This seems mostly minor except maybe the issue with the engine’s main fuel oil heat exchanger (MFOHE). MFOHE issue(s) have come up in multiple accidents and incidents before as I recall. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is is pretty minor, damage seem to have been restricted to the engine itself. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a hull loss.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 368. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a homebuilt aircraft type of which only one example has been built. The article was started in 2005 and still has only first party refs (just the owner's own website). A search found no third party refs. Is anyone aware of any paper refs about this aircraft? Thoughts on what to do about the article? - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It flies, therefore by Project consensus it is notable. And there seems plenty of online chatter about it. But the only written refs I can find offhand are Wikipedia scrapings. I found a dead link to somebody's "flight manual" for it. Are there not directories of private/homebuilds out there, not to mention an FAA registration database or something like that? However whether the topic deserves its own article is debatable. I don't know how much of its original Rutan Long-EZ design is unchanged, but there is surely a case to merge it in there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are homebuilt aircraft directories, and I have several here, but they tend to ignore "one-offs" as there are quite a lot of them and, like this one, are often just modifications of existing designs. I like your merger idea. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a prompt for more input (and some refs to meet WP:GNG) on the article talk page. Unless any refs can be found then our consensus here is to merge it to Rutan Long-EZ. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any further discussion, objections or indeed any third party refs:  Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, a fairly new user has been adding comparison tables to transport aircraft articles. complete with national flags. I've removed them on sight, but they've been added back to Shaanxi Y-9 and Xi'an Y-20. Is this something we want? I think we've nixed them before, but can't remember when. Whichever way we go, we need to clarify it in WP:AIR/PC. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table is not too bad. Not sure, but a good place may be Military transport aircraft? --JuergenKlueser (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion. BilCat (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, does not belong in an aircraft type article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we have a common view on that. I am going to contact the user, and tell him our proposal. (Done here) --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree that tables like this should not appear in aircraft type articles. The comparison problem we had before was whole articles e.g 'Spitfire versus Bf109' etc. It was a long time ago and I can't remember the creating editor. The citations in this current table should be checked as they should support the comparison, not just support the listed specification otherwise it is original research/synthesis etc (and/or other bad things covered at WP:NOT!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who understands reality in aircraft performance is aware of the fact that performance specifications are usually misleading and in some instances down right fraudulent. They will give a top speed, range, maximum weight, etcetera even though they cannot all be achieved in the same flight. In the instance of fighter aircraft they might honestly be treated as separate items. There is a sound reason why fighters usually carry external stores to perform their mission. Do you really think a F-whatever is going Mach 1.75 with wall to wall high drags? If it tries to it is not going as fast or as far as the "specs." A fighter may go X mph, or Y miles or carry Z load but not all on the same flight. In the instance of transports top speed is meaningless. Cruising speed is seldom mentioned as is the important issue of Mach number. The airspeed at any Mach number varies with altitude, temperature and air pressure. As weight and/or speed goes up, range goes down. Anyone who intends to cruise with the Mach meter on the barber poll is going to burn more fuel. His family might be happy to see him home early but the airline's accountants are going to frown. There is a sound reason why airliners today are not as fast as the Convair 880/990 or even a 50 year old 747. There is a reason why no one is flying a supersonic airliner. There is a reason why Boeing stopped talking about the Sonic Cruiser. No airline wanted it. At best performance numbers as used in data blocks are of little real value. Compare them with great caution. Mark Lincoln (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added a section on an accident in 2020. I deleted it on the basis of our guidance re light aircraft accidents but that has been reverted and the text scrambled, including a non-standard date format. More worrying is that two of the three refs are about accidents to different airframes. Author's justification for revert is that "it is interesting." I couled del again but another voice might be useful.TSRL (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Thanks for sorting.TSRL (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the sub-type number of this transport version of the 77 described in https://archive.org/details/aerodigest2619unse/page/n323/mode/1up?TSRL (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See: Bellanca Aircruiser at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellanca_Aircruiser The Aircrusier and related Airbus were very popular and came in many varieties. The 77-140 was an attempt at a bomber version. The Army did not want it but the Fuerza Aérea Colombiana (Columbian Air Force) bought several as well as a float plane 77-320 Junior which had a turret instead of the open gun position of the 77-140. Giuseppe Mario Bellanc was both a visionary designer and a bit of a mavarick. His Aircruiser was an important airplane in the early to mid-1930s. It was particularly appreciated in bush operations such as Canada, and South America. I saw one in flying condition in Oregon. Mark Lincoln (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the ref I included again I realized there was an ambiguity. The Aircruiser is at the top of the page but the version that puzzles me is at the bottom. This is a twin-engined passenger machine. There's nothing in the Wikipedia article, though aerofiles include the 77-140, a turreted bomber twin and the 77-320, on floats, with an open nose gun position. It's a 77-something, but what? TSRL (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the Bellanca 77-140 mentioned above. Bellanca was known for its single engined designs but he did create multi engined types. Bellanca used several systems for designation over the years. During his hey day the first number was wing area divided by 10 followed by a second number which was engine horse power divided by 10. For example the Bellanca 28-92. The 92 was derived from 2 x 250hp Menascos on the wings and a single 420hp Ranger in the nose. There were other Bellanca 28 racers all of which were single engined. For example the Bellanca 28-70 and Bellanca 28-90. Early Bellancas had no designation but then he started progressive letters such as CD. Later he added horse power number thus the CH-400 "Skyrocket.” Eventually he shortened the system to two numbers. When I was a kid I had the hots for the Bellanca 14-13 Crusaire of which there were many deteriorating at airports in the early 1960s. Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an important inquiry by any means, but I was just curious what other people here think of this photo, specifically what's going on with the people in the center of the frame. It's part of a set of photos from the Library of Congress showing operations in July 1941 at the then-new Washington National Airport, taken for the Farm Security Administration.

For now, I'm not going to state any guesses, as I don't want to prejudice the judgments of others. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My first take is that the man in the centre has knocked/injured his head somehow, and the left hand man is taking off his cap and pushing his hair back to see better. (Hohum ^@) 14:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the people in the picture but the co-pilot is in trouble as he doesn't have the AA Flag mast and flag up. AA before WW II had interesting DC-3s with passenger doors on the right rather than the left side. There was one some times at Homestead General in 1967 which was owned by a guy who was a VIP at Florida Power and Light.The guys who owned the PT-17 I used to fly were friends of his.

____

It appears that the Wikipedia has decided with the person(s) wishing to drop the period despite conclusive evidence to the contrary. In the previous discussion of this matter one person claimed that Nevil Shute (Norway) did not use the period in his autobiography "Slide Rule." This is quite untrue. I have a copy of "Slide Rule" and it uses the proper R.100 (and R.101). As Mr Norway was chief calculator and oversaw the completion of R.100 as well as flying on all but one the R.100's flights it seem a valid reference. Indeed it may be considered source material. A recent biography of Mr Shute "Shute – The engineer who became a prince of storytellers" also uses R.100 as Mr Shute did in his autobiography. J.E. Morpurgo in "Barnes Wallis: A biography" published in 1972 use the correct nomenclature R.100 as well as R.80, R.38, and the R. in other British rigid airships so correct nomenclature is not just a modern fetish. As it appears from the deletion of the correct usage in the R100 article Wikipedia has decided to not admit to the truth and rather has indicated that it prefers inaccuracy in its content. I may have to reconsider my use of my remaining life span editing articles. This is not said as a threat but rather as an observation that as I am almost 71 years old and probability my demise within a few years is high what is the point of spending my remaining time on what is doomed to be sub-standard work? What is the purpose of Wikipedia? Is it just to be just a collection of matter of low scholarship? Or is it intended to be a source of some merit? Mark Lincoln (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That conversation was unresolved and looks like staying that way. May I suggest that you have better things to do with your remaining years than flogging a dead horse. Wikipedia has plenty more areas which can benefit from your expertise; but no, it does not ultimately regard itself as a reliable source, with issues such as this being just one of many reasons why not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How come the article's title, R101, does not have the dot while all occurrences in the article have it? I don't particularly care which form is considered the correct one, but at the very least there should be consistency within the whole article, title included. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How come indeed. See for example these discussions/posts:

• Talk:R100#Designation?
• Talk:R101#Nomenclature
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_46#R101/R.101
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_46#The_matter_of_British_airship_nomenclature_R.100_vs_R100

and these non-consensus edits by Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs)

• to R100
• to R101

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I first edited the R.101 page a reasonable objection was made. Most people would be searching for the common mistaken name R101. This was a reasonable objection given the Wikipedia's situation of being a first resort of many people searching for information. I do not believe that changing the name of the Wikipedia article would be justified. As for internal information in an article I believe that any encyclopedic source should strive to provide accurate information. The question comes down to what the Wikipedia is. The Cambridge Dictionary defines "Wikipedia" as "the name of a large website that provides free information in many languages on many subjects, and can be changed or added to by anyone. There are experts who watch for errors, and pages on which disagreements about subjects can be discussed." Here we are doing just that. The disagreement is whether the Wikipedia should provide accurate information or not. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"For want of a dot, Wikipedia was lost"? Hardly. BilCat (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not lost. It will have only lost my efforts. It will still have your standards and efforts. I have ingrained standards. My History 401 (Historiography) thesis in 1971 was "The Military Rigid Airship 1908-1935." We were only required to submit an effort of more than four pages. That was deemed sufficient to demonstrate we had learned the course material. I ended up with 64 pages. It had grown like topsy. I received an A. The professor commented "To say this is an excellent and well researched paper is a bit of an understatement!" She also said that "When writing on such an technical subject, don't assume too much knowledge on the part of your reader," Thus my tendency to elaborate and explain. My desire to do as thorough and excellent a job has always been perhaps the greatest accomplishment of my upbringing. Thus if I am required to do slip-shod work I would rather not. I am almost 71 years old and could spend my declining years reading more and writing less. This is not a pique. It is just a matter of if I can not do a good job why do it? Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why no dot?

I hate to see editors disheartened after inputting hard work, one way or the other this situation should be resolved. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is available but may be excessive for this problem. Most importantly editors have to abide by the outcome. In the links provided above I only see arguments based on 'it appears in this source with a dot and that source without a dot'. We use reference sources to find and cite facts but don't necessarily have to use the exact same format or spellings.

The R.101 is not alone on Wikipedia for losing its dot, it is explained at our abbreviation article that the full stop is used to signify a shortened form, in this case I believe the R stands for 'Rigid' hence R.100. I would surmise that the full stop was not painted on the craft as the shortened name was not part of a sentence.

Other cases of 'dot loss' are the de Havilland aircraft types (DH.82, DH 82 etc) and older Rolls-Royce aero engine types where 'RB' designations lost their dot. Rolls-Royce PR material no longer uses the dot, the Royal Air Force has also dropped the dot from aircraft marks eg. Hawk T.1 ('T' for trainer) is now Hawk T1.

What I believe has happened is the use of the full stop to denote an abbreviation has been dropped over time (in British English at least). The dilemma is do we use old forms or newer forms? We do know that it is 2020 and the majority of Wikipedia readers won't be aware of older uses of language and may have puzzled looks when they read them (we are not allowed to say or write aviatrix or actress any more for instance).

I know we (aircraft project) have spent time on the de Havilland dot problem before, what we need to make progress is some guidance in our style guide that everyone can follow, there may be something in the Manual of Style, I haven't looked. A very good reason to resolve this is the perennial problem of one editor adding dots to articles and navboxes and another editor removing them, a more difficult problem is pages being moved to the 'correct' designation without discussion.

The alternative is to ignore this problem (and others), shrug our shoulders and carry on, which I have to say I do quite a lot!! Hoping that this can be resolved one way or the other. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs solving in a general manner with guideline material that will be uniformly applied. Do we need to start with a list of areas where it arises? - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where best to discuss it, in Aircraft or Aviation project space? Might the Aviation Style Guide's own talk page be a good place, as that is where the outcome would be added. Or, should we widen this discussion to include related vehicles within the scope of WP:MILHIST and WP:TRANSPORT? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three examples I gave were aircraft type names, aero engine type names and the R.101/R101 is an individual aircraft name though it appears to stem from a type series convention. I would have thought that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) would be the best place to discuss aircraft type article names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) has very comprehensive guidelines on article naming, it looks like every iteration possible for ship names has been tried in the past. Can't think of any other 'dot' problems, possibly the early British aircraft types. The 'dotted' style has been applied consistently at Category:Royal Aircraft Factory aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To get the widest input, how about we hold the discussion here and then enter the consensus results at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide? - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that many feel that Wikipedia is not intended to be accurate. That editors should simply do anything they feel like regardless of reality. Is that what Wikipedia should be? A wild post what you feel regardless of reality forum? I check out a number of such ephemeral sites such as “4chan /b/“ and while I find them "informative" on what ever goes, I do not find them anything aside from that. The question I present is essentially this: is the Wikipedia to be the best encyclopedia it can be within the restraint that are necessary to avoid anarchy? Or is it to conform to the least standards its editors feel to please themselves? I have just ordered a hard bound copy of Morpurgo's "Barnes Wallis: A Biography" to replace my decades old paper back copy so that my citations on several Wikipedia pages might be able to specify the pages for citation which will be available to any person with access to a good library. I am willing to put money where my mouth is on the question of veracity in the Wikipedia. Perhaps I am a fool. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? We have started a discussion here to resolve this "dot" issue, which will be decided by a collected consensus of the best references available, considering the history of the issue and how use, or non-use, of British designation dots have evolved over time. It is a factual question, which will have a factual answer. It is not some ephemeral philosophy question. If you have actual references to contribute to the discussion then great. If you prefer to debate existential philosophy then WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the OP is not reading this thread thoroughly. I was willing to help but it seems fruitless if complaints continue regardless. I had a quick scan through other British types, they are mostly consistent (dot or no dot) with the odd article in a series not following the convention, probably oversights. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, it seems to me you're wasting your own mental efforts in a crusade for an imagined "accuracy" where none can exist, because there never was a single well-defined, widely followed standard for the typography of these designations. In 1930 when the airship variously designated at the time as R.101, R101, R 101, R-101, and so on was built and flown, people weren't as consistent about the exact typographical forms used for such designations as they would be in later eras. I've found all of the aforementioned forms in printed materials from around 1930 via Google Books, making sure to check the actual scans, not just the OCR text. Try this Google Books search and this one to confirm, for instance, and also note this Google Ngrams graph for the relative frequency in scanned books of four different forms of the phrase "airship R101" from 1920 to 1940. I've seen similar inconsistencies from this era in the designations for airplanes and aircraft engines: for example, is it the "Douglas DC-3" or "Douglas DC3"? These days we generally agree on the former form, but you can find a fair number of examples of the latter form in material circa 1940, including the U.S. government type certificates. Since these machines are constructed by group efforts, there simply is no single source you can unarguably point to as the "canonical" designation. Manufacturer and government may not agree, and different branches within either institution may have their own ways of doing things. Do you pick the type certificate? The approved flight manual? The manufacturer's public advertising? The emblem on the machine? An argument can be made for and against each. Even a single source may not be consistent! And many people who work on such things, frankly, don't care that much, which is one source for this inconsistency. It's not like these designations were made to be processed by computer programs which enforced hard rules on exact syntax. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

/*I understand that computer languages have strict syntax*/. Computers are idiots and require perfect clarity. We are discussing an encyclopedic entry written in English. I readily concede that British airships were often misnamed in common usage from "Mayfly" on. I am also aware that they each only had one proper name. Just as the American fighter aircraft the Curtiss P-40 was known to its manufacturer as the Model 75, Model 81, or Model 87 depending upon significant details which were known as the XP-40, P-40-P40C, and P-40-D through P-40-Q by the US Air Corps and the US Army Air Forces. Those were the Manufacturer's and Army's official names. I could go on to name oodles of "popular" names and foreign designations including Hawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and "Flying Tiger." But the Curtiss fighters had only one official designation, XP-40 through XP-40Q and three Curtiss designations Models 75, 81 and 87. The official designations of British airships was much simpler. The first which never flew was officially His Majesty's Airship Number 1, or simplified as HMA No. 1. The next nomenclature was HMA No. 9r through HMA No. 25r. After that all British rigid airships were designated R.26 through R.101. All other designations from "Mayfly" on to R101 were just nicknames. If folks wanted to call the P-40 a Kittyhawk or Flying Tiger that does not make it the proper name. The question simply put is the Wikipedia supposed to be a factual encyclopedia or is it just a collection of what ever people decide to post? I am disinclined to engage in sloppy work. If others desire to do so, and it appears that there are many who wish to do so, that is their business not mine. Go ahead, call the P-40 a Flying Tiger and the R.101 the "Royal Airship Works Cigarette Lighter" if you please.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The registered name is "Royal Airship Works Rigid Airship R101" and also note as a civilian airship the naming hasnt really got anything to do with the the early military sequence that ended at R80. Interesting to note that it was painted as "R 101" on the actual airship. MilborneOne (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official registered name was not as you insist. It was "His Majesty's Airship R.101" not "Royal Airship Works Rigid Airship R101" which is absurd. See: Mowthorp, "Battlebags," "Appendix A Royal Navy Numbering," pages 157-158. The official investigation of the loss of the airship is titled "REPORT OF THE R.101 INQUIRY." The certificate of airworthiness for R.101 is available at https://www.airshipsonline.com/airships/r101/R101%20Cert.pdf His Majesty's Airship R.101 is perhaps best covered in "To Ride The Storm The Story of the Airship R.101" by Sir Peter Masefield. Nevil Shute, who was deeply involved in the design and flight testing of R.100, in his biography called the R.100 and R.101 by those names but what did he know? The tomb of the dead from R.101 and the marker of the crash site read R.101. You may have an opinion based upon misinformation or some personal desire but I have the facts. Your personal obsession devoid of factual nature may reveal why this matter is pending. Thus I challenge you to prove that the name of the airship was as you assert "Royal Airship Works Rigid Airship R101." If you cannot cite anything reliable and verifiable then please stop what appears to be obstreperous obfuscation. Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Lincoln:. That is no way to address a fellow editor. Please take proper cognizance of our policies on WP:POLITENESS and WP:GOODFAITH. If you persist, sanctions may be taken against your ability to edit here, and nobody wants that.

1. On the aircraft's title, both of you are right. Its formal designation was HMA (His Majesty's Airship) R.101. But it was made by the Royal Airship Works at Cardington, so in a technical trade context it is the Royal Airship Works rigid airship R101. However the context in which Wikipedia presents it is an editorial decision, and here we must follow WP:COMMONNAME, which effectively leads us to omitting any such prefix.
2. Then, there is the R bit. The R designations were politically motivated, with the two airships to be the first of a new breed, seen to be leaping ahead of the old R types to the hundreds; the R 100 was the very first and the R 101 to appear as its successor. Thus, the designations were chosen for political reasons and not historical or technical.
3. Finally, the punctuation. I will reiterate what others have said here, that the period after the R was at the time the correct syntax for the abbreviation R for rigid. The modern idiom is to omit it. (Your and my copies of Slide Rule evidently reflect the intervening period (sic) of change. You have not produced one iota of evidence to refute that understanding.

On the above basis, Wikipedia should use the period only when directly quoting from a text which uses it. It is now abundantly clear that only one editor is arguing for the period and the majority consensus is to do without it. We can wrap this up now and move on, there is plenty more needs fixing on this encyclopaedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently declined a new editor's draft, as it had several issues with it such as potentially indiscriminate information, it being similar to the existing article on Concorde, among others. The draft is Draft:Concorde : legal aspects of the project. The user seems to be very eager, so I wanted to point him (@Nruget:) here in the hopes that one of you can take him under your wing and some more detailed notes on his draft since I'm not exceptionally familiar with the ins and outs of aircraft. One question I would like to see approached is whether or not his draft idea would work as a separate article from the main or whether he should be working on seeing if any of the information can be worked into the live article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a person inclined to go into a certain amount of detail beyond the absolute basics it appears this proposed article is excessive. It is also vastly under documented. Because of that it appears to be personal opinion when it may not be. As suggested it appears to be a machine translation of a French article. I am reminded of the once famous early machine translation from Russian of the biblical saying "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41) The computer translated it as something like "the vodka is fine but the meat is rotten." The article might be worthy of inclusion if it is considerably reduced to essentials, and far better referenced. This may not be possible if it is as I suspect a hijacked magazine article. I was a reader of Aviation Leak and Space Mythology from the late 1950s and remember the elaborate machinations necessary to merge the Sud Super Caravelle and Bristol Type 223 into the Aerospatial/BAC Concorde project. A quick trip to the Concorde Wikipedia page show that the subject of the legal machinations appears covered but not exhaustively. Perhaps the author might be better off just elaborating upon the development section of the Concorde Wiki page. I do not feel that that page adequately explains the tremendous consolidation of industry on the British side nor the essentially weak position of the French industry which was still recovering from WW II.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in French to its contributor, Nicolas Ruget, at fr:Discussion:Concorde (avion)#aspects juridiques de la réalisation du programme Concorde. The rough translation would be Hello @Nruget, thank you for your contributions. Although a native French speaker, I mainly contribute to aeronautical subjects in English wikipedia, where you have proposed a translation of this part. However, it was not received favorably by the contributors there: indeed, it is too extensive for the specifically legal part of an aeronautical project, while Wikipedia must remain a general encyclopedia. Moreover, we understand that it is the work of a single person, with a tone not necessarily encyclopedic, and with references to your own mémoire of 2004, in contradiction with WP:SELFPROMOTE. It would undoubtedly be more suitable to keep this contribution as such, by signing your essay in a medium other than wikipedia (such as medium.com for example), to make a one-paragraph summary for the wikipedia article on Concorde - both French-speaking and English-speaking) and to reference your post then published elsewhere. --Marc Lacoste (NB: please sign your messages in the discussion pages with four tildes (~), it allows you to follow better) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very stubby article for this Russian turboprop trainer project of the 1990s has just appeared, but it is unclear whether any hardware ever got produced before the project was abandoned - I'm not convinced that the project is notable - opinions?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at sending it back to draft space, but would be keen to hear what everyone thinks here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The airctaft made Jane's all the world's aircraft 2008-2009. It also made Brassey's World Aircraft and Systems Directory 1996/97.

So reliable sources have reported upon the aircraft. I have turned up more information on it.

T-501 Strizh

Crew: 2

Wingspan: 11.0 m

Length: 9.66 m

Height: 4 m

Wing Area: 16.5 m2

Wheel base: 2.88 m

Wheel track: 2.88 m

Empty Weight: 1,990 kg

Maximum TO Weight: 2,670 kg

Fuel Load: 500 kg

Maximum Speed: 570 km/h

Take-off Distance: 160 m

Landing Distance: 190 m

Climb Rate: 1,260 m/min

Ceiling: 7,000 m

Maximum Range: 1,800 km with drop tanks

Engine: One Glushenkov TVD-10B turboprop of 754 kW

Weapons Load: 500 kg

Armament: 6 x light weapons, gun pods or rockets

The T-501 was designed as a basic trainer with armament capability for a Russian Air Force requirement. The crew was seated on lightweight ejection seats. The wing had no anhedral or dihedral, and the aircraft was capable of carrying two drop tanks. To reduce costs inexpensive materials were to be used in construction. Manufacturing of the first of two prototypes and one static test airframe reportedly began in 1992 at MAPO-MiG after an USD 22 million contract was signed in April that year. Production was to be undertaken at Khrunichev. The T-501M Bumerang was a proposed modernised version.

Source: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/soviet-coin-and-light-shturmovik-projects.50/ A Russian source tells me that it was considereed by tehe Russian Air Forces. It also provides a three view. http://www.libma.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_kosmonavtika_1995_06/p24.php. It looks to have been a legitimate project if not a great commercial success. Should it be in the Wikipedia? I am the sort of person who is of the opinion that it is better to include than exclude. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sources actually say anything substantive about the aircraft - The 96-97 Brassey's covers it, in not great detail, and suggest that work may have started on at least one of the prototypes, but owing to changes in Russian Air Force requirements the type was already delayed from its original planned date of 1993. By 1999, the 1999/2000 edition of Brassey's merely refers to the T-501 as one of a range of military concepts that had not progressed to hardware. The 2003-4 Jane's merely has an index entry pointing to the 97–98 edition as being the last edition with any coverage. It looks like one of a large number of fairly sketchy design proposals that were knocked out by Russian aircraft companies following the breakdown of the Soviet Union, most of which never stood any chance of being built. The article actually needs sources that talk in more detail about the type and what happened to it for the article to be sustainable.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This WikiProject has a longstanding consensus that if it flew, it is notable. This Russian-language page says (courtesy of Google Translate) that a "model" was "demonstrated at the MosAeroshow-92 exhibition" and includes an apparently genuine photo of it in flight. But I am not sure whether that is a mistranslation of "prototype" or a photo of a flying scale model; much clearer images elsewhere depict a model with no crew on board. Our WikiProject consensus does not apply to models. Also, a Secret Projects discussion offers various facts and myths about its sibling projects. Given all that, there does not seem enough to sustain the present article. I'd suggest we do need one on Aeroprogress, where this one can be merged (or moved and re-purposed). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC) [updated 06:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)][reply]

From the 1999/2000 Brassey's : "Details and photographs (of models) relating to military concepts that have not progressed into flying prototypes can be found in the 1996/1997 edition of WA&SD, pages 66 and 67, including the T-501 basic trainer,..." which makes it clear that a flying prototype wasn't displayed at MosAeroshow-92 - although possibly a fairly realistic mockup was - Aeroprogress did display some realistic mockups of some of their unflown civil types.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have just created Aeroprogress to describe the company's projects. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]