Talk:Panavia Tornado/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to do this in sections due to its size.

• Were any used in Libya?
• This is awkward: The need for minor modifications to the aircraft was uncovered, to avoid the presense of airflow disturbances in the early engines and fuselage profiling to minimise buffeting at supersonic speeds
  • Better, but perhaps something like "flight testing led to the need for minor modifications ..."

* Replace the comma in this with a semi-colon: Australia considered joining the MRCA program for a replacement to their ageing Dassault Mirage IIIs, ultimately the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet was selected to meet the requirement.

• Fix this: Canada similarly opted for the F/A-18 after comparing the Tornado
• Change East Europe to Eastern Europe.
• Don't capitalize Buddy store.
• Change necessitated to dictated.
• Hyphenate variable geometry.
  • Use a hyphen, not a dash.
• Change ordinance to ordnance.
• Don't think that the sentence about the underwing fuel tanks, etc. belongs in the 1st para of the overview section. Not least because it's in a different tense that the rest of the para.
• This is awkward: Typically to achieve high-speed performance, a swept wing or delta wing platform is adopted, however these wing designs are inefficient at low speeds; to operate at both high and low speeds with great effectiveness, a variable-sweep wing is used on the Tornado.
  • Better, but how about starting off "To achieve high-speed performance, a swept-wing or delta-wing platform is typically adopted, ...
• Look again at the punctuation in this: This approach had been adopted by earlier aircraft such as the Soviet Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 fighter, and the similar American General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark strike fighter - although the F-111 had a similar primary mission to the Tornado, the Tornado is far smaller and is a multi-role aircraft with more advanced systems.
• The last bit of this is also awkward: The weapons pylons pivot with the movement of the variable geometry wings so that underwing stores do not hinder any of the wing positions.
• This needs to rewritten: In development, significant attention was given to the Tornado's short field take-offs and landings (STOL) performance, Germany in particular encouraged this design aspect.
• Why would you use your thrust reverser when taking off? This sentence and the next apply only to landing.

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through all those yesterday. My rewording/clarifying was a first cut and could probably use more work. I believe since the thrust reverser part mentions about the nose-wheel, it is referring to the rollout after touchdown during landing. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad you could help out. I agree with you above and it's probably best to split out take-off and landing advantages as the sentence currently leads a reader to believe that the thrust reverser is used during take-off.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

More comments in the rest of the Design section

• Change "implementing" with "installing" and "replacing" with "that replaced". This last nominalization are a persistent problem with the text.
• How is the "centrally-located stick" related to artificial feel. And what's a stick, anyways?
• Change "could be" to can be
• Add "s" after conduct
• different radar system to other variants, change "to" to "from", unless this is a Britishism.
• Is there a word missing here? SLIR (Sideways Looking Infra Red)
• Hyphenate ground attack
• Combine these two sentences: Although Trident was selected as the main deterrent, Tornado squadrons were assigned under SACEUR and based in Germany with the intention to attack a major Soviet offensive with both conventional and nuclear weapons, namely the WE.177 nuclear bomb.[82] The WE.177 was retired in March 1998.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that I'm currently standing by for further instructions, as and if further article tweaking is necessary. Kyteto (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just passing by. Congratulations on a Herculean effort!

I have perused the section Variable-sweep wing. Some suggestions:

• an intended low-level supersonic strike aircraft. I suggest “intended” is redundant.

• a swept wing or delta wing platform is adopted. I think the appropriate word is Planform.

• The following sentence has odd syntax: To operate at both high and low speeds … is used on the Tornado. I suggest something like:

To maximise the effectiveness of the Tornado at both high and low speeds a variable –sweep wing is used.

• The similar American GD F-111' ... I suggest “similar” is redundant and should be removed.

• In the first para the wing is described as “a variable-sweep wing” but in the second para it is described as “The variable wing” and also “the variable-geometry wings”. Should be consistent throughout.

• various profiles from between 25 and 67 degrees. Are these really profiles? Wing profile refers to airfoil section. What do you think of the following alternative?

The variable-sweep wing can adopt any sweep angle from 25 degrees up to 67 degrees with a corresponding speed range appropriate for each;

• automatic wing sweep system to reduce pilot workload. Wing-sweep probably warrants a hyphen.

• point in direction of flight ... The direction of flight? The expression do not hinder any wing positions should be either deleted or re-worded.

• short field take-offs and landings performance In this context, take-off and landing are always spelled as singular, as is done in the next sentence. Short-field probably warrants a hyphen.

• the Tornado can sweep its wings fully forward. This could be misleading. It can only sweep them forward to the 25 degrees swept position. I suggest some re-wording.

• full-span flaps and leading edge slats to generate greater lift at slower speeds. Flaps and slats allow generation of the required lift at slower speeds but not greater lift. Lift is equal to weight times load factor and is independent of wing configuration.

Thanks for a great article, and good luck at GA. Dolphin (t) 04:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the article looks good. Deal with Dolphin51's comments and the few of mine left over and we'll be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. If there are any further outstanding that I've missed, let me know. I believe I have now addressed them all. Kyteto (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The issues I raised have now all been addressed. I have no objection to this article being promoted to Good Article. Dolphin (t) 11:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Merry X-mas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well done all. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)