User talk:Nimbus227/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For service to Wikipedia well above and beyond that expected of a mere editor, extending to planning family vacations specifically around photo opportunities to shoot aero engines for articles. Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! I've been rumbled. Thanks, of course it's educational for the wee man that's why I have to go to the museums (honest!!!). Cheers, much appreciated. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget, those pics go on WP to help educate all the peeples of the whole worlds! - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they do! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why a barnstar is a reward and not a condemnation! - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I particularly like this one, the star revolves in a hypnotic way, I could watch it for hours!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats...hmmmm...any thoughts about designing a contra-rotating Barnstar - that five bladed prop may cause a great deal of swing on take-off. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, maybe there is one already, quite an array to choose from! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Nimbus, I have voted a "temporary" Oppose on the FAC, to clarify that I don't consider it FA-ready at the moment. I do think it has good potential, and will continue to try to help, as I noted there. I hope we can continue to improve it until it meets the requirements. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks, as you can imagine I am finding it very hard going on my own, getting quite disheartened actually (knowing that the delegates are waiting to close it) and did wonder if there was any light at the end of the tunnel, I am on the verge of giving up on it unfortunately which would be a shame after all the great work that has gone into it by several editors recently, it really was quite a mess not so long ago.

I think this article deserved to be put straight, perhaps borne from a desire to fix the many, many inaccuracies in it that crept in over the years.

You started off with a positive introduction but now seem to be becoming ever more critical, I correct something and you find something else. This may or may not be intentional but it is what I see is happening, after all comments might have been actioned there was no guarantee that your 'comment' would turn to a 'support' (exactly as the first reviewer did, asked me questions, I answered and in some cases altered the article then he didn't bother to strike his answered questions or to say why they had not been struck). I also seem to be getting lectures on NPOV in particular, I understand the policy and try to follow it and pride myself on being able to remain neutral and to create articles the same way, if genuine NNPOV material exists there still then it is not intentional. If Kreindler was indeed a 'bad guy' for instance and it was reported at the time that he was then we can't say he was a good guy or leave his involvement out, he gets mentioned a lot in references as I guess his manner upset people, the rest of the trial seemed to be quite unremarkable and so apparently did not get highlighted. There is no Anglo-American bias either (from myself), I know it happens on WP sometimes. It might seem biased in the trial section as he was an American operating in a British court so the bias is from the British press, if he was any other nationality doing the same thing then I expect that it would have been reported the same way.

I have not used the phrase 'I disagree' on that page but it is probably apparent that I do not agree with some of your views. I note that you are an admin so you have one up on me there but as editors we should treat each other as equals (even if I am not 'the sharpest tool in the box'). I note that we have both remained very civil, something I like to see and believe in quite strongly.

We should try to keep comments and answers down in length if I continue to persevere with it, it's getting very difficult to navigate the FAC page now and I don't believe that we are allowed to collapse any of it into shells or even add arbitrary editing breaks, it's some kind of strange FAC team rule that I did know once but have now forgotten. I have to go out tonight so apologies for appearing to go silent. Thanks for posting a note here, I thought that you would at some stage. I really do have to go out now else I will get in trouble! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any rules against adding edit breaks or sub-sections on the FAC, and I have seen some complex submissions with many of them, so that should not be an issue. I think the article has potential, but there are still many issues, though we are slowly converging. I am trying to focus on the most important points first, which is why I raise new ones periodically. I have no say or control over the FAC process — I was asked to review, and I will do my very best to try to get the article to conform to my understanding of the WIAFA criteria. If it means the article will be temporarily archived, it's not a big deal, and I will keep trying to help regardless of its formal status. In the case of my own accident FA, it stayed in the queue forever with virtually no reviews, then someone raised some issues and we were working on them fairly actively when the nomination was archived. Fortunately, the last reviewer was happy to keep working on it while it was archived, until his issues were resolved. Then I resubmitted it, and it was then promoted within days. (BTW, this is still the only civilian aviation accident FA on WP to my knowledge.) I personally believe that an FA must be a "masterpiece", in all respects, including quality of writing, depth of (source based) research, and neutrality. It should also be a pleasure to read and reasonably easy to understand. This article is not quite there yet, but I think it's not far and I am willing to do my best to help. Crum375 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see now that it has been archived. Please don't be discouraged. As I noted above, I will try to help as long as I can, regardless of the FAC's status. Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have much enthusiasm for it any more and the article was becoming, to me, not an overall picture of the event. I tried (twice) but failed, time to look at something else now or just go back to adding missing specifications to engine articles, it's what I'm good at evidently. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I might give it a shot myself, then. Of course in that case, it'd need someone else to review it if it's resubmitted. Crum375 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Puzzle picture

Morning Nimbus. The Gipsy Queen photo shows the magneto/distributor region with its drive shafts, so are we looking at a manual advance/retard lever? What is the hidden word under the pointer? Do you recall the series number? I've got a photo of a series 10 Mk 2 in front of me and there is something similar, but not identical, in about the same place. The answer is probably more complicated, but perhaps this will drag out the experts. Must be someone who worked on them still going.TSRL (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. It is a puzzle! The word under the pointer is 'degrees'. The range of up to 80 degrees is too much to be ignition advance I think (Lycomings are fixed at 25 degrees BTDC and my Triumph motorbike has a max advance of 40 degrees). On the Gipsy Major the advance is controlled directly by the throttle (turns the magneto points cam). To the left of the pointer it says 'Oil level' (could be for damping) and where the part has been sectioned I can see what looks very much like an aneroid capsule, so it could be controlling something related to altitude/air pressure. I wondered if the initials 'SR' meant 'Supercharger Range', this engine has a supercharger (Queen 70 I think) and an Alvis Leonides nearby (also supercharged) has an identical device fitted. I can't relate the degrees to a supercharger though!?? I think I saw one of these on top of a Napier Sabre recently as well.

There are two engine overhaul companies that I know of that look after the Gipsy range, I might try them with it as searching the net has not come up with anything. I'm sure that we'll find out what it is eventually, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded two more photos from the Leonides at Cosford. File:Alvis Leonides controller.JPG is quite a clear view of it and File:Alvis Leonides supercharger.JPG shows it very close to the supercharger with a shaft disappearing into the engine near the supercharger gears. As it is the same component on the Gipsy and Leonides it must have been made by a component company, possibly Hobson (of Claudel-Hobson). I had a look at the Sabre photo, it is a different device, just a pointer which clearly says 'ignition advance' with a range of 15 to 45 degrees. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This Flight page from 1947 [1] mentions a 'Supercharger gear change unit' by H.M. Hobson Ltd., I think this is most likely what it is. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Slightly earlier from Flight is this [2], in the right column it talks about automatic boost control linked to the constant speed propeller unit, mentions aneroids as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be homing in to it. JAWA 1956 says the Srs 70 has "Hobson type DHG/1 fuel injection unit ..." There ought to be a Flight article on the Srs 70, as their artist RE Poulton did a cutaway which appears in the 1954 Flight Handbook, but I can't find it. The diagram is, unfortunately, a port side view.TSRL (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think I've got it now, I searched for 'Hobson Boost Control'. This 1935 Flight article explains how it works [3], the aneroid is sensing boost pressure and from the next page the graduated degree scale is most likely a measure of throttle opening. The company that appeared to make it (or the automatic mixture controller at least) was Hobson-Penn. Hobson was quite a large company, I remember that they made the EE Lightning tailplane jacks, they are worthy of an article if enough references could be found. I've seen that Gipsy Queen cutaway, very nice. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Hobson later manufacture the boost control unit for Merlins? ----

Question

Hello. I don't know if this is the forum for this question, but I see that you removed some photos from the Ryan Fleep/Flexwing page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/XV-8_Fleep

I'm just wondering what I did wrong: I was the person who put the photos there. I new to working on wiki articles. Are the photos still on the commons? Should I have linked to them (just trying to decipher your notes). Would it be better to communicate another way (normal email).

Thanks Dheverett (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no you did nothing wrong and contacting me here is best (and normal). There were just too many images for the size of the article (a 'stub'), sometimes known as 'image overload', probably more advice on this at WP:IMAGE. The main problem with too many images in a short article is the empty 'white space' on the page. All the images are on Commons and I linked to them using the box in the lower right corner of the page (nothing is lost and this is the standard way to link to a number of images related to the article). We normally pick the best one (usually of the aircraft in flight) for the 'infobox' and as and when the article expands more images can be added. Hope that helps to decipher my edit summary and shout if you would like any more help, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. I did see that another way to have many images is a gallery. There are things on the Fleep page that are (were) not right, so I made some corrections (i.e., there was a Flex Wing and a Fleep). My dad (Lou Everett) flew that aircraft, and so I have several images of that as well as the X-13, XV-5A, and Vertiplane. I was thinking that good images would be interesting, especially in the case of the Flex Wing/Fleep, since there seems to be interest in the history of hang gliding. There just aren't that many images available.

Thanks Nimbus!

Dheverett (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. The reason I provided pics that clearly depicted the difference between the Fleep and the Flex Wing. For example, one had tricycle gear (Fleep), and one had a 4-wheeled platform (Flexwing). I should have provided more text to make this more clear. The photo in the infobox is actually a Flex Wing and not a Fleep. I don't know if the Flex Wing was technically the XV-8. I'll do some research.

Dheverett (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, it can be a 'steep learning curve' here sometimes. I just had another little tidy of the XV-8 article and promoted it to 'Start' class. What is missing there to me is information on the test programme and why the project was cancelled, maybe you have that and could add it? Galleries are generally discouraged across Wikipedia but images can sometimes be added in a gallery format like this article section here.

I also had a look at your late father's article and can help with that. A potential problem is that as his son you could have a 'conflict of interest' (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is a conflict of interest? and the 'Close relationships' section). At the moment the article is original research as you have apparently added the facts from your own memory and there are no reliable sources cited. An editor could nominate the article for deletion for this reason and also possibly on notability grounds (i.e. what makes this person notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article?). Similarly, he would not have his own 'Test pilots' section in the XV-8 article but we would fit his involvement into the text somewhere. Have a read through the guidelines and policies that I've linked to as they explain things more fully. I would think that your father is notable but the article needs 'adjusting' to clarify it. Again just shout if you need any help, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I do understand the conflict of interest, but over the years I have learned that people are very interested in the test pilots of the 50's and 60's. It sounds like a conflict of interest when I say this, but it's a fact: my father was a charter member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. I have the membership documents. I have a photo of him with a young Neil Armstrong (who I don't think was a charter member, but is obviously notable). He was the first pilot to take off vertically in the XV-5A. He and Pete Girard were the only pilots to fly the X-13 Vertijet to my knowledge (I was close friends with the late Project Engineer for the X-13, Carroll Berner, and have a written note saying so). Others flew it on the test harness, but I'm not aware of others flying the unharnessed aircraft. I have read that he was the first to fly a powered flexible wing aircraft.

But I would argue that just the fact that he was one of the charter members of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots: http://www.setp.org/about-setp/history.html (I have a document from the "Testy Test Pilots Society") would qualify him as notable. Just a quick perusal of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Society_of_Experimental_Test_Pilots lists about 150 test pilots linked to their biographies. One of those biographys (Joe Tymczyszyn) was written by a son. I don't know what qualifies as notable, but I believe these test pilots, including my father, were notable, and are pertinent to aviation history. Sometimes it's the relatives of these pilots that have the supporting photographs and documentation. It would be a shame to remove such information from Wikipedia on the grounds of conflict of interest. I also have information on other test pilots that are notable -- for example, Pete Girard -- that I would like to contribute. How does one determine the notability of a test pilot?

I think I misunderstood the 'Test Pilots' section for an aircraft. I think I was copying another X-Plane page or something. I'm still learning. Regarding the reliable information, I'll add those sources. If I add those, who designates it as reliable sources? Would I add that or does it get added by an editor?

Thanks. (And should I be indenting this?)

Dheverett (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nimbus, I just did some editing of my father's biography. The original text came from a biography I had provided by request to one of your countrymen (I think), Neil Corbett for his Tartan Terror blog on test pilots. Much of the early-life info from that came from my mother. I've removed unnecessary details about his children, etc. I will provide sources ASAP.

Dheverett (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it looks better already. The conflict of interest guideline says that there 'may' be a problem, not that there always is a problem, it was probably coincidence that the article sounded like it was written by a relative. The worst and most obvious type of 'COI' is when the owner or director of a company creates an article on their own company (free advertising). They can still do it if they declare their interest, use independent sources and write it neutrally (WP:NPOV). The general notability guideline is at WP:SIGCOV, I don't think it's any different for people. There is an infobox that you can add to the top of the article: Template:Infobox aviator. Add it and fill in as many fields as you can. The guideline of what are considered reliable sources is at WP:SOURCES, you add the cites yourself, books are good generally. No reason why we can't have more test pilot articles, there are about 250 already looking at Category:Test pilots.

When you link to a Wikipedia article here just use normal linking (double square brackets) to the article title like Tony LeVier instead of the bare link http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tony_LeVier, if you use an external link like [4] it will appear as just a numbered link, if you add text at the end of the link (leave a space) like this then they can be formatted easily (have a look at this post in 'edit' mode). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nimbus, you've been a great help. I've incorporated the aviator template and added references. I can certainly reference some books as well (don't have them with me at this time). One thing about the aviator template: I needed to add more than one first flight, and I didn't find a good way to do that. What I ended up doing was separating multiple first flights for aircraft (and their corresponding dates) by semicolons. If there is a better way, I'd be glad to use it.

Thanks again for all your help! Dheverett (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. I added line breaks in the infobox, assessed the article and tagged it for the biography task force (I don't know how active they are at the moment). Also added some headers (that has automatically created a table of contents). Two minor things that I spotted, your father is referred to as Lou throughout, it would be more normal convention (but apparently impersonal) to use just his surname, most bio articles are like this I think. The other minor thing is 'plane'!! This small word has caused many 'punch-ups' in the aviation project (variations are plane, airplane, aeroplane and aircraft, general exceptions mailplane and similar), we settled on the internationally neutral 'aircraft' in the end, to me it looks more professional as well (and it cover helicopters!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Comments Requested

Nimbus, would you please comment on the F-16 article split? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rolls Royce Peregrine

I believe there are a couple errors:

1. Rubba on p.136 reference to "4 banks of Kestrel dimensions" is only bore/stroke. On p.139, he indicates "the spacing between cylinder axes had to be greater..." (further on in the paragraph he indicates that it is almost Merlin dimension (Peregrine/Kestrel block would be 2" shorter than Vulture).

2. Reliability issues of the Peregrine were the result of squadron practise / Whirlwind design; not Rolls Royce engineers. Peter's designed the Whirlwind to have an interconnect linkage between the opening for the radiator and the flaps down. So whenever running on the ground, the Whirlwind required flaps to be deployed. Common RAF practise at the time was to raise the flaps whenever they weren't needed. Operating the engine without cooling, resulted in reliability issues. Problem was not reading the flight manual...not sure how to express that. (Source 4+ Publications: Westland Whirlwind)

I don't want to mess with you stellar work, so hope this is correct format to affect changes.

Don Prairie*buoy (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Prairie*buoy (interesting user name?!) and welcome. I would imagine that there are still some errors or 'untruths' in both the Peregrine and Vulture articles, not so long ago the Vulture article stated quite clearly that it was just two Peregrines bolted together which is not quite the case. I'll dig the Rubbra book out again and have a look (he is 'the horse's mouth' after all and we are lucky that he wrote his memoirs). Don't doubt the problems with the Whirlwind and if that can be added it would swing the balance away somewhat from engine problems to operating procedure. I know that extending the undercarriage on some Spitfires was enough to blank the radiators and cause overheating. Will look into it. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had a read of the references and had a good go at the Vulture article, it still contained the misconception that it was two Peregrines bolted together. This comes from Bill Gunston (quite clearly states it), a case of choosing the best references on the subject. I am happier now that the description is more accurate. One puzzling/annoying thing with the Vulture is that I can't find the weight or other size dimensions, been looking for quite a while now.

Rubbra does not cover the Peregrine in any detail, not mentioning problems or otherwise (which is strange if it did have problems as he goes to great lengths to highlight the problems that they experienced with the other engines). If the information you have regarding the Whirlwind is from a reliable source (generally a published book) then you can add that to the article yourself (see WP:CITE as well for how to add the reference source). Don't worry if you get stuck or make a mistake (they can very easily be undone), just give me a shout. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

- 1184.htm This at least gives a power rating on the Vulture - is it possible that there may be more data in Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1945-46? Minorhistorian (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your link is broken (it's to do with their URL spacing, had it before and can't remember how to fix it!!). Nah, just the Merlin and Griffon are covered by that Janes (I have several different versions/reprints of it). You know I just moved a massive pile of books up to the 'library' and now I've brought half of them back down again!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sectioned drawings of Piston aero engines by Lyndon Jones (RR Heritage trust), 1995, ISBN 1 872322 07 4 page 40. Vulture II, power 1845@3000rpm@5000'; weight 2450 lbs, single-stage, two speed supercharger (5.5/7.3:1) - 6lb boost reduction gear 0.350:1. Production 529 Vulture IIs for the Avro Manchester and 9 Vulture Vs for the HawkerTornado. Vulture is 1st run in '37, Peregrine is 1st run in '38, so Vulture can't be using the "earlier" Peregrine bore and stoke (earlier Kestrel, yes). (I personally want to see all Peregrine references removed from Vulture article). Thanks for listening. Prairie*buoy (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we've got a weight now, good stuff. Yes, the dates and text contradict at the moment don't they. Would be nice to narrow down or confirm the first run date for the Peregrine, as the Whirlwind first flew in October 1938 according to our article. I would think that the Vulture and Peregrine were developed virtually together. Rubbra only refers to 'Kestrel sized cylinders', no mention of the Peregrine in that part of the book, I think this inaccuracy has come from Bill Gunston. Will have another look at both articles again soon. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Engine Historical Society

Having just stumbled across the Aircraft Engine Historical Society website I'm wondering on how long you've been planning on keeping it a secret. Word's out now! :) Minorhistorian (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is used in quite a few articles already, I don't use it as it is probably not deemed a 'reliable source' but all these sites give good leads and are an interesting read at the very least. Must look at another engine for FA, looks like we lost the B-17 FAR today. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910

Hello! I see that you are a fellow glider pilot. I own an ASW-24, but still I don't consider myself an engine expert nor a Coanda scholar. After this whole mess in Wikipedia was started by User:Romaniantruths in July this year after the article was stable for the last 7 years or so I couldn't resist to ask one secretary from FAI and IGC: "Who is the inventor of the jet engine?" I think I don't need to give you the answer. So please before jumping in any fast conclusion please read all stuff put on the table by both sides and check as well the WP:RSN section for Coanda-1910 sources. Thank you in advance for your neutrality and please don't leave the discussions like most of the other administrators which joined briefly this mess.--Lsorin (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well article stability does not necessarily mean that it was previously right, I have edited many 'stable' articles that were very obviously incorrect. I'm afraid that I can not help much there as I don't have any paper reference sources, I don't trust much that I read on the web. I missed flying the 24 when I had the opportunity but have many hours in the 27, I am a Schleicher fan although I owned a Schemmp-Hirth machine until recently! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I did fly an ASW 24, just don't remember it!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nimbus, I've just taken an interest in this unusual subject (or should I say conflict in some respects) and I'm confused which engine category the powerplant belongs in - it doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the existing ones. Any feelings about creating an 'experimental engine' or 'prototype technology' cat if there aren't too many already? --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The engine was an unknown Clerget in-line four type as far as I can tell, what it was driving exactly we don't seem to be able to work out. The article is actually about the whole aircraft so to add it to an engine category would not be right. If an article on the power system was created I don't think we have a category that would suit it. We don't have an experimental engine category at the moment, there are some articles on experimental aircraft engines but they were generally intended for production and didn't make it (ended up as experimental use only by default) and come under another existing engine category. We don't have a cancelled aero engine category either where the aircraft project does have several 'cancelled project' categories. Might bring it up at WT:AETF as we usually discuss the creation of new categories (to make sure that we get them right first time). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I take your point about the Clerget being the initial source of power. Thanks for the consideration anyway. --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to see the 'wood for the trees' sometimes! Perhaps some new sources will come to light, I still have to look in a large university library to see what I can find on the machine. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is up at WP:GAN now, after months of debate and hard work. Care to jump in as reviewer, Nimbus? Talk:Coandă-1910. Speaking for the other editors at the article, we all would really appreciate it. I offer to review your next nomination in trade. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have deliberately limited my WP editing as it has not been a positive experience recently, in fact I was thinking of retiring. I took this article off of my watchlist because of the continued arguing but I can see now that a lot of very good work has been done and it does deserve a review. I have read through it just now quite thoroughly and I can see some things that I can comment on at the talk page (rather than starting a formal GA review as I think it would fail at the moment). If anyone argues excessively with my comments then I will withdraw, I hope that you can understand that. Will post on the talk page quite shortly, I accept your offer with some trepidation!!! Cheers and Merry Christmas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

VJ 101 category

Hi there. The reason I removed Category:VTOL aircraft from EWR VJ 101 was because Category:Tiltjets is a sub-category of the VTOL cat. So I figured that (if I may make use of the meme) duplicate category was duplicate. No problem with it having both if it works better that way tho. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I reasoned that afterwards. I am also a believer in using only the most precise category per WP:CATEGORY and have been working on this recently. I look at 'tiltjets' though as a complimentary category to VTOL at the moment, it is not immediately clear from the category name that this is referring to VTOL aircraft, I think it should be renamed to 'Tiltjet VTOL aircraft'. Have to be careful7ity of them are. I don't think 'Rotorcraft' should be a sub-cat of VTOL aircraft either as it should be fairly obvious that they are (except for gyroplanes that would need a headwind to achieve VTOL!). I think it is established convention to name sub-cats similar to the parent cat, for instance Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the United States and Category:Defunct aircraft manufacturers of the United States which works fairly well (many articles are tagged with both, I take the first one to mean current manufacturers as opposed to defunct ones!). Could bring it up at WT:AIR but most folk don't seem to care much about the categories and debate their usefulness. They are a useful editing tool for me at the very least, I have created about 40 categories and I think they were all needed. Deleting and renaming categories is a difficult process, I have to take care to get the name right first time otherwise it is a pain to correct it. 'Hot cat' of course does not leave a rationale, in cases where it could be questioned I do it manually and leave an edit summary. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. And yeah, categories are a royal pain in the you-know-where! Not sure if you saw the discussion at WT:AIR several months ago (before I burned out over the summer) that led to Category:Jet aircraft being cleaned out among other discussion? I came up with This and it seemed to be generally agreed upon (although now upon reflection Category:Pusher aircraft might still be useful). Category:Tiltjets and Category:Tiltrotors might be best left as such instead of adding 'VTOL', since they technically fall under Category:Aircraft configurations as well as Category:VTOL aircraft - and the Dornier Do 29, a tiltrotor, certainly isn't VTOL!

Anyway, it's good to see I'm not the only one who cares about aircats here. :-) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll get there eventually! There are a couple more that should join the hidden ones, 'propeller driven' and 'single engined' are ones that I've seen recently. Yep, some of those tilty things struggled to fly at all! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about photos

Hello,

Sorry to bother you; you've answer questions before so I thought I'd ask. Most of the photos I've uploaded have now been deleted. They were beautiful photos of the Flex Wing and XV-5A. I also have several of the Ryan Vertiplane and X-13. But this guy Martin H. is deleting them. The issue has to do with "source" and "author" and licensing. I have these physical photos from the '50s and early '60s that say NASA on the back, but they're now in "my own collection," and I don't know who the "author" was (as in the actual photographer's name), but the physical photos say NASA on the back. So I filled out the media description with that information. Apparently it caused a problem and they were deleted. What can I do if a guy just deletes my photos? Anything? Should I just say the source is NASA, the author is NASA, and the licensing is PD-USGov-NASA? If you have the time, you can look at my talk page to see what is going on.

Thanks, Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.90.198 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I'm not an image expert, have a read of Wikipedia:Image use policy and see if there is a way forward. As NASA images then they would be US Gov public domain, the problem would be proving the source even though they might be officially stamped on the back and is most likely why they were deleted. Are they available from the NASA site itself or somewhere else? Could also try User:MilborneOne, an admin who is more au fait with image licensing than me. Your IP talk page is blank and the other talk page (DHeverett?) has only a welcome template on it, I'm assuming that it is you not signed in. Hope that helped a bit, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BE 548

I've got hold of a copy of Air Disaster Vol. 1 (Job, Macarthur), and it contains two images of the crash site of Flight 548. It might be possible for me to scan one in and upload it under a fair use license. Please let me know if you're interested. Regards, Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 08:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

They've been scanned in before and deleted but you're welcome to give it a go. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 19:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For creating French engine articles of superior quality, including Le Rhône 9J, above and beyond the call of duty. Heck I can't even find anything to correct on them! - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure you can! Hey thanks, the wings will help me up the stairs to rest my poor eyes!!! Much appreciated as always, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well as I always say "credit where due!" - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting more gongs than a Russian general - ever though about making (say) silver castings of the Wikiwings etc and sewing them onto a jacket? ;) Minorhistorian (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got two real ones you know!! I met a Russian general once, he had a very big hat! I am struggling though to find new and imaginative ways of describing nine-cylinder rotary engines without plagiarising myself! Can't help feeling that my time would be better spent doing something more constructive such as attending enlightening AfD debates, then again, maybe not! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh some AfD debates are very enlightening! You can learn lots just reading the proceedings. - Ahunt (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nine cylinder rotary engine? How about Novem cylindrus rotatus ingenium? Εννηά κύλινδρος ῤὸτάῤὺ ενγινε?

While I was doing this, BTW I came across this Goebel Rotary Engine NACA report

DYK for Hawker Siddeley HS.141

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Fender_Precision_Bass_1981_1.jpg

Hi, this image is used in an article currently up for featured article assessment, can you annotate the file as to which country the image was taken in, to clear up any c:Freedom_of_panorama issues. Fasach Nua (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant this policy? Annotated accordingly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Italicas and Luftwaffe

Gary, I'm not going to edit war with you over this issue, but per [[WP:ITALICS}}: "Loanwords or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e.—do not require italicization." Why woulnd't "Luftwaffe" qualify under this guideline? Anyway, I'll check with someone from MILHIST on this, as I'm sure it's been discussed there before. Also, I made several other edits/changes to the article, which your revert undid. I'm really trying to limit my time on WP this week, so would you mind restoring those changes for me? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at WT:MILHIST#Use of italics for Luftwafee, etc.. You're welcome to comment, as always. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Rest assured that I was working very hard on that article (as you might have seen) and would have done a top to bottom run through at the end, possibly even promoting it a notch or two. As for italics you need to change that format in hundreds of aircraft articles i.e. a long established precedent has been set. You did not mention your visit to my sandbox for the G.91Y, I know it was in good faith but I prefer to work at my own pace and verify facts as I build an article, I have a train of thought and yours will be different. I would not personally invite myself into a user space sandbox. I do post on user talk pages asking for categories to be nulled as they show in live categories, you have many sandbox pages like this but I am too polite to ask. I will post a note on my user page as it seemed to be unclear. I am afraid that I am getting an overriding impression of nitpicking from yourself despite my research, time spent and original ideas put forward, apart from continually following or latching on to something that is in progress by me. I know that this is a problem with wiki editing but I can tell you that my enthusiasm is being continually dented and one day I will go back to doing many more constructive things in the real world. I expect the aircraft project would not miss me and the effect would be akin to taking my hand out of a bucket of water i.e. no one is indispensable, I always remember that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for disrupting on the sandbaox - that won't happen again. We'll see how the MILHIST post turns out, as there are mant mant articles that do not italicize "Luftwaffe", including in many places in that article itself. As to not being missed: I dsagree. I know we've had some sharp disagreements in the past, but I do value your contributions. The Aeroengine task force alsomst dies during your previous hiatus, and your return revitilized it. That's my sincere opinion. The G.91 sandbox excepted, I do not follow you around - I have over 10,000 articles on my watchlist, and I do add most of the new article posted to WP:AIRNEW, including yours. As to "nitpicking", that too is part of of the collaborative process on WP - I know it can be annoying, but unless someone has added a {{inuse}} tag for a short duration, that's completely allowable, and to be expected. Bzuk's "nitpicky" edits often annoy me in the same way, but I have to bear with it also! SOrry again for the personal intrusion into your userspace - it won't happen on purpose again. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

We could use your input at the Roger Waters FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Saab aircraft

Gary, I've updated Template:Saab aircraft to list names in a separate section, and to list only model numbers in the military and civil sections, as done on some other manufacuturer templates. Ater I had made the improvements, I noticed you had created the template. As such, I wanted to let you know what I had done. If you have any comments on the changes, they are welcome at the template's talk page. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Junkers Jumo 222

Hi,

First of all this is my first try at talk page in wikipedia so sorry in advance for any mistakes i'll make.

I am interested in jumo 222 aircraft engines.

In the first paragraph of design and development page

"The engine consisted of six engine cylinder banks with four cylinders each, arranged around the central crankshaft. The engine looked like a radial due to the arrangement, but the internal workings were more like a V engine with crossflow heads, and it was liquid cooled like most inlines."

Is there a master rod to link each cylinder to crankshaft like normal radial engines? As far as i know for smooth running radial engines have odd number of cylinders. So this is the part i didn't understand. Is there any more info about internal arrangements of this engine?

Best regards,

Kayhann (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. It's a very interesting engine isn't it? A sectioned view or diagram would be useful to understand how it works but this is what the Jane's reference says on the conrods: Split master rod and five articulated rods in each of the four banks of cylinders. By 'banks' I think they mean rows, they describe the engine as a radial. Your guess is right. There are some radial engines with even numbers of cylinders. I've edited articles here on them but I can't remember which ones they were now!! Hope that helps. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. This clarified the situation. I think the engine is more like a 4 row radial with 6 cylinders in each row. And also have 6 banks when looking from forward and each bank has intake and exhaust ports like a V engine.

Kayhann (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ath Bhliain Faoi Mhaise: Kia Hari Te Tau Hou: Happy New Year.

Happy New Year From The Southern Hemisphere Where it is Mid-Summer... All the best for 2011 Minorhistorian (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, must format this section, bit of a mess! Happy New Year!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)