Template talk:Aircraft specifications

message: The most common usage for specifying the "alt" parameters of this template is to specify the same parameter as main in a different unit. Not infrequently, the unit conversion for the parameter is incorrect.  Example 850 km/h is approx 530 mph, but one aircraft page had:
|max speed main= 850 km/h
|max speed alt= 600 mph
A better option would be to remove the "main" and "alt" versions of the same parameter, keep just one and use Template:convert, which will automatically yield the same result and avoid good-faith mistakes:
|max speed = 
 This will keep good-faith authors from shooting themselves in the foot.User:skcpublic (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Amen", see Template talk:Aircraft specifications#Use of template:convert below. Peter Horn User talk 01:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Try
|max speed main= 850 km/h
|max speed alt ()= 
This will give Max speed 850 km/h ()
Peter Horn User talk 18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "alt" parameters in template should be removed 

message: When a user selects the rotor switch while filling in the specifications, any alternate use of the propeller descriptions and dimensions should either be disabled, since the rotors are the wings of the helicopter, or partially allowed with a rotor heading rather than the current propeller heading. --Born2flie (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example of what it does at the moment that it shouldn't do, so we can see the problem. If we do alter it, will there be any effect when the aircraft has both rotor and propeller (as in some gyrodynes)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotor switch 

message: On Ford Trimotor page, max takeoff weight alt appears as "(6,120 kg" without closing bracket. I can't see whether the error is in the template or in Trimotor page ")" should be added. --Мирослав Ћика (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that entry, lines had been added, breaking the template in that article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Мирослав Ћика (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Trimotor max takeoff weight 

message: Why not use template:convert instead of
 
| length main  = 4.5 m 
| length alt ()   = 14.6 ft
 
Eg 
| length =  
| length =  if source gives imperial.
Peter Horn User talk 01:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly , this template does not have a warning message about its widespread use and unintended consequences. Perhaps that could be done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What is to be gained are accurate conversions either from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric, according to what is given in the quoted source. Manual conversions tend to be either inaccurate, or perhaps, sloppy. See  comments above. Whether it be an airplane, helicopter, locomotive, rail car or anything else, reasonably accurate conversions should be the order of the day. In my time with Wiki I have come across enough sloppy manual conversions that I tend not to trust them. Peter Horn User talk 14:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot, the conversion data in the above samples were drawn from KAI KUH-1 Surion#Specifications and I have since posted a remark at Talk:KAI KUH-1 Surion#Conversion. I have also tweeked the above samples. Do I need to sy more about sloppy conversions?
*  or 
*  or  
*  or  /   Peter Horn User talk 15:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Eureka, use "|disp=output only""
| length main  = 4.5 m 
| length alt ()   = 
The visual result is 
* 4.5 m ()
Peter Horn User talk 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some data may be manual conversion but some may be taken from the cited source or from using the convert template in preview and then copy/pasting the output. I don't think all the current data can be considered suspect just because it isn't using a convert template - but my apologies if I have mistaken your comments. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Most sources, but not all, give the original data, be it airplanes or locomotives or any thing else, either in metric only or in imperial only. Whether the original data be in metric or in imperial it is the Wiki contributor who gives (makes) the conversion. If template:convert is used, the conversion would generally tend to be accurate. But when the conversion(s) is (are) done manually...it is then when "the fun and games" begin. Of course it may be on occasion that the source gives a conversion which is way off the mark. Whatever the case my be, 4.5 m = 15.8 ft, not 15.6 ft, the latter apparently being the manual conversion. Again, see comments above. Using the convert template in preview and then copy/pasting the output would only be done by contributors who are not familiar with "|disp=ouput only". I used to be one of those. Peter Horn User talk 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One issue to consider is that it can't be assumed that the value in brackets is the output figure. It could be the case that the editor worked from a metric text back to feet and inches to match the "cultural" convention that stuff built in imperial units is given in imperial units. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave alone and if we have a problem then change to Template:Aircraft specs, messing about with what should be a depreacted template will probably break all the articles currently in use. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MB1, this template is out of date and has been superceded, but is in use in many articles and the sort of changes you are proposing here are likely to break a lot of articles. If this template doesn't do what you want in any given article then replace it with :Template:Aircraft specs in that article instead. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

text: IMHO template in it's description should always use convert template for every example to actively discourage people from doing manual conversions and make sure that everything is done properly. Convert was created for a reason and I don't see why this template should give an improper examples extending the problem we have (with people manually messing with values and recalculations between the systems) only further and further as time goes by. SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of  [[template:convert]] 

message: In Aero Spacelines Super Guppy the "loading *" parameter displays as "wing loading" - Could it display as "max wing loading" ie wing loading at max takeoff weight ?
Also it might be useful to add "max fuel load" and/or say if 'useful load' = max (payload + fuel load) ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loading / max wing loading 

message: This name of this parameter listed under Aircraft specifications - General characteristics should be changed to either "typical mission weight" or "notional mission weight" as the current name is aeronautically incorrect and makes no sense logically. The definition for this parameter states that it is: "The weight of the aircraft when loaded for a 'typical' mission. This statistic is cited for almost any aircraft, but it is relatively arbitrary, so only use statistics given in sources." [Italics mine.] Many wiki aircraft articles posit this stat (however, most without any reference citaion for it), but even when cited, upon checking numerous sources cited (even in the few instances where they are) the stat is usually not present in the source, or is clearly stated to be a "typical" mission weight. This "stat" is confusing and so highly subjective as to be practically meaningless and useless 
There are several problems evident here. The first problem is that the term "loaded weight" is not a commonly accepted or standardized aircraft parameter. It is defined on the template page as "relatively arbitrary", and it only has any real use for pilots, weapons systems officers, flight engineers, loadmasters, logistics and operations planners, transportation and air support coordinators, embarkation and weapons loading specialists, et al. In other words, highly trained and skilled specialists with access to aircraft operating manuals and performance charts, airfield information, and meteorlogical data, etc., who must use this information to plan, coordinate, and effect complex aviation missions. It is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of general information readers to have presented to them "empty weight/basic operating weight", "maximum fuel capacity/load", "maximum cargo/payload"' and "maximum gross takeoff weight". When it comes to aircraft weight specs, the average aviation "lay reader" is perhaps primarily interested in how much weight (cargo or weapons)  lifting and total fuel capacity (quantity and weight) the aircraft possess. With the other weights provided these questions are answered.
Even to present a parameter named "typical" or "mission" weight is highly subjective as this "relatively arbitrary" parameter is dependent upon many, many factors. Among these factors are the purpose or objective of the mission, which will inform as to the number (and possibly type) of crewmembers, type and quantity of weapons or other special mission equipment and/or weight of cargo and/or number of troops/paratroops/liter casualties/passengers to be transported, required distance and altitude to be flown and/or endurance required. Then there are the many physical and environmental factors involved such as runway weight limits, takeoff and landing runway elevation, runway lengths, runway (and sometimes even taxiway and ramp/apron weight limits), ambient temperature, dew point/humidity and field elevation barometric pressure (density altitude), surface winds and crosswind components that limit the aircraft's performance.
This is a little too much "inside baseball" for non-aviation professionals, and for those who need and use this information wikipedia would not be a source for their data. Can someone either amend the template to either change "loaded weight" to "typical" or "notional" "mission weight" or perhaps better, just delete this widely variable and highly subjective "statistic" from the template. Thanks for your consideration. CobraDragoon (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded Weight 

message: The Performance section header is shown even if empty, see Tupolev Tu-95LAL.217.248.3.162 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bug, you just have to select perhide=Y and it will not display. - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug: Performance 

message: This template appears to be causing directly a number of the errors in this category.
Is there a person willing to troubleshoot? :D --Izno (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of faulty pages would be useful, that category won't load for me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And is it possible fault lies in ::something called by the template ie lies further upstream? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Upstream, possible. I haven't investigated. Some pages for you: Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Junkers Ju 87, Messerschmitt Me 262, Lockheed P-38 Lightning. --Izno (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  could be the  tags.  I don't know why we need them since there are no  tags. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text:  okay, this probably fixed it, but I still think we can figure out a way to get rid of the  tags. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: One of those /uls isn't needed anyway. The code literally reads: "If this, end the list. End the list." There's a similar case at the bottom of the template. Probably all that's needed is a return character or two. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , agreed.  I removed/replaced them and checked Lockheed C-130 Hercules, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, and Boeing B-29 Superfortress before and after.  I found no visible changes to the output.  if anyone spots any unintended side effects, we can make changes as necessary. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting]] 

message: I know that very few ornithopters (aircraft that use flapping-wing flight) exist—including only one that has successfully flown under their original intended power source—but there doesn't seem to be any specifications unique for them. Do you think that these should be included? I'm no expert in ornithopter design, but figures like maximum wing flex angle in each axis, maximum wing angle of attack, and wing flap frequency (analogous to RPM in fixed-wing or rotor aircraft) could be useful. If anyone out there has worked on ornithopters (ornithopter UAVs seem more prevalent, probably due to the practical size limitations of flapping-wing flight) and knows what specifications are cited, please come out of the shadows. Grant Exploit (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ornithopters may be one case where it is better to create a hand-build list for the specs rather than a special template, just due to the varying data that is available on each design, few as they are. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ornithopters 

message: For example (Fighting Falcon):
 fuel-usage = 5,290 pounds per hour 
 cruising-speed = 480 knots
 fuel-economy = 0.7 mpg
-Inowen (nlfte) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree this should be added to the template. We have sourced fuel economy information for very few aircraft and this will just encourage WP:OR. Furthermore fuel economy is not a normally reported or used parameter for aircraft. Airliners are sometimes measured by passenger-seat-MPG, but not flat out MPG. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Ahunt. If it's relevant and reliably sourced, it can be included in the body of the article. But of course, I support linguistic imperialism and kiting (whatever the crap those mean!). - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add fuel-economy 

message: The current link Stall speed: is out of date, since the Stall article title and the Stall speed section title have both changed. To fix that, and prevent any future similar issues, the link should simply be Stall speed:, i.e. it should more naturally take advantage of redirects per WP:NOPIPE.
I've made the change in the sandbox (but note that the last sandbox revision was badly out of date, so a diff on the last sandbox revision will not be very meaningful). --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 17 November 2018 

message: Currently the "maximum speed" or maxspeed parameter of the template is ambiguous.  There are a number of maximum speeds that an aircraft can have including never exceed speed, maximum cruise speed. For clarity it may be worthwhile for the maxspeed parameter to be labelled "Maximum Cruise Speed".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.135.241 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airspeed heading clarity 

message: I'm getting a strong wiff of "only created for the small group in the know" here. 
Please make it easier for regular wikipedians to use and modify these aircraft info templates. CapnZapp (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would mean that our ability to edit articles ourselves would be compromised, having to go through a gateway process (waiting for help; possibly getting our ideas shot down). It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make something as simple as an aircarft info box equally simple to edit. It is unacceptable to replace proper documentation (and easily usable templates in the first place) with a request to first go through other editors. This is not an instance of "technical competence is assumed" - it's just an infobox. CapnZapp (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I have got no idea what your issue is but as this template is depracated and not used for new articles anymore we dont really want to spend to much effort. If it has issues in an article then it should be replaced by Template:Aircraft specs which is the one currently maintained. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sure wasn't deprecated when I visited yesterday. Good riddance, I say. CapnZapp (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template REALLY needs an example<span id="this_REALLY_needs_an_example"></span> 

message: There's a discussion concerning the implementation of the merger of this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot --Trialpears (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: I've done around a thousand so far. Any feedback?--Petebutt (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: When the Armament header has to appear, this template generates stripped tag lint errors for . Over two edits, I moved a , which removed another lint error, but this is a bit difficult for me, so I'd ask the authors or other experts to work on this. Junkers EF 132 has 2 stripped  tags. BAE Systems Hawk has 1 stripped  tag. Heinkel He 274 has 2 stripped  tags. Heinkel He 277 has 1 stripped  tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  stripped &lt;/ul> tags