Talk:Bell 533/2007 draft talk

message: I'm led to believe that the second contract predates the "Early in 1968," reference that the Vertiflite article by Robb gives it. I'm continuing to look for a source for the actual contract date. In the meantime, I am considering whether to continue with the current section naming. --Born2flie (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the Bell report. I just don't feel like paying $14 for it right now. --Born2flie (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * I've asked to borrow the HPH phase 1 and 2 summary reports from the company library.  Maybe I can get them scanned. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be cool. Let me know if you're able to accomplish that. --Born2flie (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * I got those reports today.  The part 2 one has some b&w pictures of the 533 that I can scan.  They are DoD reports and I'll check the release markings.  We should be able to use them as US-PD. -Fnlayson 05:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Images (black & white) added to sandbox article.  I have another one showing the engines and pylons that I didn't upload. -Fnlayson 01:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * I scanned the reports.  They are total 70 Mb in size. :(  Also, they cover through mid-1964 (193 knots flight). -Fnlayson 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch! 70MB? The pictures are great though! The source is verifiable, I just don't know that it meets the accessibility requirement of WP:VERIFY. Does it corroborate the information we have in the article, so far? --Born2flie 09:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Scanning non-pristine hard copies can do that.  They reports appear to match what we have so far.  Still looking at them.  The reports can be ordered like books can (from ntis.gov).   -Fnlayson 15:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1968 contract? 

message: Thoughts on this draft? Anything needed to be cited, changes made prior to recommending insertion into the mainspace article? --Born2flie (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look through the edit history, you will see that I purposely named it Operational history because the Operational history of this aircraft is the testing and modification it underwent as a research aircraft. There was no Development to get it to an operational status. My take on it. --Born2flie (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * The changes made during testing seemed like developmental things to me.  But they are minor.  Doesn't matter much to me.  So will this replace the Development section in the main Bell 533 article or maybe add to it some way? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just how research aircraft are operated. Changes are made, they are never intended to become operational later in a specific configuration, they are "operational" even during the changes. The modifications are purposely done to gain data on the modifications. As for the mainspace article, I wrote this sandbox version with the intent of replacing the Development section. Since it would be a lot of editing, I decided to do it where it might not cause a lot of fuss, and I could get to finishing it when I got to finishing it. --Born2flie (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on Bzuk's and BillCJ's comments, I think that is all we're holding up for. --Born2flie (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and put it out into the wild. I'll keep looking for references. Jeff, thanks for your help! Bill (Bzuk) and Bill (BillCJ), thanks for your review and comments! On to the next one...whichever one that turns out to be. --Born2flie 09:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go live? 

message: Hi. Do you think this image reported as "Photos from the Army Aviation Museum Archieves" is eligible for loading on wikipedia due to its  status ? Let me know. --EH101 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The foundation funds the website. The museum is owned and operated by the United States Army in general, and Fort Rucker and the U.S. Army Aviation Warfighter Center in particular. It is still possible for the museum to have exhibits and materials that are on loan from individuals. An email should be able to verify if the image is PD. --Born2flie (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK.  Thanks for explaining that.  I couldn't get much from their web site. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I'm thinking using the Aviastar page as a reference in multiple places.  But their pages look like they copied text by the Book titles below each part.  Maybe they rewrote the text.  I need to find an entry from a book I have and check that. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, using the attributed author. To do that, I look up the book title at www.worldcat.org and then click on the book and author that match, then click on "Cite this item", and paste that into the article and format it for . You can join Alan, Bill and myself discussing this site on Alan's talk page. --Born2flie (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Looks like a good system.  I've been looking books up on Amazon. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing