Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 7

message: You have made a major procedural error.  You have failed to throw out non-qualified voters.
That is significant, because we know that we have other contributors who would have voted, had they known that their vote would still have counted even though they did not meet the voting requirements. Some specifically told us so. So the whole vote is tainted.  
Note that I have specifically called this to your attention several times before.  I think theat the oting should have been open in the first place, since none of the criteria for limiting it were met.  But then, everybody should get that opportunity to vote, too.   Not just those who ignored the rules and voted anyway.  Gene Nygaard 10:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputed vote count.  I count rate of climb as 5 for m/min, 7 for m/s.  Gene Nygaard 11:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedural errors

message: #Note that for speed, the phrasing of the vote specified "(inclusion of km/h is assumed)"
#For range, the phrasing of the vote specified "(inclusion of km is assumed)"  Gene Nygaard 11:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other notes

message: *I vote "exclusively", and would even support extending this to transsonic aircraft (e.g. those aircraft capable of >=0.80 mach)-Lommer | talk 21:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give speed for supersonic aircraft in [[Mach number]]s (Mach) 

message: In my aircraft systems class the other day the instructor was discussing radial engines, and mentioned that they were more susceptible to damage / failure upon losing a cylinder than inline or vee types. This goes against everything I'd heard up to this point, and he had just claimed that the F4U Corsair was water-cooled, so I'm more than a bit skeptical. I'd like to expand our article here one way or the other—there's not much there now on use & reliability in combat, that sort of thing—so if anyone has more info or even anecdotes, I'd be grateful. -ericg ✈ 21:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was consistent with yours. I thought that radial engines were more resiliant to the loss of one cylinder (due to plug fouling or whatever) than normal engines, if only because they generally have more cylinders to begin with. IIRC, In the heydey of radial engines, 22-cylinder engines were not uncommon. OTOH, I know that radial engines require a heck of a lot more maintenance than V- or straight-block engines. They suck back oil and gas like you wouldn't believe, and they usually have fairly complex vibrational modes that cause wear. -Lommer | talk 22:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a quick question 

message: :Suggestion Empty weight: )
:User types
|empty weight=25,000 lb (11,000 kg)
:Rich Farmbrough 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting sggestion, and it simplifies things a bit, but eliminates the ability to switch the order.  I'll talk to Eric about it, and see what he thinks.  Ingoolemo talk 01:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It limits later reformatting - if, for example, we again discuss the inline vs table specs and decide on tables, we could use the two-field template to create a table. This would be impossible with them on one line. And, as Ingoolemo says, we would be unable to switch the order, something that needs to happen more often than you might think. -ericg ✈ 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought of that, and it's absolutely correct.  It definitely swings me from wishy-washy to firm 'no'.  Ingoolemo talk 04:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to support Eric's point about order. There are plenty of official specifications where some source values are metric (e.g. length) and some are non-metric (e.g. speed). It is important to know which unit is the source value and which unit is the converted value. There are different ways in which this can be done, e.g. source first, source above, source outside parentheses, source bold, source larger etc.  Unfortunately some formats on Wikipedia have a two column (metric, non-metric) layout that is visually tidy but does fails to distinguish between source and converted values. I support tidy layouts but some method of identification of the source value for each dimension is generally a higher priority for me. Bobblewik 17:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion