Talk:Ryan FR Fireball

message: I wonder if 'hybrid' would be a more accurate term, in lieu of 'composite'. LorenzoB (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Composite" is the term used in most sources I've seen. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Composite" is the correct term since the radial and the jet were separate engines. Salmonleap (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: This article does not explain how the aircraft used two different types of engines—which is the point of this aircraft it seems. Were they both always on? one on for takeoff one for cruising? Where is the jet engine located? 76.8.199.138 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! I'd not noticed that the info was not covered here. I'll try to add something from my sources in the next few weeks. The short answer is that the jet ws intended as a booster for take-off and combat, with the radial engine used at almost all times. The jet ingine was located in the rear, with inlets in the inner wing leading edges, and the exhaust in the tail. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually incorrect. Some of the big post-war bombers used jets as boosters, but in the case of the FR-1, you've got it completely backwards. The radial engine was the booster and the prop could be feathered once the plane was at speed. While the FR-1 needed the radial engine to get off a flight deck, it was designed to be able to fly with only the radial, only the jet, or both at the same time. Remember that jets in this era had a pretty low thrust compared to modern jets and therefore had less acceleration than you would think. This means that while they could go fast it took them a long time to "spool-up" to a high speed. That's also the reason the FR-1 was rendered obsolete so quickly. Bigger jet engines and the steam catapult meant that a radial prop engine was no longer needed to get a fighter off a flight deck. Source: B.T. Salmon (Ryan's chief designer at the time and the guy that designed the FR-1), in conversation, circa 1975. The original blueprints, a few of which which I have in my possession, indicate that the Ryan Model 30-3 (ie the FR-1) was designed for a single Westinghouse 24-C-4 jet engine, which I believe had a much lower performance than the later models of the engine noted on the Westinghouse_J34 page. Salmonleap (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: The article has vastly excessive cross-references, this is a little known plane and anyone interested in reading this page would have at least a moderate level of familiarity with such basic concepts as: squadron, aircraft carriers, carrier, prototype, fuselage, cockpit, rounds, wind tunnel, centre of gravity, catapault, drag, embarkation, decommissioned and spun. Presumably these were put there to secure the GA rating.Mztourist (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. There's a link on the side of your page that says random article. If a person randomly ends up here, or say, types fireball in and this link comes up, they might not know what fuselage means, or drag means in reference to a plane. Also, this is not an aircraft-oriented wiki. This is a general knowledge wiki. The articles are to be written for people with no inherent knowledge of the subject coming in. Llammakey (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I find it curious that you think that the links were only added to pass GA and that they are now superfluous since it has passed. Why is that? Experienced readers can simply ignore the links while novice readers can click on them to learn more, so what are they hurting? I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions about the possible readers of this article; you might want to check those. Because you know what they say about assumptions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're responding to Mztourist here Sturm cause I'm agreeing with you, but just for clarity purposes I'm gonna ping you here. Llammakey (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, I'll adjust my indents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one who isn't interested in aircraft is going to randomly turn up and read this article, anyone interested in aircraft would know what those terms mean.Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your fundamental point has already been refuted with the random article button pointed out by Llammakey and we don't cater to only knowledgeable people here, but to ordinary readers who might need to look things up. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to why you want to remove these links since knowledgeable readers can skip them entirely. Are you offended by the color blue?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We assume clue, but we do not assume knowledge in our userbase. We link terms that a reasonable member of the public would be interested in knowing more of, we do not say "anyone who would be reading this page is clearly an expert and therefore we don't link!". The argument that they were "added to secure the GA rating" is specious as even if they were, then they were clearly thought to be necessary... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Indeed, we do not assume foreknowledge. For example a reader might arrive at this article through an interest in the Ryan company's geographical home, the historical period, John S, McCain, the Browning machine gun, etc. etc. precisely because they want to find out more about the aeronautical side. Or, they may be a new aero enthusiast just starting out on the road to knowledge. We link the first instance of each such term and perhaps a few others, but we credit readers with enough intelligence that we do not need to link every occurrence of each term. For more, see WP:MOSLINK. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Moreover, I would not need links at all if I was an expert on the topic covered here. Actually, I would not read the article if that was the case. An encyclopedia is intended for divulgation and the purpose of links is precisely the connection between different articles.--Jetstreamer  14:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are entirely in accordance with WP:MOSLINK. Therefore they should stay. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are normal for a Wikipedia article and should be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive cross-references 

message: The fuel tanks would be well and truly empty long before service ceiling was reached, if the stated Rate of Climb is to be believed. I have no references to check, would someone with those to hand please correct the performance figures.Lexysexy (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that. It was a error introduced by the person who updated the specs template. He didn't notice the original specs said feet per sec, but the new template calls for feet per minute. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance