User talk:MilborneOne

Aussie BBJs

Thanks for the edit summary on RAAF BBJs. When IPs add info, one never knows what they are thinking, and I find it best to revert and ask for clarification. I did think the RAAF may have had some 737s other than the ordered Wedgetails, but didn't have a source on it. Thanks for the clarification. - BillCJ 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

More missing requests

Hi again MilborneOne - care to take care of the BAT Baboon and BAT F.K.26? --Rlandmann 08:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. MilborneOne 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --Rlandmann 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) and for the missing Bells too! And of course, always feel free to redirect entries like these --Rlandmann 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some early Blackburns coming up soon, if you're interested? --Rlandmann 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culver

Oops! FCA is indeed a typo for LCA. Cheers --Rlandmann 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and references

Your work on adding infoboxes in airline articles is good stuff, but is it possible to add references/sources for the IATA and ICAO Codes and Callsign. See eg AVE.com - originally the ICAO Code was referenced, but when it appeared in the infobox the ref was gone and the callsign has no ref either.
I noticed also that in other airline articles you had been marking some codes "not current" (without a ref), even where there is already a ref for the code in the article. Quoting the source would be helpful. Thanks Ardfern 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Innovator

In conversion cases, I'm usually guided by "is there something interesting we can say about the type beyond simply recording its existence"? In this case there's this article online that gives us more than enough information I think! And no hard feelings about the P-16, but you might want to drop User:Colputt a note. --Rlandmann 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berliner-Joyce P-16/PB-1

So many aircraft, so little time. I don't mind at all that you "butted in" one less thing on my To-Do list.--Colputt 21:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle America

Milborne, is there anyone who can umpire between us on this issue? Paul in Saudi

Thank you, Milborne. I will abide by whatever the third party decides. In fact you might want to drop me a line and let me know. I am on vacation and not monitoring the net as I usually do. Also, the Youtbe source I posted might be worth your time. I swear, those darn video camera phoes are everywhere. Paul in Saudi

Dabpages

Hi there, when you add an entry to a disambiguation page keep in mind the manual of style for dabpages: WP:MOSDAB. So instead of:

CAA is the ICAO airline designator for Atlantic Southeast Airlines, United States

I would suggest:

Atlantic Southeast Airlines, ICAO airline designator

Thanks/wangi 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virign Call sign

Please post your views here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virgin_Blue#Callsigns

Cosolidated O-17

When I "adjusted" the citations in the Variants section, I just assumed that those two that I didn't have references for were the ones you cited with the other reference. Please fix it, if I assumed too much. --Colputt 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Early Cessnas

Thanks very much! Every one counts :) As you can see, the main aim is to expand the breadth of coverage for now; depth can come later (yeah, I'm an eventualist!). Almost every entry in Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation is what we'd classify as a stub. By the time we match its breadth, we'll automatically have surpassed its depth and at that point, Wikipedia will become the most comprehensive encyclopedia of aircraft ever published (to the best of my knowledge). --Rlandmann 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Av8air-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Av8air-logo.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deserved

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one Pseudoanonymous 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Air

Hi. Given that you have added airline stub articles such as Eagle Air (Tanzania), I thought you might wish to weigh in to the discussion on a Pegasus Air article I recently added, which has come under attack as non-notable etc etc. Despite my stub arguments, a group of people are attacking it and it does not bode well for stub articles such as yours. Any help (or that of Wiki Aviation group) would be appreciated. Ardfern 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Pop Culture

Greetings, I am curious for your reasoning for deletion of the Popular Culture section of the CH-47 Chinook. Apparently before you voted to keep a separate article on the topic of Helicopters in Popular Culture. Since the information was not notable enough for a separate article I have returned it to some of the helicopter articles themselves. Just curious of your thoughts... Thanks, --Trashbag 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Helicopters in Popular Culture was a magnet for trivia to keep it out of the articles as it was a loosing battle by some members of the aircraft project to keep it out of the aircraft article. I believe that nearly all of the entries are not notable and not really relevant to the aircraft article. Just my opinion happy to take it to the talk page. MilborneOne 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft per your request. --Trashbag 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CallAir

Most references seem to use "CallAir", so I'd suggest that we use as well until and unless some primary source contradicts it. --Rlandmann 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other little tip about US engine designations - the letter generally tells you what type of engine it is: the R-985 was a Radial, the V-1650 was a Vee, the L-365 was inLine, and the O-360 is horizontally Opposed. These can sometimes be modified with extra letters affixed, so T for Turbocharged (confusingly, TS for Continental engines), I for fuel Injection, G for Geared, and S for Supercharged. The number generally indicates the displacement in cubic inches. So the Lycoming O-360 is a horizontally Opposed engine with a displacement of 360 cu in. The fuel injected version is the IO-360. A version with fuel injection and turbocharging becomes the TIO-360, etc. This might come in handy for working out redirects; the Wikipedia article should be under the base model of the engine. Hope this helps! --Rlandmann 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan XV-8 and Paresev

Re: Maximum speed. Originally I quoted max. speed: 105 Km/h = 65 mph. Thank you for bringing this stub up to required standards. While we are at it, could you please check out this experimental glider aircraft page: Paresev, for appropriate formatting consistency, classification, etc. Thank you! BatteryIncluded 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gloster Meteor

BUT the world war two allies broke up as a unit in 1945, with the end of the war - the numerically most important ally (the U.S.S.R.) in fact soon became the main "cold war" enemy of the others. So "the allies" in this context really needs something firmly linking it to WW2. It would be different if "the allies" referred to a grouping of nations that had remained more or less unchanged for many years before and after the war.Soundofmusicals 06:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand your point about Allies - have no problem with your latest change. MilborneOne 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If only all differences were so simple! Soundofmusicals 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways plc

In regards to British Airways, British Airways Plc, and parent companies, you may want to take a look at this. Cheers --Russavia 11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

UK built Airplanes

I am sorry but i dont see your point. Are Toyotas or BMWs built in US Plants american cars?. - basilicum 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about BMW but Toyota does much of it's design work in California66.155.195.2 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didnt reply to this message at the time as I have only just noticed it at the top of the page, normally expect new messages at the bottom.MilborneOne 11:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GR4/GR.4

Hi. I totally agree with your edit. Thing is - I was about to revert it, but then noticed all the other instances are GR.4. Given the operator (RAF) and manufacturer (BAE) describe it as "GR4" - do you not think we should change them all to GR4?

As for the other (e.g. GR.1) I think they should stay as is, because I remember reading around 2002 that the RAF converted their aircraft codes from GR.4 > GR4 for some technical reason. Any thoughts? Mark83 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't claim any expertise on the issue. It's just I remember reading in Air Forces Monthly that the RAF had adopted 'non full stopped' codes because computers handled the codes better that way. My memory is 100% correct about it, but I'm a bit unsure about the story myself. Why would a full stop give a modern computer a problem? And further, why would it even be an issue if it wasn't an official designation? Anyway, you think convert everything? e.g. GR.1 > GR1? Mark83 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I have explained at Talk:Panavia Tornado. Mark83 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concorde

FWIW the bit you just tagged is IMO probably true- or at least it wouldn't surprise me in any way whatsoever. At one point after a market survey BA doubled or tripled the cost of fares, and they went from making a slight loss, to making a profit, although significantly they refused to discuss how much; and they had also taken steps to reduce their costs. The implication is that they were making almost 200% profit on each flight. Normal profit margins are 10-50%. 200% would be essentially extortion, and very probably BA wouldn't want their customers to know this, even after the fact, for legal reasons.WolfKeeper 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

BA Connect

Hi, Ref your removal of the aviotech paragraph from the Ba connect entry. I disagree when you say its not relevant to Ba connect. Aviotech IOM was set up by 4 ex BA Connect managers and employs 20 ex BA Connect staff. It is the only company set up from the remains of BA connect following Flybes complete shutdown of BA connect (ex pilots/cc). This is not only relevant but also important information to be in the Ba connect history section. Can you or I please reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Av2007 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nmi --> NM edits

Hi. I just wanted to say that I think you are correct in making these edits. I have started to do the same myself. You may want to add something to the discussion on the B2 Spirit talk page. Thunderbird2 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tailless aircraft

Hi, before this gets out of hand.... The quickest way to see what I mean is to google things like "Concorde tailless delta", "Douglas Skyray tailless delta" and so forth. You will soon find loads of references, which should clarify the technical meaning of "tailless" for you. Otherwise I guess I will have to dig out some books and quote them. -- Steelpillow 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on your talkpage. MilborneOne 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, thanks. Have added my two penn'orth to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft -- Steelpillow 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Family Guy

Hi- you recently repeatedly removed my addition to the British Airways Media section about the BA Jet in family Guy. Family guy is not 'non-notable' and is a very popular comedy series worldwide. As this is an item of 'Media' which chose to show a British Airways jet, (albeit it is a drawn aeroplane), it is therefore worthy of being in the British Airways 'Media' Section (There are 5 Movies listed where a British Airways Jet has appeared).

I shall be adding the picture and text again, and if you have any problem with my reasoning, please alert an administrator. Robin.