User talk:Fnlayson/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive page 1

1 747 Table
2 777-300ER
3 787
4 747-8 Speed
5 Hughes Helicopters
6 Inlet geometry
7 C-5/C-9

[edit] 747 Table

Hi how are you? On the table I created at Boeing 747, I intentionaly left the first 2 years before deliveries at zero to give a clear picture of when the fisrt plane was delivered to a customer. Had I started with 1969, it might make it seem like some deliveries might have been missed. But I started with 1967 and 1968 at zero to show a marked begining of 747s in service. If you dont mind I like to put it back to Zero. --Bangabalunga 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm good. Sure, change that back. That makes sense. It looked like maybe the deliveries started 2 years behind schedule. -Fnlayson 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Went ahead and changed the 1967 number back to 0. -Fnlayson 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 777-300ER

thanks!--Bangabalunga 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

People always make this range mistake. Another guy asked me why a 777F has more fuel than 777-200ER yet has 5,000 km less range? It took a while for him to get it.

Sure. If you can improve the wording there more, please do so. -Fnlayson 23:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 787

How is it going? On Boeing 787 there are 8 different aircrafts in the specs. I believe we should remove all of them. Have a nice 3 table specification chart on the 787-3 787-8 787-9 and thats it. We can even bring the 3-way cross section of the 787 right next to this spec chart. I believe articles need to be stand alone and comparing it to everything diminishes this. Why not add Ilyushin il-96 here too then? Or many other aircaft. The 787 article is very very poorly done. Its not an encyclopedic entry. Its simply a collection of newsbits. It has become a forum to bash the A350 or even the A380. As soon as a story comes out, somebody writes a paragraph there. I have been doing some updates and I want to know if you agree about making the article more about the 787 and less about other planes. --Bangabalunga 23:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, going OK here. I can see both sides on the comparison chart. 2 planes (one smaller and one larger) for comparson is enough. It'd be OK to remove non-787 planes since other airliner articles don't have them. The fact this is a new plane helps causes lower quality in the article, I think. People spend more time just adding info than cleaning it up and all. I'll keep an eye on it and do what I can. Take it easy Bangabalunga. -Fnlayson 23:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 747-8 Speed

You are correct! It was .85 and .845 on Boeing last week. I dont know when they changed it. I know that wind tunnel testing has not gone well and the 747-8 will have more drag than 747-400 but I guess in order to have bragging rights against the A380, they must be faster. I am sure airlines will still cruise at 0.845 though in the Intercontinental just to be efficient. Take care --Bangabalunga 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The 747 has had a cruise speed of Mach 0.85 for some time. Don't think there's not that much a difference there. Good catch on the upper deck 3/10 windows thing. I was confused before. -Fnlayson 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hughes Helicopters

Some user slapped a {notability} tag on the Hughes Helicopters article. I removed it (to get his attention, as some people don't read the talk pages), and posted comments on the talk page also. I don't know what his problem with the page is, but it might be that it's unsourced. He just put the unreferenced tag up today, so it's not like noone won't know that's a problem. Can you take a look, and see what you think? Thanks. - BillCJ 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. -Fnlayson 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inlet geometry

On F/A-18 Hornet, you added the F-16 as having variable inlet geometry. I always understood that it was fixed on the F-16, and I can have several printed sources on that. Has that been changed on later F-16s? - BillCJ 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted a change where the F-4 replaced the F-16 in this sentence: The engine air intake of the Hornet is notable among its contemporaries for being "fixed", unlike the F-14, F-15, and F-16 which have variable geometry or variable ramp engine air intakes.. The F-4 is from an earlier era. Please correct that if needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson 05:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I didn't check the earlier history. I just wanted to ask first to find out why it there in case you had a reason, and now I know. I'll take it out. THanks. - BillCJ 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C-5/C-9

I should have explained, sorry. The usual practice is 3 designations per side - 2/3/4/5/6/7/8. The C-9 made 4 after. I'm not trying to be nit-picky, but I couldn't see an obvious reason for it to be there. Sometimes if a number is first or last in a sequence, I may put more to extend it a bit, or if there is some historical reason to show it. There are some unique cases, such as the sequence in the F-35 Lightning article. If you know of a reason in this case, I'd have know problem with it being there. - BillCJ 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)