This page is an archive for old talk relating to WikiProject Aircraft. New questions, comments, and discussions should be directed to the project's talk page. |
Pre March 04 discussion
How about adopting a standard data table for aircraft? Something like the one currently on the Messerschmitt Me 163 page? -- Rlandmann 04:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just as side-note on the units bit- in addtion to imperial and metric, some standarization of which units are used. I know I'v come across knots in a lot of places for speeed specifcations of aircraft, and since most airplane speed gauges use knots anyway it might be worth including. That would entail three colums for the speed and im not sure this is best incorporated.
Also, to be totally correct, kilogram is unit of mass not weight and the eqivelent to it is not pounds (it is slugs). Certianly as a practical matter using kilograms and pounds is preferable but I hate for the encycolopedia to perpetuate this common misconception.
A better distinction between the different tonnes that exist is needed, although this may have been previously resolved. Also, for maximum speed distinctions should be made for which altitude this is possible, and the way in which mach numbers listed probably needs to be decided as well.
As far as tables for different pages and varaints is the standard going to be to give varaints there own tables (and even pages), or use a combined graphs that list information for different planes next to eachother. Anyway I found this table one one site that I though was very good: [link here].
Perhaps we can have two tables for a given aircraft, one in the article like the current one with limited unit and baic information, and then a larger table on a separate page with full information. The idea being that a the full table is too large to include next to article- so just have an abridged version there.
So the Messerschmitt Me 163 page would have its main page also something like Messerschmitt Me 163 specifications with large table and perhaps other more esoteric information like units it served with.
Pages like List of motors of WW2 Luftwaffe Aircraft-which I view as more as part of the WW2 information set- then part of aircraft, I think are worth leaving unicorporated into other lists. In this case the page has RLM engine numbers which would not be used on a more general page.
Lastly, is there any standardization of using WW2, WWII, World War 2, World War Two, World War 2, etc. for wiki?
Greyengine5 21:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I found this table and though I should show it as another example of a specifications table that was on website. It would need to be re-written in wiki form, and of course whether or not its useful to the project is its own matter.
NOTE: This table is from [this] website]]
(I modfied it a little but its from that site and Im not sure if its public domain either, but if you wanted to use the format it would have to be wikified and recoded)
F-15E 'STRIKE' EAGLE - SPECIFICATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was realizing how different modern aircraft can be with avionics, massively joint development, and what not. Perhaps we can have different tables for older simpler aircraft and newer ones?
Greyengine5 03:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK, firstly, why was the colour of the table changed? I know that green might be considered a little psychedelic by some, but there was no explanation as to why the colour was changed.
As to the other proposal, I would have to say that I do not like it. It would be alright to deal with in a GUI HTML editor, but not with the wiki where we have to work with source code. It is difficult to see exactly where to put the text. It is also non-standards compliant in that the markup is in block capitals. David Newton 05:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---
Hmm the color thing was rather spontaneous- just though the blue fitted better with airplanes. As for the other proposal table- thats very good points, its a non-standard table from that webisite and would certinaly need to be redone for wikicode. If it was though i dont think it would be to bad finding were to place it thouh. As it is that table has a lot of leftover stuff that does nothing. I will try to work on to see if i can get it to a more wiki-ok'd state.
Greyengine5 06:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Heres a sample table from the ju87 page thats seems a nice way to show difference between variants. I added the colors in to make easier to distinguish column and it ended looking pretty good. Anyway the might be a nice base for tables of variatants planes, althgough the header colors may be to dark for some monitors. Its easy enough to choose a lighter shade though.
Type: | Ju.87A-1 | Ju.87B-1 | Ju.87D-1 | Ju.87G-1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Purpose: | prototype | ground attack | improved ground attack | anti-tank |
Engine: | 640hp Junkers Jumo 210D | 1200hp Junkers Jumo 211A | 1300hp Junkers Jumo 211J | 1300hp Junkers Jumo 211J |
Wing Span: | 13.0m | 13.2m | 13.8m | 13.8m |
Length: | 10.8m | 11.0m | 11.0m | 11.0m |
Height: | 3.90m | 3.77m | 3.77m | 3.77m |
Wing Area: | 30.00m² | 31.90m² | 31.90m² | 31.90m² |
Empty Weight: | 2273kg | 2760kg | 2810kg | 3600kg |
Maximum weight: | 3324kg | 4400kg | 5720kg | 5100kg |
Maximum Speed: | 320km/h | 350km/h | 354km/h | 344km/h |
Dive Speed: | 550km/h | 600km/h | 600km/h | |
Ceiling: | 9430m | 8100m | 9000m | 7500m |
Climb: | 3000m in 8.8min | 3000m in 14min | 3000m in 13.6min | |
Range: | 995km | 800km | 1165km | 1000km |
Forward Armament: | 1×7.9mm MG17 | 2×7.9mm MG17 | 2×7.9mm MG17 | 2×37mm BK3,7 |
Rear Armament: | 1×7.9mm MG15 | 1×7.9mm MG15 | 2×7.9mm MG81Z | 2×7.9mm MG81Z |
Bomb Load: | 500kg | 1000kg | 1600kg | none |
and without colors
Type: | Ju.87A-1 | Ju.87B-1 | Ju.87D-1 | Ju.87G-1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Purpose: | prototype | ground attack | improved ground attack | anti-tank |
Engine: | 640hp Junkers Jumo 210D | 1200hp Junkers Jumo 211A | 1300hp Junkers Jumo 211J | 1300hp Junkers Jumo 211J |
Wing Span: | 13.0m | 13.2m | 13.8m | 13.8m |
Length: | 10.8m | 11.0m | 11.0m | 11.0m |
Height: | 3.90m | 3.77m | 3.77m | 3.77m |
Wing Area: | 30.00m² | 31.90m² | 31.90m² | 31.90m² |
Empty Weight: | 2273kg | 2760kg | 2810kg | 3600kg |
Maximum weight: | 3324kg | 4400kg | 5720kg | 5100kg |
Maximum Speed: | 320km/h | 350km/h | 354km/h | 344km/h |
Dive Speed: | 550km/h | 600km/h | 600km/h | |
Ceiling: | 9430m | 8100m | 9000m | 7500m |
Climb: | 3000m in 8.8min | 3000m in 14min | 3000m in 13.6min | |
Range: | 995km | 800km | 1165km | 1000km |
Forward Armament: | 1×7.9mm MG17 | 2×7.9mm MG17 | 2×7.9mm MG17 | 2×37mm BK3,7 |
Rear Armament: | 1×7.9mm MG15 | 1×7.9mm MG15 | 2×7.9mm MG81Z | 2×7.9mm MG81Z |
Bomb Load: | 500kg | 1000kg | 1600kg | none |
I think this is both hard-to-read and ugly.
Personally, I think that the data table at the top of any aircraft page should reflect a single "typical" variant - either the most numerous in production or a particularly famous variant (if these two aren't the same in any case). There might be a place for this kind of thing at the bottom of the page, on a separate page. There's also the possibility that significant variants of major types will eventually move to their own pages, as has happened with the Panavia Tornado, in which case that's where this data will (obviously) go. --Rlandmann 06:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Change the colors then!
Keep in mind this was never idea as a replacement for the current table, but just to show whats out there in terms of displaying multiple variant specs ( When the need arises) in the same table. As for whether its ugly or pretty- of course feel free to change it to better colors. Keep in mined finding the right shades of hex colors can be a finicky business though. As for the general comments I mostly agree- most of the aviation books I'v follow that conceptual format. However, having a comparison table for very similair models is useful- certianly whoever made the table initially thought so, and the format has its advantages. Breaking the data up makes it harder to compare specs, and when the differences are minor I dont see the need to have it on a serpate page. Greyengine5 07:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've snipped the manufacturer row out of the sample table, since if nothing else, this information is one of the few facts that is included in every aircraft article, and very prominently at that. I'd feel the same about "Role", except that I think it's useful as the main data table presents a single variant, and this might differ from the roles of other variants discussed in the article... --Rlandmann 03:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I put 'maker' back in before I read your comment. I dont think i mean it in the sense your talking about- I mean more the construction as with a lot of modern aircraft. I mean the table are re-lists of info in articles a lot of times, but I think there's benfit to having that info concentrated. So the idea here is- only when its needs ( I mean when its company its not useful) it, to list the main orginizations that worked on it. For example if one company design and construction is split between to companies they could bothbe listed there. Also, even in the other sense, I lot of books tend to have like a 'origin' or such category where they list the full names involved in contruction. For example this book has " origin: Ernst Heinkel AG, also built by Arado Flugzeug " in a table even though they mentioned the same thing later in the text. That was the idea anyway and if doenst fit for article, by all means delete that row. Greyengine5 05:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, I guess the one final piece of essential, defining information we're missing is a date - I suggest "First Flight", since it's pretty much an easily identified baseline for all aircraft (barring cancelled projects, of course!) and also a date that's most commonly cited in reference works. Thoughts? --Rlandmann 23:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ok fleshed out some ideas in table form. Surviving Aicraft is not a date but this is often shown figure for a lot of the older planes and I figured I'd through it out there as an idea. (Though probably not go in this category) (I shortened to just the top section so it would take up so much space)
Aircraft name goes here | ||
---|---|---|
Image caption | ||
Description | ||
Role | ||
Crew | ||
Dates | ||
First Flight - 1992 | Entered Service - 1997 | |
Development / Production | ||
Last Major Use | ||
Surviving Aircraft |
This is just an antempt to compact the table but maintain the same readabilty. The current table seems to have some unused space. Perhaps this will make it more feasible to inlcude more information. I used some of the code from the footer. Might be able to take some of the more critical links ( like direct versions ( A, B, etc..)) and put it at bottom as sort of 'table footer'. Well anyway a it seems pretty readable even at this level, so at least some shrinkage should be possible.
Ok i put this variant links thing in. I dont like it one the top but I could not get it go under, be separate and have text to the right. THe idea was since this data will be for only one aircraft- it would alow quickly jumping between them when your looking at tables. It may be easier to have a make singel data 'comparison' page for the variants and link to that. Greyengine5 22:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Related content | |
---|---|
Variants | P-51A Mustang - P-51B Mustang - P-51C Mustang - P-51D Mustang - P-51K Mustang - F-6 Mustang |
Aircraft name goes here | ||
---|---|---|
Image caption | ||
Description | ||
Role | ||
Crew | ||
First Flight | ||
Manufacturer | ||
Dimensions | ||
Length | ' " | m |
Wingspan | ' " | m |
Height | ' " | m |
Wing area | ft² | m² |
Weights | ||
Empty | -lbs | kg |
Loaded | -lbs | kg |
Maximum takeoff | -lbs | kg |
Powerplant | ||
Engines | ||
Power | hp | kW |
Thrust | -lbs | kN |
Performance | ||
Maximum speed | mph | km/h |
Combat range | miles | km |
Ferry range | miles | km |
Service ceiling | ft | m |
Rate of climb | ft/min | m/min |
Wing loading | lb/ft² | kg/m² |
Thrust/Weight | ||
Power/Mass | hp/lb | kW/kg |
Avionics | ||
Avionics | ||
Armament | ||
Guns | ||
Bombs | ||
Missiles | ||
Rockets | ||
Other |
Can the table be made any smaller vertically by trimmin the space above and below the headers? Greyengine5 20:06, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As a demo, I've added this last version to the Messerschmitt Me 163 page, along with the latest version of the footer. --Rlandmann 07:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Go to wikiproject footer for discussion)
Current Issues:
---
I changed many of the terms into links for people to click if they did know what given categoty was. For example 'wing loading' is link now so you could have page explaining the term. There could be one page to explain them all, or just link to individual pages. I dont know if there is way to keep a links text black though so it does not mar the look of the table. Greyengine5 19:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Aircraft name goes here | ||
---|---|---|
Image caption | ||
Description | ||
Role | ||
Crew | ||
First Flight | ||
Manufacturer | ||
Dimensions | ||
Length | ft in | m |
Wingspan | ' " | m |
Height | ' " | m |
Wing area | ft² | m² |
Weights | ||
[[Aircraft weight terminology|Empty | lbs | kg |
[[Aircraft weight terminology|Loaded | lbs | kg |
Maximum takeoff | lbs | kg |
Powerplant | ||
Engines | ||
Power | hp | kW |
Thrust | lbs | kN |
Performance | ||
Maximum speed | mph | km/h |
Combat range | miles | km |
Ferry range | miles | km |
Service ceiling | ft | m |
Rate of climb | ft/min | m/[[minute|min |
Wing loading | lb/ft² | kg/m² |
Thrust/Weight | ||
Power/Mass | hp/lb | kW/kg |
Avionics | ||
Avionics | ||
Armament | ||
Guns | ||
Bombs | ||
Missiles | ||
Rockets | ||
Other |
I'm very much opposed to including any of these links in a table of this nature. I think it's unnecessary clutter. How do others feel? --Rlandmann 05:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)