Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey

1 August 2005

Voting in this survey is now closed. Results will be posted on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page in the next few days. --Rlandmann 00:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This survey asks you to consider how specifications data should be presented as part of a standard for Wikipedia articles about aircraft. It does not address the text of the article - only a separate specifications section.

The current standard may be found here. Recent discussions of these issues may be found here.

• Please vote by signing your name with four tildes (~~~~) under the one position that best represents your view, possibly adding a brief comment. Extended comments or discussion should be taken to the WikiProject Aircraft talk page.
• Anonymous votes or votes from users with fewer than 250 edits will not be taken into consideration.
• Votes for more than one response to a particular question will not be taken into consideration.
• For some questions, an "other" option has been provided for. Please use this only if you feel that no single option presented even comes close to representing your point of view.

Voting opens at 10:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) and closes at 23:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC). Results will be announced on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page.

Should the specifications section be implemented with a parameterised template? (i.e. where data is entered into the article as a set of parameters that are then displayed as part of a template - see Template talk:Aircraft-jet-mil as a suggestion put forward for aircraft, Template:Infobox President for a simple example currently in use in Wikipedia, and Template:Ship table for a complex example currently in use. Note that although all these examples present their parameters in a table, templates can just as easily be used to present their data in text format).

Yes

1. Rlandmann 23:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - Easier to maintain uniformity across entire project, and changes in style can be made project-wide.[reply]
2. Definitely. Most books do it that way and although we are better than any book, why not us then? Antonio Mr. Chuckles Martin
3. Lommer | ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC). Vote changed after seeing Template:Ship table and its use. Obfusticated and objectionable? Yes. Better than manually changing everything to accomodate one tiny change? ABSOLUTELY.[reply]
4. eric ✈ 06:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - adamant yes. I have a sample nested set of templates working right now. These two examples use the same template, and it can be expanded in just about any way possible.[reply]
5. jcw69 Yes, I enjoy order --Jcw69 08:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. GraemeLeggett 08:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Yes, ensures consistent formatting.[reply]
7. Bobblewik 09:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Vote changed after seeing eric's test templates. Now I understand what he is suggesting.[reply]
8. ✈ James C. 14:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Let us end the madness.
9. Mark 23:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - Yes. Bewildering amount of styles/sizes/parameters etc. at present[reply]
10. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Alright. But we'll need a decision on everything that belongs in the template before starting to use it.[reply]
11. I've put in a lot of thought, and agree. But the templates should be altered to the current layout standard, of course. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
12. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Hear Hear![reply]

No (the current standard)

1. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - There are just too many possible items to include in the template[reply]
2. Dinu 09:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - Some data might be relevant for one plane but not for others.[reply]
3. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC), because the sample template didn't work the way User:GraemeLeggett claimed it would when it comes to units, when I asked about it at Template talk:Aircraft-jet-mil, and in part for infexibility in choosing an appropriate prefix.[reply]
4. Megapixie 13:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC) , Neutral to No. I think there are too many possible variantions in what you would want in the template - see Metamagical Themas on Parameterizable Fonts. Better to have a table template (or something similar) that defines the style of the table (but not the content) and then perhaps optionally define a few of the standard values - but leave scope for the more esoteric values that might be critical in a particular type of vehicle or era of vehicle - i.e. Propellor pitch options, superchargers... Plus I like the existing Bold: values - it looks nice :) IMHO. However if someone where to propose something flexible and pretty - I might change my mind.[reply]

Comment: The sample template works exactly as claimed. See sample results here. --Rlandmann 04:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, because I had noticed that the template included units not passed by the parameters, and hadn't noticed that the specific one I asked about didn't include units. I've modified your test page a little bit to show that. That in itself, expecting users to always know whether or not the units need to be included, and no error-checking to see that units are included where they are needed and not included when they are not needed, and the presumption that they are not needed and that nobody will ever choose a different prefix or choose liters instead of cubic meters or tonnes instead of kilograms, are a very good reason to avoid parameterized templates like this. It also flies directly in the face of the arguments I've seen for using a formatted list rather than an infobox. Gene Nygaard 09:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see the point in some of this, and have been thinking it myself too — the units should be passed to the template from the article, not put in arbitrarily (this permits using W or kW as appropriate for example) -Lommer | ^talk 04:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the templates to reflect this - rather than metric and alternate, it's now main and alternate. Main can be either metric or imperial, and simply shows up first. It's up to the author. These templates could be converted to work as an infobox, if that's how the vote goes, but that'd be up to someone else (unless it's a bottom-of-page table). eric ✈ 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Should aircraft specifications be presented using an infobox (example), in text (example), or in some other way?

Infobox

1. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I like infobox better Antonio Infoplease NOT Martin
3. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC). There would be advantages of greater flexibility in a formatted list, but too many people appear to have no interest in taking advantage of that. If we are going to overspecify everything, but it in a standard infobox.[reply]
4. Jcw69 - I like the infobox more because it is quicker to find the specs right in the begining rather than scrolling down to the specs at the bottom--Jcw69 08:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. GraemeLeggett 08:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) However, I would not attempt to cram everything into the info box, an additional full data list at the bottom would give room for caveats.[reply]
6. ✈ James C. 14:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC) (Slightly in favor) They must be clean. No color fills, no lame attempts at style, no cell borders. The only formatting should be alignment and bold text for row and column headings.
7. Rsduhamel 03:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)The example (Bell X-1) looks really good. I hope that technical issues can be overcome.[reply]
8. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. I prefer the box. Easy to read despite being a tad difficult to edit for a newcomer. --Idleguy 08:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
11. If I were to choose between two aviation books, I would choose the one with Infobox layout rather than the Text type layout. To me, it's more pleasing to the eye. I guess I'm old fashioned, but I look upon the Wikipedia as a book. Reubenbarton 08:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this disaster is just one reason why I'm adamantly against infoboxes — they break a lot of our layouts. -eric ✈ 10:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to comment - easily fixed with a dozen blank lines or expansion of the article. GraemeLeggett 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: it also ruins images within the article, as well as other info tables such as the orders in the A380 and 787 articles, something not illustrated there. 'Hacking' the layout by inserting blank lines or waiting for more information - which may never come - is not an acceptable "fix". -eric ✈ 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Would making the infobox table 100% wide fix the layout error? What I really like about tables for data are the aligned columns and rows. ✈ James C. 02:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reply: very probably not. Because they're floated, they overlap other entities and tables. Also, making it 100% wide would fill the entire page and look absolutely awful from a reader standpoint. eric ✈ 03:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Text (the current standard)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rlandmann 23:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (but I don't care much either way)[reply]
4. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) I mostly don't want to go through the pain of converting back and forth all the time. I also hate the fact that it breaks on non-desktop browsers (i.e. palm), even though I don't personally use them.[reply]
5. Cabalamat 05:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) I prefer text because it is more flexible. You can include items that may not be in an infobox. You can also go into greater detail; for example modern military aircraft can often use a bewilderingly large array of weapons, and putting this in a little box makes it hard to read.[reply]
6. Dinu 09:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - Text gives much more flexibility[reply]
7. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Definitly cleaner, less visual problems.[reply]
8. Unless someone comes up with a box that looks a whole lot nicer. And it really interferes with the images in a bad way sometimes. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
9. Mark 17:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) I believe infoboxes can be complicated, too big a variation in styles and cause too many layout problems with main text and images.[reply]
10. Moriori 02:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC). I believe text is more flexible, and that infoboxes sometimes make pages look like a dogs breakfast.
11. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Pibwl ←« 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't call it text, it's nothing like running text. Call it a formatted list, or something like that. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to debate semantics, do it on the talk page. -eric ✈ 03:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another kind of table

Other

---

When voting in this section, note the policy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) that states:

Metric equivalents should be given for historical or unusual units, where these are appropriate. Multiple equivalents, i.e. metric and U.S. or imperial, are cumbersome and shall be avoided.

Actually, I can not find the state rules AnyFile 17:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When thrust is expressed in Imperial/English units, should lb or lbf be used?

lb

1. Rlandmann 23:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ✈ James C. 16:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Rsduhamel 04:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC) I think "lb" will be understood universally where "lbf" may be confusing.[reply]

lbf (the current standard)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) It's a very accesible unit, and again, too much work to convert for little (arguably no) gain.[reply]
5. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC). Almost all articles also use pounds as units of mass; they are completely different units and need to be distinguished.[reply]
6. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Agree with Gene[reply]
8. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC) Concur with Gene.
9. Well, be sure to use lb_f —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. lpf deffo. Rich Farmbrough 20:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should measurements of thrust in kgf be included in the standard? (inclusion of a conversion to lb/lbf is assumed)

Always include kgf measurements, along with kN

Always include kgf measurements, instead of kN

Never include kgf measurements (the current standard)

1. Rlandmann 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC), with the first option as my second choice[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - invlude kgf[reply]
4. ✈ James C. 15:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Although kgf may have been the original measurement, I don't think it adds much meaning. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
7. Rsduhamel 04:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Like "lbf", I think "kgf" may be confusing to non-scientific types.[reply]

   Comment: I think it'd be more confusing to scientific and non-scientific types alike; kg are a unit of mass -Lommer | ^talk

   Comment:The same is true for pounds, of course. We don't even have independent standards for them any more; for the past 45+ years worldwide, 52 years in Canada, and 112 years in the United States, they have been officially defined as a fraction of a kilogram. The real confusion comes in failing to understand that the force units are different from the mass units; using the "f" makes that clear, and the ultimate confusion is evident in a number of U.S. "scientific types" including several college professors who write textbooks or have websites who are so confused that they can insist that pounds are "not units of mass". They, and many of the engineers and scientists they have trained, of course, see no reason for using the "f", leading to further confusion.

   Burying your head in the sand isn't going to change the fact that the aviation and space industries have used kilograms-force to a great extent, and continues to use them far more than they should when our standards-keepers have been telling us for 45 years to stop using them. Note also that "metric horsepower", another one of our units discussions here, are just another example of the use of kilograms-force; they are defined as 75 kgf·m/s, which does not come out a nice round number of watts, the SI units. Gene Nygaard 12:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply: I am a Canadian mech. engineer by training, and I have always been taught that pounds are a unit of force, and only a unit of mass if explicitly specified (lbm vs. lbf). Nonetheless, lbf is clearer, and that's what I prefer. As for kgf, they are a little-used (outside of aerospace), non-standard unit derived from kg which is always mass. Therefore, they are confusing to anyone who is not an aerospace engineer, therefore I do not support their use in wikipedia. -Lommer | ^talk 16:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   P.S. If you'd like to debate this further, I'd suggest our talk pages as a more appropriate location. -Lommer | ^talk 16:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Rich Farmbrough 20:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include kgf whenever it is present in our source data, but always include a conversion to kN

Include kgf whenever it is present in our source data, and never include a conversion to kN

Include kgf whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to kN (eg. Soviet-built jet and rocket engines)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bobblewik 09:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gene Nygaard 18:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC) changed from unsigned in "Other" below[reply]
5. Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include kgf whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and never include a conversion to kN (eg. Soviet-built jet and rocket engines)

Other

Include kgf when it is present in source data or whenever it can reasonably be assumed to have been the original. This whole question, however, is a case of instruction creep. We can provide a decent framework without getting overly nitpicky about all of the details. [Was unsigned by Gene Nygaard, changing to reasonably assumed.]

Should measurements of power in PS be included in the standard? (inclusion of a conversion to hp is assumed)

Always include PS measurements, along with kW

Always include PS measurements, instead of kW

Never include PS measurements (the current standard)

1. Rlandmann 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC), with the first option as my second choice[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cabalamat 06:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) note that 1PS != 1 hp. 1 PS is 735.5 W, whereas 1 hp is 745.7 W.[reply]
4. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - both ps and kw[reply]
   • Just to clarify, do you mean that including only hp (neither ps nor kw) is your preference? -Lommer | ^talk 01:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. ✈ James C. 15:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
6. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC) No real need for it.
8. Rsduhamel 04:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Rich Farmbrough 20:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include PS whenever it is present in our source data, but always include a conversion to kW

Include PS whenever it is present in our source data, and never include a conversion to kW

Include PS whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to kW (eg. German-built piston engines prior to 1992)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC). The way I'd put it is to always include kilowatts (or megawatts or watts as appropriate) for comparison purposes, and to permit either English horsepower or metric horsepower or both, and at least the one reasonably assumed to be original data.[reply]
5. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include PS whenever it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and never include a conversion to kW (eg. German-built piston engines prior to 1992)

Other

When range is expressed in Imperial/English units, should it be in miles, nautical miles, or both? (inclusion of km is assumed)

Always miles only (the current standard)

1. Cabalamat 06:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC) having nautical miles as well as miles is confusing[reply]
2. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rich Farmbrough 20:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Always nautical miles only

Include whichever is in our source data, but always convert to the other

1. Rlandmann 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC). I don't like triple-unit solutions, but this one does seem to cause confusion[reply]
2. ✈ James C. 15:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC) Makes plenty of sense.
4. Rsduhamel 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC) - I've ran into a conversion issue. I think this is a courtesy issue for all those who are reading Wikipedia but don't use the imperial system themselves. Pulling out a calculator after we've written an article doesn't seem a big deal.[reply]

Include whichever is in our source data, and never convert to the other

Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to the other (eg. mi for U.S.-built aircraft prior to the 1970s, nm for those built later)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and never include a conversion to the other (eg. mi for U.S.-built aircraft prior to the 1970s, nm for those built later)

1. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC), it's important to use original units (so long as they're accessible), but converting makes for three units which looks ugly (and violates MoS).[reply]

Other

Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and permit a conversion to the other

1. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) If the unit isn't known for certain - include a note to that effect.[reply]
3. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use statute miles only if it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to nautical miles

1. Bobblewik 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC) This would limit triple units to old aircraft. Nautical miles is surely the modern default. Google test and research needed.[reply]

Non-google research required I think. Trip to the library perhaps.GraemeLeggett 08:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When speed is expressed in Imperial/English units, should it be in miles per hour, knots, or both? (inclusion of km/h is assumed)

Always miles per hour only (the current standard)

1. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rich Farmbrough 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Always knots only

Include whichever is in our source data, but always convert to the other

1. Rlandmann 23:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC). I don't like triple-unit solutions, but this one does seem to cause confusion[reply]
2. Sensible. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
3. Rsduhamel 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include whichever is in our source data, and never convert to the other

Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to the other (eg. mph for U.S.-built aircraft prior to the 1970s, kt for those built later)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and never include a conversion to the other (eg. mph for U.S.-built aircraft prior to the 1970s, kt for those built later)

1. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Use whichever can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, and permit a conversion to the other

1. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Bobblewik 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to this option in general: I dislike it because it's non-standard. If you're going to do the conversion for the reader, then do it everywhere. If you're not, then leave it out everywhere. -Lommer | ^talk 05:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Lommer. --Rlandmann 01:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use mph only if it can be reasonably assumed to have been the units that the measurement was originally taken in, but always include a conversion to knots

1. Bobblewik 10:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When rate-of-climb is expressed in metric units, should m/min or m/s be used? (inclusion of ft/min is assumed)

m/min (the current standard)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Rlandmann 23:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ✈ James C. 15:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC), until I see more sources that use m/s.
7. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

m/s

1. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC). But where is the Either option? I'd support that. Since it isn't there, I'll stick with the SI measurements. It generally doesn't have to be both, so I object to this vote as being badly formed. There are, in fact, many of the Wikipedia entries in which these are the likely original units. 03:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)> Also, the article on Variometer mentions only m/s, with no mention of m/min.[reply]
2. Bobblewik 20:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC) It is the metric unit for gliders. Also seen in rotary/fixed wing specifications in Europe, India, Russia. More info needed before a decision.[reply]
3. Rich Farmbrough 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rlandmann 00:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Actually, Gene and Bobblewik have convinced me on this one. To aviators in many countries, this will be more familiar. To the general metric-using readership, m/min is no more meaningful than m/s.[reply]
5. Lommer | ^talk 00:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC) I've been convinced too. I think I also realized that my preference for min over s is partly due to my familiarity with ft/min, which is totally incomparable.[reply]
6. Pibwl ←« 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC) I'd say, to the general metric-using readership, m/min is less meaningful than m/s.[reply]
7. Mark 18:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

both

Comment Please see discussion and google statistics for m/s and m/min on project talk page.

When giving specifications in miles (statute miles, as distinct from nautical miles), which abbreviation should be used?

mi

1. Rlandmann 23:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC). We abbreviate all other units; and "mi" might reduce some of the confusion with nautical miles[reply]
2. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Symbols for all units for consistency, and this symbol "mi" alone is unambiguous, unlike spelled out miles.[reply]
3. Bobblewik 09:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Same reasons as Gene.[reply]
4. ✈ James C. 15:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Rsduhamel 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) I think most people know that "mi" means miles but wouldn't know what "sm" means.[reply]

sm

1. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC), though I realize its a Canadianism. If not this, I'd vote for mi.[reply]
2. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC) I would prefer sm ([[Mile#Statute miles|sm]]), but I'll go with this.
3. eric ✈ 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC), and I don't think it's only a Canadianism - we use it in the states as well.[reply]
4. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC) It's not Canadianism or Americanism. It's widely used outside the US and it's one of the first things I learned to discern between in my Flight Navigation course.[reply]

miles (no abbreviation) (the current standard)

1. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cabalamat 06:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC). It's short enough not to nedd an abbreviation[reply]
3. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Clarity trumps brevity in this case. Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • I actually dislike this option because I find it less clear. A mile could be either statute or nautical, but sm and mi are only used for statute miles... -Lommer | ^talk 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mark 19:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC) As Cabalamat says, why are we arguing over three characters?[reply]

other

When giving distances in nautical miles, which abbreviation should be used? (this unit is not used by the current standard)

nm

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) even though nm is also the abbreviation for nanometers, if anyone gets confused about that, they deserve to be :-)[reply]
5. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) as lommer says![reply]
6. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Very obvious choice. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
9. Rsduhamel 03:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nmi

1. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) My preference; "nm" is okay.[reply]

other

Nautical Miles.

1. nm is nano-metres. Rich Farmbrough 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When giving speeds in knots, which abbreviation should be used? (this unit is not used by the current standard)

kt

1. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) We should not have an 's' in plurals of unit abbreviations. This is the official abbreviation as used by ICAO and member states in METAR and TAF etc.[reply]
2. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Symbols for units of measure should always be unchanged in plural, not adding any language-specific plural endings.[reply]
3. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. GraemeLeggett 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Standard Rich Farmbrough 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Rlandmann 01:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC) convinced that standards trump (putative) convention here[reply]
7. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:15, 2005 July 21 (UTC) Agree that s should not be included. (Originally voted for kts).

• Lommer | ^talk 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC), vote changed after I checked the MANAB and found that it didn't include "kts" as a valid abbreviation.[reply]

kts

1. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rlandmann 23:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC), since the only people likely to be interested in seeing speeds in these units are used to them being abbreviated thus.[reply]
• eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) vote changed to support of knots as abbreviation due to massive conspiratorial global hatred of 'kts' and general inconsistency.[reply]
• Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC) Haven't seen kt as an abbreviation very frequently.

other

knots, abbreviated from nautical miles per hour

1. eric ✈ 02:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC), although kts remains my true first choice.[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC). Sigh. Vote changed again... (if there is no true standard then it's better for wikipedia to not take sides if its not too inconvenient)[reply]

Comment Please see discussion and google statistics for kt and kts on project talk page.

---

Should units in the specifications section be linked to their respective articles? (eg: Maximum speed: 560 km/h (350 mph))

Yes

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - the first time they appear[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - Ditto[reply]
3. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Normally first instance only but first intance in text and first instance in info box or table as well[reply]
4. Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) The first time, if not in the article body.[reply]
5. The first time they appear in the specs. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
6. The first time they appear in the specs. (But be careful. Note the horrible problems caused by linking "depth" from all the Moon crater articles.) Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC) -Ditto on the first instance.[reply]

No (the current standard)

1. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a key to all the units (example)

1. Rlandmann 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) linking units is downright ugly. A key offers a compromise.[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - yuck and useless[reply]
4. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Link only to less common ones, if not also linked in text

1. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fxer 07:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - Too ugly and cluttering, but a link to nautical miles or other non-everyday experience abbreviations could be helpful
3. Pibwl ←« 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (second option - no)[reply]

---

Should the derived specifications Thrust-to-weight, Power/mass, and Wing loading (/Main rotor loading) be included as part of the standard specifications section?

Yes (the current standard)

1. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rlandmann 23:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Removing my vote in favor of this, since Rlandmann suggests on project talk page that there are no standards for these and we could change willy-nilly from dividing by loaded weight to dividing by maximum weight. Haven't decided whether or not to oppose. Gene Nygaard 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Cabalamat 06:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC). I find them informative.[reply]
5. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Trevor MacInnis 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
8. Pibwl ←« 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC) - wing loading at least.[reply]

No

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC) - Seems a bit unnecessary as someone who needs such a specific piece of information should be able to extrapolate from standard specs. There's a huge risk for mission creep here, with another huge discussion ensuing on which derived specs are relevant.[reply]

If Thrust-to-weight is retained as part of the standard, how should it be expressed?

With units (eg: 0.72:1 lbf/lb (7.1 N/kg) )

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Agree with Gene. Thrust(N), weight(kg), ratio(7.1 N/kg). Simple.[reply]
4. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC). The SI values in newtons per kilogram should be included in any case, whether or not you use lbf/lb or kgf/kg or pretend they are dimensionless by canceling them out or by throwing in a g_n (not the actual local acceleration of gravity) factor in the formula, something there not because of the physics but only because of the units used. This SI value is a different number from the one often presented without units. (comment added 13:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
5. Agree with Gene. Rich Farmbrough 20:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Pibwl ←« 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Without units (eg: 0.72:1) (the current standard)

1. Rlandmann 23:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - by far the most common way for this specification to be expressed in English.[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Thrust & weight are units of force — they cancel out. Thrust and mass are not the same kind of unit and they require units to be given. Thrust-to-mass is almost never used because its meaningless without the units, and doesn't convey the same kind of info that thrust-to-weight does.[reply]
3. RoadKillian 05:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - it's a dimensionless quantity.
4. Cabalamat 06:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC). I agree with RoadKillian.[reply]
5. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
8. Trevor MacInnis 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
10. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have just noticed that the lbf/lb format is shown as '0.72:1 lbf/lb' rather than '0.72 lbf/lb' (as I think it should be). If this is signicant, we should discuss it. Bobblewik 10:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say that it should be either "0.72:1" or "0.72 lbf/lbm", though I vastly prefer the former. Putting units in obviates the need for the ratio. -Lommer | ^talk 16:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Power/mass is retained as part of the standard, how should it be expressed?

Power/mass in kW/kg and hp/lb (the current standard)

1. eric ✈ 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sylvain Mielot 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cabalamat 06:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Power-to-weight in kW/kg and hp/lb

1. Rlandmann 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - more familiar to more people.[reply]
2. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC). Comment I also agree with Bobblewik's comment below about choice of prefix. Choose an appropriate sized prefix, based on the measurements for that and similar planes. That's one problem with trying to use a template in conjunction with over-specified units.[reply]
3. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Trevor MacInnis 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power loading in kg/kW and lb/hp

Other

Power/mass in W/kg and hp/lb

1. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Use an appropriate SI prefix for size. W/kg is a better default.
   Thus Bell 206 should have integer '420 W/kg' rather than fraction '0.42 kW/kg'. I don't care whether the word is 'weight' or 'mass'.
2. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Power/weight no units

1. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)As it is analogous to thrust/weight for aeroplanse and power/weight for motor cars[reply]
   • The reason it's acceptable to eliminate units in thrust-to-weight is that units of force cancel out. In this case, W/kg gives m/s after canceling, which makes little-to-no sense. Units must be included in this measurement. -Lommer | ^talk 16:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power/mass in W/kg

1. Hmmm on my own here.... Rich Farmbrough 20:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting prohibition of non-metric units? Bobblewik 14:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

This survey is intended to be a stepping-stone towards a revised standard that will prove more satisfactory to a greater number of users than the present standard does. As a further guide toward reaching that goal, please indicate:

Are there any other specifications that should be included in the standard?

Cruise speed

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - widely reported, and often available even when maximum speed is not.[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cabalamat 06:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
6. Trevor MacInnis 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) some people think this is the most important stat[reply]
7. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
8. Rsduhamel 03:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Pibwl ←« 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC) why not?[reply]

Maximum overload weight (as an optional field)

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - widely reported for military aircraft, and helps to ease the general confusion with our weights section (see below).[reply]
2. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Landing gear, number/type

1. Rich Farmbrough 20:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maximum surface land/sea speed

1. Rich Farmbrough 20:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any specifications (other than the derived specifications above) that should be deleted from the standard?

Loaded (weight)

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) - infrequently available and not directly related to any measurement in use in aviation[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC) Arbitrary, thus meaningless.

1. Keep it. Another case of trying to shoehorn into a one-size-fits all box. It is used in our derived measurements, discussed separately in connection with keeping them. (unsigned comment by Gene Nygaard at 03:19, 18 July 2005)
2. Trevor MacInnis 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Keep. This stat is very important within the industry as an indication of the type of airplane and its capabilities and the laws it must obey.I had the wrong stat in mind, we want "Maximum gross take-off weight", not this.Delete[reply]

Are there any current specifications that should be renamed or clarified?

Empty to Empty weight

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cabalamat 06:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Alternatively subset the empty, loaded etc under weights[reply]
6. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Trevor MacInnis 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
9. Pibwl ←« 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum take-off to Maximum gross take-off weight

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC), with an optional "Maximum overload weight" specification added.[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Don't just leave those adjectives sitting there naked; put in a noun, I don't care in the least if you use "weight" and "mass", as long as you understand that it is always the same measurement, no matter which term you find used for it.[reply]
5. Cabalamat 06:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Trevor MacInnis 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose—Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) gross is superflous, what would a maximum net take-off weight be?[reply]

Range to Maximum range

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) ro remove ambiguity[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC), though I'd prefer it clarified further as "ferry range" or "return range"[reply]
3. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - if ferry range is included, then combat range should be as well. otherwise, for civilian aircraft, it's fine as it is.[reply]
4. Cabalamat 06:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC). I think we should include ferry range and combat range.[reply]
5. Dinu 09:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
7. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC) Eliminates ambiguity.
8. Trevor MacInnis 15:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Include a clarifier "with maximum fuel", "with maximum payload and reserve fuel" etc[reply]

1. Oppose. Instead, use appropriate adjectives to describe whatever range values you have. (unsigned comment by Gene Nygaard at 03:19, 18 July 2005)
2. Oppose. GraemeLeggett 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) bracket qualifier after the value eg (combat), (with external tanks)[reply]
3. Oppose Rsduhamel 03:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Redundant.[reply]
4. Oppose —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose--Dali-Llama 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Guys, what about articles such as business jets which carry standard NBAA reserves or military aircraft with wartime reserves?[reply]
6. CambridgeBayWeather 13:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC) I'm not voting either way (don't have enough edits) but both the terms Range and Maximum Range are ambiguous. Do they mean maximum range at maximum speed or maximum range at economical crusing speed? In fact a quick look through Jane's show that they qualify it in several different ways. Such as "range with maximum fuel", "range with max fuel at 65% power", "endurance with max fuel", "range with max fuel, 30 min reserve" and no doubt many others. Those examples just came off two pages.[reply]

Rate of climb to Maximum rate of climb

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) ro remove ambiguity[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - valid point.[reply]
4. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. Again, reduces ambiguity. (unsigned comment)

1. Oppose. Qualify it as such if that is what you have; that isn't always what we have, however. Use what we have, distinguish as you need to. (unsigned comment by Gene Nygaard at 03:19, 18 July 2005)
2. Oppose. add qualifier if required (unsigned comment by GraemeLeggett at 08:55, 18 July 2005)

Wing loading to Maximum wing loading

1. Rlandmann 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) ro remove ambiguity[reply]
2. Comment that would resolve the ambiguity in a different way than what has been done in the past (using loaded weight in the denominator, not maximum weight). Furthermore, there have been various discussions of different types of maximum weights (e.g., that "overload" option), so this really doesn't remove any ambiguity anyway. No such change should be made without discussing the reasons. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. ✈ James C. 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
4. Get rid of ambiguity, again. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Maximum speed for supersonic or military aircraft in Mach

1. eric ✈ 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) - giving a supersonic 'conventional' speed along with mach is meaningless. for example, F-15 Eagle has a maximum speed of 1,650 mph or 2,660 km/h - but at what altitude?[reply]
2. Lommer | ^talk 00:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. So specify the altitude for that top speed; at least if it is in real units, people will have some idea how fast that is. Since the speed of sound also varies with altitude, after specifying the altitude you also need to look up the speed of sound under those conditions to know what Mach number means in real money. Most people will look up the commonly given values such the "at sea level" value given under Mach number, and get the speeds all bollixed up. Those F-15 Eagles aren't normally flying at sea level. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. I usually use a 1 225 km/hr statistic for c, and come up with different Mach numbers than those usually given. Specifying the altitude is cumbersome, and defeates the purpose of a standard (there should be a standard altitude, if one is specified). Ingoolemo ^talk 17:01, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
5. Rsduhamel 03:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ICAO Codes

1. I'd like to propose that ICAO codes be included. It's a worldwide standard and would make searching for aircraft easier. Can't vote on this, not enough edits. CambridgeBayWeather 13:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do they cover pre-ICAO fomration? GraemeLeggett 15:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just active aircraft.CambridgeBayWeather 00:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not sure what 'active aircraft' means. Anyway, it's mostly just commercial transports. No Cessna aircraft, for example, have ICAO identifier codes, including the Caravan. There are some US-specific codes that I know are used for air traffic control/flight plan identification, but they're not all ICAO. P28A, for example, is a Piper Cherokee Warrior to the FAA. eric ✈ 00:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ICAO does not call them identifier codes, it calls them aircraft type designators. See: http://www.icao.int/anb/ais/8643/index.cfm

There are 267 ICAO type designators allocated to Cessna. The code P28A is an ICAO aircraft type designator for several Piper aircraft including the Cherokee.

Eric may be referring to IATA aircraft type codes that can look similar to ICAO aircraft type designators. IATA charges for the list, but you may wish to look at http://airlinecodes.co.uk/ Bobblewik 11:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By active aircraft I meant any aircraft that is flying or capable of flying. Some pre-ICAO aircraft do have designators SPIT for Supermarine Spitfire as an example. However, aircraft that no longer are airworthy would not have a designator. Sorry about using codes when I meant designators. CambridgeBayWeather 12:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Length of helicopters

1. Is the length when applied to helicopters refering to the fuselage only or including the main rotor. Needs to be defined. CambridgeBayWeather 10:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that since this standard is intended to apply across the broadest possible range of aircraft, the specifications included in it should be applicable to all or nearly all aircraft, and that the specifications should commonly reported ones (even for obscure aircraft).