I have an interest and expertise in aircraft and aircraft systems.
Welcome
Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - TrevorMacInniscontribs05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black project working group now live
You indicated during the proposal phase that you may be interest in a black project working group, this message is being left to inform you that the group has been officially created, and is located here if you would like to join. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiwings
I award you the wikiwings in recognition of your knowledgeable contribution to aero engine articles. Awarded by Nimbus
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
XP-21
You re-firected to the Hawk P-1 page (probably correctly) but there is no mention of the XP-21 on that page whatsoever. How about a variant entry at the very least?Petebutt (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I redirected the XP-21 to the P-3/P-5 section of the P-1 article, which mentions that several XP-3 aircraft were re-engined and designated XP-21. I think it is in bold as well (I added that info to the article). When I added the info I put it in the P-3 section because that's how it seemed to best fit in the organization of the article. That said, I think that article is terribly organized and should be cleaned up (and I said so on the talk page there). I thought I added it to the general variants list as well, but it seems I didn't. I'll add that now. Did all that explain it well enought? -SidewinderX (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right. I wasn't consitant with that. There should not be a dash in either one. Full disclosure; Microturbo has taken to calling these engines "TR" instead of "TRI" since 2007. They were originally TRI, and that's how I decided to refer to them. I'm not sure if it's standard procedure to go with new or original, I just went with original. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 5x expansion results in obscure, new articles qualifying but expanded articles not qualifying. Let's change it to 5x or 3x if there is significant, quality expansion of a stub. I don't have time to lobby and campaign so feel free to start a talk page discussion and I authorise you to cut and paste this comment in up to three times. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
The same "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address" message. Do I need to recopy the unblock request? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A while back you were asking about how to start a GA review for my MiG I-250 article. Do you mind to follow through at WP:GAN? I ask because they're really stacking up over there and I'd like to get the backlog reduced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about that! For some reason I thought I had looked back at the article and someone had already reviewed it! I'll try and do it tonight. If I don't get to it tonight, I won't be able to look back until after the new year. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting it done so quickly. BTW I converted my comments on the CFM-56 article to support, so the review should be closed and the article promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw I'd got a message about my edit, I thought 'here comes some small-minded petty nonsense'. However, it wasn't too bad. Most people who write me messages always without exception turn out to be wrong. Where I have made slight mistakes, I usually correct them before someone tells me, although I don't remember anyone giving me a message because I have made a factual mistake as the mistake is usually so subtle no-one notices, well apart from silly spelling mistakes which I do make a few, but not factual errors.
All you need to know is what I put on an article is thoroughly researched. I would warn people from taking information from the Guardian newspaper as it makes terrible schoolboy factual errors, some you wouldn't believe possible. It is littered with errors.
Most of the information I added came from the Five TV excellent programme on August 15th 2008 to which I added a hard-to-miss link. Therefore all my data is backed up with the source given. The information came from the designer, Gordon Lewis. He was the designer, the head honcho - it was his idea, well at least at the start when no-one was interested or coughing up money. And not many people wanted to cough up money. It was mostly financed, so I believe, by the good old USA. British technology, American money.
You are on the right track in thinking I may know something about aero-engines. I have worked for a gas turbine manufacturer. I also spent one evening visiting RAF Wittering. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaursLoveExistence (talk • contribs)
Overall, it was a pretty good article. One point of contention could be that it's a bit too technical, so I would try to "dumb it down" if you have plans of taking it even further. Are you hardcore into Wikipedia now or something haha?UberCryxic (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The technical comment is an interesting perspective to hear; I'm mostly immersed in the Aviation project, and most people have a bit of a background. It's tough ground to tread. On one hand, wikipedia is for non-experts. On the other hand, if you're looking up a specific engine article, it's reasonable to assume they've got some knowledge. And if it's nice to have the technical knowledge there for someone who's looking for it. -SidewinderX (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine for this level. I meant that if you want to make it featured or something, the first thing you're going to hear (or one of the first things) is that the article is too obsessed with mundane details and numbers. Consider the opening sentence:
The CFM International CFM56 (US military designation F108) series are a family of high-bypass turbofan engines made by CFM International with a thrust range from 18,500 to 34,000 pounds-force (82 to 151 kilonewtons).
The numbers on the thrust are inappropriate right from the start. More 'encyclopedic' (that word that Wikipedians love) would be to say something like "The CFM International series are a family of turbofan engines that have become some of the most commercially successful aviation engines of all time." Something like that....you want to give readers a sense about the importance of the subject immediately. Like the article for MJ starts off:
Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer, dancer, and entertainer. Referred to as the King of Pop, he is the most commercially successful and one of the most influential entertainers of all time. His unique contributions to music, dance, and fashion,[1] along with a highly publicized personal life, made him a prominent figure in popular culture for over four decades.
Nothing about record sales, number of awards, or stuff like that. Also: as a physicist in love with SI newtons, drop the pounds-force stuff or put THAT in the parentheses. Global perspective should trump national or regional perspectives.
Like you said, there's a lot of give and take here. You can take this article to the pinnacle of glory in Wikipedia -- main page FA, where it will be read by hundreds of thousands of people and casually seen by millions -- which would require you to cut out a lot of technical material....or you can leave it sort of the way it is, making cosmetic changes here and there, and see it draw about 10 or 11 unique visitors a month. Decisions, decisions....(but you obviously know what I think you should do).UberCryxic (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to hear another perspective on this. It makes sense to bury the engine performance further into th lead, I'll remember that when I go back into the article. As for the units, it's customary at WP:Aviation to use the unit system appropriate to where the engine was built (I.e., US units for American engines or aircraft, and SI for French engines, for example). In this case, as the engine is both American AND French, it probably could have gone either way. However, I'm American, and I'm the primary editor on the article, so I stuck with American units. That said, every where there is a US unit, there should be an SI unit nearby, so it's all there. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your comments. I did almost all. I left comments for 2 of them. Feel free to leave new comments or update article's rating! Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry! I completely missed your earlier reminder! I've added a few comments. IIRC, you need three "supports" to get it to A-class, so you should post some reminders on the aviation project's talk page (maybe aircraft sub group too) to get a couple more eyes on the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I've always been a bit confused about the policy concerning journal charts... it's a fairly common practice to crib images and plots from journal article to journal article (properly cited, of course), but we can't used them in Wikipedia. Doing an exact paint replication is usually frowned upon, but in the case of a chart, I'd article that you're visually representing cited data, so you should be in the clear. Maybe list the data reference in the image? Does that make any sense? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Navy is finally testing some of the F-35B's, so hopefully we'll start getting some Navy photos (rather than LockMart) that we can use. Thanks for the comments about the CFM56 article... I'm planning on taking it up for a FA-review sometime soon, but I keep getting busy with real life work. And I'm leaving for Turkey for 2 weeks soon. But once I'm back I'm aiming for an FA (Gotta get a jet to represent the AETF... can't let Nimbus's piston engines get all the glory! :p). If you're interested in improving the article towards that FA goal, go for it! I know FAs are grueling processes, so the more eyes on it now the better! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The aero-engine task force silly! Come by and chat! One of my goals for the year is to try and improve the component and technology articles... a lot of what people come to Wikipedia for is for things like "what is a Turbine", or "how does an Afterburner work?". Most of those articles are very poor, and I think that is something we need to improve. The only article I've tacked so far is the Combustor article, but I'd like to think I've made it about 1000 times better. I'm hoping we can get there on most of the components. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CFM56
I will take another look but be mindful of turning any suggestions into bold edits.
I would like to start a Wikipedia society of friendship. Just a desire for friendship and good editing are the requirements to join. Another condition of membership is that each member try to recruit 3 other members. I proposed that we call it the Wikipedia Club of Gloves. We are not socks, we condemn socks, we are gloves. We pledge to be nice to each other and do some good editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CFM56
The lead says that it is a reliable engine. Should this have a reference? I don't want to mention it on the talk page because people may think it is a comment of a troublemaker, which is not true. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, things stated in the lead do not have to be cited if there are cited later in the article. In the case of reliability, that fact is cited in the Engine failures section later in the article. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sidewinder – you must have noticed that I've been meddling with the article in my usual headlong interfering way! (Blame Nimbus ;-p) I've tried not to make any significant alterations, and attempted to confine the changes to wording and punctuation to mainly avoid repetition and improve clarity. I hope I haven't trodden too heavily on any sensitive toes – that wasn't my intention – but naturally I understand that as the article's nominator it is only right that you have the final say as to what goes into the article, and I've no issue with anything that I've done being changed back if you so wish. However, I do have some queries—
1) In the lead it states that there are four major variants of the engine, while in the "Continued development" section it mentions six.
2) In "Development" it's not clear which of the first two engines were shipped to France – probably the second but I thought I'd check before clarifying that.
3) There is an invisible comment regarding nitrous oxide emissions in "Tech56 and Tech Insertion" that needs attending to – can you clarify whether NOx refers to NO specifically or to the nitrous oxide family in general?
4} There is a reference to tip-shrouded fan blades in "Fan and booster" – I'm no expert, but shrouded-tip fan blades seems more likely to me.
Hi Red! Nope, no toe-stepping at all! I appreciate you (and Nimbus) coming in and helping out with a copy/prose edit. Hopefully that will help wrap up this FAC! As for your specific questions...
1) I have edited the second comment to say "four" as well. It depends on how you could them... The 5A, 5B, and 5C are pretty different, but they're all "-5" engines. It's easiest I think to count them as 4.
2) It was the second engine, and I've clarified that statement. Thanks for pointing it out!
3) I didn't see the hidden comment, but I chose a better wikilink for NOx, which sould clear up any confusion.
4) 6 one way, half a dozen the other. The source calls them "tip-shrouded", so that's what I went with.
Excellent – that answers all my queries. Hopefully it won't be too long before there's a decision, and in the light of there being no further reviewers coming forward, if the "Oppose" changes to "Support" that might be enough to swing the promotion! One last thing though, I don't really understand what tip-shrouded blades are – is it just another way of saying that the fan is closely shrouded? Perhaps another nota bene or inline explanation might be useful for dimwits like me! ---RedSunset18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
On June 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turbine blade, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
From the FAC page: Also, you didn't get the WP:MOS#Captions quite right-- only full sentences get full stops (sentence fragments don't). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you work on this today in the hopes that FA is granted tomorrow? Since this is the oldest on the list, the article risks being taken off. There is urgency! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know why I blank-reverted, the user added info in the text that appears to have been copied verbatim from other sources. Interestingly, User talk:Jim G. Smtih details similar activity in the past. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock-auto|1=138.162.0.41|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "OberRanks". The reason given for OberRanks's block is: "Clear violation of interaction ban with "I would put some money down that I have probably recieved|3=SarekOfVulcan|4=2008342}}
Category:Abandoned military projects of the United States reads "Many aircraft and military projects were designed, and some were built, but were canceled before they were put into service because of budget issues, technical problems, or changes in requirements." which pretty much describes NGB. MarcusQwertyus19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the article from start to finish and I'm inclined to agree about the USAir section—it just doesn't fit in. As a result of this and your thoughts, I have taken the decision to remove the entire section. WackyWaceconverse | contribs14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's there on the second page of the ref. This is highly notable for the program in question because this cost is the primary factor for the debate. Please reconsider. Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't realize there was a second page! I'll go ahead and add that back in. I still stand by my statement that the test problem isn't notable thought. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As best as I can tell, ya, that looks right. Usually DefenseImagery is good about the captions, that one photo must have just been a rare mistake. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good day. Can you resolve many interwiki conflict for these clasters of articles ? If no, can you add a request for resolving interwiki-conflict inside the Project Aviation ? I can't to find where I should place this request ...--Movses (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to do some copyediting on this, but not until the article is in close to its final shape ... is it? Have the nominators addressed your concerns? - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SidewinderX!,
I headed over to your talkpage after seeing your sandbox on this topic. As part of our college assignment, I've written a bit on that article, and even uploaded to mainspace. Could you be kind enough to head over to Aircraft design process and review, add or edit wherever necessary. Any comments and suggestions are welcome on my talkpage.
Cheers!
--The Mangol (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated CFM International CFM56 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
_1993.JPEG){kind=link}
