User talk:Aeroweanie

Welcome!

Hello, Aeroweanie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Melchoir 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to NACA duct, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I have worked as an aerodynamicist for 30+ years and know what I am talking about. The title NACA Duct is incorrect and by maintaining this title, you perpetuate this gross misnomer. Anyone that calls a NACA Inlet a NACA Duct is very, very ill-informed. As I said in the discussion: The title of this page has been corrected. This describes a NACA inlet, not a NACA duct! An inlet is an opening that air flow into, while a duct is a passage that air flows through.

WHile that may be so (we have no way of knowing it on the internet), WP requires reliable sources to assert claims. The sources n the article call it a NACA duct. Please discuss this on the article's talk page before making any further changes, or you risk being blocked for violating WP's #-revert rule. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Most NACA reports call them an inlet, not a duct (I just checked and found some that mislabel them). The words inlet, duct, intake and scoop are commonly defined.

Why did you edit my 727 additions? They were historical information, no more product spam than what was already there for the Fedex hushkit. I even gave information for two competing programs, so as to maintain a fair record. If you don't want an aviation professional to correct pages and add detailed information, please let me know. I do this to cut down on the misinformation out there, not to screw things up.

Why did you undo the S-67 edit? The Fenestron data page is very reliable - I first created the database when I worked at Sikorsky (designing the fan-in-fin for the RAH-66) and have updated it as more information became available. It is generally agreed to be the database on fenestrons.

Hi Aeroweanie, welcome to Wikipedia; with your long experience as an aerodynamicist your contributions to Wikipedia are invaluable. However, part of the problem here is that some of your contributions could be construed as unintentional conflict of interest: I emphasise the unintentional because I have no doubts that you are here, like most other editors, to improve the accuracy and readability of aircraft related articles. Also, for various reasons, some websites come under suspicion because they are self-published, which can be really frustrating because it means that some excellent sites which are reliable - and I have no doubt that the site on Fenestrons is - have to be discounted for Wikipedia articles. I hope this explanation, which, IHMO, is long overdue, is of some help to you. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer in my absense, MH. I had signed of to go to sleep, and wasn't able to respond earlier. - BilCat (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern with conflicts of interest and self-publishing. If you would like me to send you copies of the WWII aircraft publications, I will, so you can review them and see that they all rely on original sources - documents from NACA, the RAE and the OEMs (I actually worked from NAA, Supermarine and Focke Wulf drawings). Similarly, the fenestron website is all data mined from Jane's All the World Aircraft, technical papers (mostly AHS) or actually measured on helicopters. Unfortunately, self-publishing is the wave of the future, as the market for printed books is declining, so that none of the publishers is interested in publishing books on niche subjects.

If I were to move the fenestron website to Wikipedia, would I have to reference where each bit of information comes from? Similarly, would the same hold true for my Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage? (http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html)

I have thought about this some more and I think I see the crux of the problem. Most people writing for Wikipedia are (I think) at best second- or third-hand sources. Even the books cited are at best second-hand sources. I am a first-hand source. If I were to write about the Rutan Voyager, it would be as a first-hand source, as I was there and worked on it. Don't believe me? Look on page 117 of Dick and Jeana's book and you will see my name and a description of my involvement. Similarly, I have been at the right place at the right time and have first-hand knowledge of a lot of aircraft programs. Again, for evidence, this is a gallery of projects that I worked on, many as aero lead: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?album=10156

I take your point about self-publishing being the wave of the future as mainstream publishers pull away from niche subjects, and I think that Wikipedia will have to become more flexible in its approach: just the other day someone raised a question about whether a book on the Bristol Beaufighter should be used as a source because it was written by an "enthusiastic amateur" for a small publishing label. I have the article "Aerodynamic Survey of WWII Fighter Aerodynamics" and I know, and have used, the "Incomplete Guide..." as a standard reference for my own use - I also use the NASA Technical Reports Server (which, BTW, because it is a Government organisation, is considered to have reliable primary source documents) on occasion. Unfortunately, while Wikipedia policy stays in the early 2000s self-published websites, regardless of their quality or value, are off the menu. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW when you sign your posts with four tildes (~) your user name and date and time stamp will register for each posting.

You worked on the Comanche??

The RAH-66 One of my favourite helicopters. What a machine, and what a shame it was canned. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I kinda worked on it before it existed - it was still the LHX. I left Sikorsky in 1986, so it was still in the proposal phase, but I wrote a document that laid out the fan-in-fin design and I designed blade airfoils intended for the Comanche that instead got used on the S-70M and S-92 blades. As a result of the partnering with Boeing Vertol, BV's airfoils got used on the Comanche blade.

The Comanche was meant to counter the Ka-50 and once the Cold War ended, its reason for being vanished.

Hughes OH-6 Low-bid

Copy/dit from my "talk page":"I'm a little surprised that you removed my addition to the OH-6 page about Hughes low-bidding the OH-6 production contract. This is established fact that has been published in numerous sources. I only chose the Jack Real citation as he was actually in the room when the decision was made. Its harder to find a source closer to the action - he was later President of Hughes Helicopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC) "

It's not the information but the source that was in question as self-published books are not normally accepted as verifiable sources. Let's see what we can do... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

See revisions FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

Leaving bare urls

You have to convert bare urls to full citations, see your edits on the Convair CV-240 family. Instead of this http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airborne-Imaging/Convair-C-131B-(340-70)/1811012/L/ change it to: </nowiki>Smithson, Peter. "Convair C-131B (340-70) aircraft." airliners.net, October 26, 2010. Retrieved: June 7, 2011.</nowiki> FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For finding the elusive S-61 roll-over ref at Sikorsky S-61. - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. –BMRR (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jim Raisbeck

Hey - I just discovered the wikipage that you created for James D. Raisbeck, a remarkable aeronautical engineer and entrepreneur. I reviewed it, then amplified it using material from an excellent article in the latest Flying magazine. Thanks for starting this thread. You deserve an ovation of some sort.--Raymondwinn (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

North American P-51 Mustang

Hi Aero, thanks for the added info on the fuselage etc, some interesting material: however! Please would it be possible to add such material using the agreed (Chicago style) format for citaions, as per other cites? And could you please provide some page numbers? No-one else appears to have these books so you are the only one who has access to the page numbers. And if you are adding new books, could you please add them to the bibliography, again using the agreed format. It makes things so much easier. Ditto the added info in P-51 Variants. Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits on Rolls-Royce Merlin

Two problems here: The Merlins in question are most likely to be Packard Merlins, or they are so heavily modified that they are no longer Rolls-Royce Merlins so any comments about the Reno Air Races need to go either in that article or in the article on the Packard V-1650 - although, again, some may consider that such heavily modified engines no longer qualify. Second: there was no need to add info to both sections when one properly cited paragraph in one section covers the topic: R-R Merlin is a Featured Article and the editing and citing standards are more stringent than, for example, B class articles - any inadequately cited or uncited information will be removed or blanked very quickly to maintain the standard of the article. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have your input: it can take a while to get used to the way things work in Wikipedia. One of the things you may run up against is Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. According to this:

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."

In the real world historians are allowed to synthesise and interpret primary material, but here it is a no-no unless it is backed up by a reliable secondary (usually published) source. This can be frustrating if you have primary source material which alters or contradicts accounts found in books. If your goal is to correct " ...a lot of misinformation that gets printed in the popular history books, which seems to just get regurgitated over and over" you may end up tearing your hair out if other editors decide that you are carrying out original research! Personally, having had some sustained and unpleasant "debates" in the past, I avoid getting into such waters. Good luck, cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 19:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers needed

Citing whole books is not as useful as providing an exact page number where the information can be found, see Bell P-39 Airacobra and Bell P-63 Kingcobra. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

And could you kindly remember, if you are adding new books, please add them to the bibliography and stop using bibliography entries as citations??? eg: Hoover and Shaw 1996, pp. 25-26. NOT Hoover, R.A. and Mark Shaw. Forever Flying. New York: Pocket Books, 1996, pp.25-26. ISBN 978-0671537616. (in Bell P-39 Airacobra) Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sikorsky S-72, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lockheed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Center of pressure

Hi Aeroweanie. On 27 April you added a new section to the article Center of pressure (fluid mechanics). (See your diff.) You omitted to include an in-line citation, or any reference, to allow independent verification of your information. On Wikipedia, any information that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, may be erased - please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your information looks a lot like it might be your personal views on the matter, or your original research. Please return to the article and add at least one in-line citation to allow independent verification of your new information. Without such a citation to identify the source of your information, it is likely to be erased.

Guidance about adding in-line citations and references is available at WP:REFBEGIN. Best wishes. Dolphin (t) 07:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Dolphin, please read my input carefully - I site a clear example, based on classic data, supporting what I wrote. I'll add a citation for NACA NACA TR-824 Summary of Airfoil Data, which presents endless data supporting this. You only have to dig below the surface of the data to see the conclusion. A non-zero .25c pitching moment at zero lift means that there is an infinite moment arm. This moment arm starts decreasing as the lift increases, but only falls on the airfoil when Cm/Cl=0.75. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 April 2013

Center of pressure (fluid mechanics)

Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. We do not base article content on the opinions of contributors, and nor do we include 'examples' to back such opinions up. If there is a flaw in the concept of Centre of Pressure, find a source that states this explicitly. I doubt that you will - though you might find one that defines CP better than our article does at present, which may account for your comments. As it stands, the statement that the CP "is the point on a body where the total sum of a pressure field acts" is almost certainly incorrect in the example you give - but only in as much as it asserts that the point must be 'on the body'. This is of course no more true than an assertion say that the centre of gravity of an object must be 'in the body' - think of a torus for example. I'll see if I can find a better definition, and meanwhile, I'll ask you not to reinsert your material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been at this for 30+ years - the concept is fatally flawed by the presence of force couples. Explain to me how a cambered airfoil can have a quarter chord pitching moment at zero lift? People like the concept, due to its simplicity, but it simply ignores basic statics. If you have a force couple, it simply impossible to identify a center of pressure, end of story. I need to publish an AIAA paper on this and get it over with... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 April 2013‎

I agree that, on a cambered airfoil, the concept of center of pressure becomes a bit challenging for newcomers to the field. (That is why the concept of aerodynamic center is more useful for many applications, such as longitudinal static stability.) This is explained in all the basic aerospace textbooks. The only problem with our article Center of pressure (fluid mechanics) is that it didn't acknowledge that in some fluid flow situations the center of pressure can lie outside the body; or might even be a moment with no resultant force and no center of pressure. I have now made a minor change to the lead paragraph to provide that acknowledgement - see my diff.

You might not have realised that an encyclopedia publishes what has already been published elsewhere in reliable sources. Encyclopedias do not publish frontier information, or the results of people's research. If a number of reliable sources publish something that is incorrect, the first step is to correct those reliable sources; not to leapfrog the reliable sources and correct the error in encyclopedias. I don't doubt you are able to explain that where a fluid flow exerts a strong moment on a body, the resultant force and its center of pressure lie outside the body. I am able to explain the same thing. I don't doubt you are able to explain that where a fluid flow exerts a pure moment on a body, there is no resultant force and no center of pressure. I am able to explain the same thing. If you are of the opinion that textbooks and other reliable sources are in error with their presentation of center of pressure, try to highlight the error in another reliable published source. If you are inclined to publish a clarifying paper with AIAA I suggest you proceed immediately - that would be a most suitable place to begin. Don't imagine that Wikipedia is willing to publish your opinion on the matter, regardless of how correct your opinion might be. Meanwhile, everything in Wikipedia that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, must be traceable to a reliable, published source. Regards. Dolphin (t) 06:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clark Y may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

P-39 first flight

AW, I've reverted your changes to the P-39 page, as they are against the consensus on the talk page. You are welcome to participate in the discussions on the talk page, but please don't re-add your changes without gaining a new consensus first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

BilCat - I helped Birch Matthews prepare his book and can tell you that his research was far beyond any other book on the P-39. In my experience, most books about WWII aircraft just repeat what other people have written. I know that Pete Bowers, while he wrote great stuff, was guilty of repeating in accurate information. I have Lockheed documents proving him wrong in one case that I debated with him.

Birch was a former Bell (Buffalo) employee and had all of the documents that he references (have you actually looked at his book)? I have copies of some of the P-39 factory drawings that he loaned me. The "consensus" you refer to is a bunch of people discussing something that they only know third or fourth hand. That is not scholarship and agreement among them just means that they are all equally deceived.

I did a search on Newspapers.com and there is absolutely no mention of the XP-39 in ANY newspaper in 1938. The New York Times article and an article in The Express of Lock Haven PA both indicate that the airplane first flew in 1939. I gave THREE references for the 1939 date - how can you ignore that?

- Aeroweanie (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Aeroweanie/Story Scarves

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Aeroweanie/Story Scarves, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Aeroweanie/Louis B. Gratzer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Aeroweanie/Louis B. Gratzer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from see "Select another name from the list to the right to learn more about them.' last line shows it was copied from a bio page somewhere. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)