| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alpha J-5 Marco article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Name and number
editAfter some vacillation I went with Jane's 1991/2. The history suggests Alpha and Marco (or Marko) go together, so I reluctantly dropped Simpson's simple Marco J-5. AFAIK, J&AS Aero did not exist until 2004. Janowski J-5 is an alternative, but not widely used. Redirects will follow.
There's not much out there on the number built. Anyone know more? Even 12 may not be a lower limit, as some aircraft could have been re-registered. On the other hand, there may be many more.TSRL (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
not a motor glider
editThe J-5 does not qualify as a motor glider in respect to JAR23. JAR23 specifies a minimum ratio between weight and wing span. The J5 would need about 12m wing span to achieve this. This is the whole reason why the J-6 has much longer wings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Marko Rocznik (talk • contribs) 03:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
B-class
editPassed for WPPOLAND confirming a prior WPAIR review (I consider supporting materials met for B-class, given existing refs). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)