Talk:Janusz Żurakowski
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Janusz Żurakowski 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 C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editWho wrote the original entry for Janusz Zurakowski?
Why POV
editThis article, a number of times, used words like noble, brave, reknowned, etc, which is quite inappropriate, rather like desribing a general as a badass or coward, etc. The opinion that Zurakowski was noble, etc, is self proved by his actions and medals (i.e. to win a V.M.) and be an ace fighter pilot. Cheers V. Joe 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to comment: Where the term "noble" is used refers to the "noble Polish pilots" (not necessarily Zurakowski) that served in Britain, "brave" is not used in the article and the fact that he is renowned is not in dispute, the article is testament to that fact. IMHO, there is no POV here and I am taking the notification off. Your first recourse when you do such a drastic and damaging statement is to post on this discussion page. You did the opposite, placing a POV tag there without any discussion is tantamount to vandalism and is treated as such. Bzuk 01;35 22 January 2007 (UTC).
History
editIt said "This was the first new aerobatic jet manoeuvre in 20 years.[1]", referring to a event in 1951. But jet aircraft with aerobatic capability had only been flying for about 7 years; we must avoid hype, obvious or otherwise. I would have rephrased the comment, but did not know what was supposed to be special: the manoeuvre, or that it was done in a jet. Feel free to rephrase.TSRL (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is a direct quote from Geoffrey Norris in Jet Adventure, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
- Shall you include a citation of Norris's book? At the moment we get Sutherland [3] p.249, so it would be hard to find the original quote. The quote itself would make sense without the word "jet"; not necessarily true, but at least plausible. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do have the Norris book now and will look up his quotation, at the time I only had Sutherland's book which referenced the quote. FWiW, the reason for this being considered an unusual "jet" maneuver/manoeuvre was because Zura could only manage the feat with the Gloster Meteor where the wing-mounted engines were set far apart and when he controlled both throttles, he could pirouette seemingly in place, almost as if it was a helicopter hovering. When Zura earlier tried to do the cartwheel, variously called the "Fin Sling," "Catherine Wheel," and "Zurabatic Cartwheel" in a DH Hornet, he had the right spacing of powerplants but did not have sufficient power to induce the swing. The only other aircraft that possibly could manage the swirling movement would be the Canberra/B-57 which had the power, manoeverability and the right setup of engines. When Zurakowski later tried to do the same thing in the CF-100, he could never pull it off smoothly as the engines were not set far enough apart; he resorted instead to developing a "falling leaf" that he could pull off smoothly even with the bulky interceptor. Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
- TSRL, I now see what the problem was, the original quote was misquoted, it should read: "This jet manoeuvre was the first new aerobatic in 20 years." which Sutherland properly states while Norris (1962) is more effusive, claiming, the feat was the "first new aerobatic manoeuvre in forty years." (p. 93.) Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
- That makes sense - sorted!.TSRL (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- TSRL, I now see what the problem was, the original quote was misquoted, it should read: "This jet manoeuvre was the first new aerobatic in 20 years." which Sutherland properly states while Norris (1962) is more effusive, claiming, the feat was the "first new aerobatic manoeuvre in forty years." (p. 93.) Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
- I do have the Norris book now and will look up his quotation, at the time I only had Sutherland's book which referenced the quote. FWiW, the reason for this being considered an unusual "jet" maneuver/manoeuvre was because Zura could only manage the feat with the Gloster Meteor where the wing-mounted engines were set far apart and when he controlled both throttles, he could pirouette seemingly in place, almost as if it was a helicopter hovering. When Zura earlier tried to do the cartwheel, variously called the "Fin Sling," "Catherine Wheel," and "Zurabatic Cartwheel" in a DH Hornet, he had the right spacing of powerplants but did not have sufficient power to induce the swing. The only other aircraft that possibly could manage the swirling movement would be the Canberra/B-57 which had the power, manoeverability and the right setup of engines. When Zurakowski later tried to do the same thing in the CF-100, he could never pull it off smoothly as the engines were not set far enough apart; he resorted instead to developing a "falling leaf" that he could pull off smoothly even with the bulky interceptor. Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
- Shall you include a citation of Norris's book? At the moment we get Sutherland [3] p.249, so it would be hard to find the original quote. The quote itself would make sense without the word "jet"; not necessarily true, but at least plausible. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
References
- ^ Sutherland 1978, p. 249.
Image copyright problem with Image:AvroArrow1.jpg
edit
The image Image:AvroArrow1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
B-class review
editQuickfailed for WP:POLAND due to insufficient density of inline citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Deck Landing
editThe section in Post war about deck landing practice on dummy deck painted on an airfield makes it sound as if this was something unusual rather than standard practice for every pilot being trained in deck landing. ADDLS (Aerodrome Dummy Deck Landings) were a regular entry in every log book.212.159.44.170 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
disambiguation
editLooking for this subject Janusz Żurakowski, I made what will be the normal English-speaking mistake of spelling the name with "Z" rather than the accented character "Ż". Wikipedia sent me to another article about the naming of planetary bodies and failed to offer this article. Might someone cleverer than me - presumably an established editor - make the connection for us ? Rupert Butler (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)