Template talk:Aircraft specifications

"alt" parameters in template should be removed

The most common usage for specifying the "alt" parameters of this template is to specify the same parameter as main in a different unit. Not infrequently, the unit conversion for the parameter is incorrect. Example 850 km/h is approx 530 mph, but one aircraft page had:

|max speed main= 850 km/h
|max speed alt= 600 mph

A better option would be to remove the "main" and "alt" versions of the same parameter, keep just one and use Template:convert, which will automatically yield the same result and avoid good-faith mistakes:

|max speed = {{convert|850|km/h|mph|abbr=on}}

850 km/h (530 mph) This will keep good-faith authors from shooting themselves in the foot.User:skcpublic (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Amen", see Template talk:Aircraft specifications#Use of template:convert below. Peter Horn User talk 01:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Try

|max speed main= 850 km/h
|max speed alt ()= {{convert|850|km/h|mph|disp=output only}}

This will give Max speed 850 km/h (530 mph)
Peter Horn User talk 18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotor switch

When a user selects the rotor switch while filling in the specifications, any alternate use of the propeller descriptions and dimensions should either be disabled, since the rotors are the wings of the helicopter, or partially allowed with a rotor heading rather than the current propeller heading. --Born2flie (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what it does at the moment that it shouldn't do, so we can see the problem. If we do alter it, will there be any effect when the aircraft has both rotor and propeller (as in some gyrodynes)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Aerospecs template

I saw a merge tag on {{Tl|Aerospecs}}, and a post on its talkpage suggests that this {{Tl|Aircraft specifications}} template is a more modern version of that one. Is that true? And if so, would it make sense to merge them? Debresser (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cant see any merge tags anywhere? both templates are being used by different authors with Aircraft specifications being used on 3335 articles and Aerospecs on 2689 dont see any value in trying to merge them if they both work. I suspect merging the code so they both work from the same template may be complicated but I am not an expert. MilborneOne (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the merge tags. If they are compatible, it makes sense to merge them, as a rule. After all, it seems they are meant to fulfill the same function.

After looking at the code and the documentation, I'd say that they are more or less equal. If a merge would be done, some parameters would have to be added, whatever way one would merge them. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also {{Aircraft specs}} which is more recent again - the different templates have different attributes - any discussion about merging them or depreceating templates would need a much wider forum than here. I suspect it would be hellishly difficult to automatically convert one template to the other, with manual changover probably being needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is some complex history to the three templates, reflecting different opinions about the extent of the automation of unit conversions and presentation of the specification. aircraft specifications was the first to be adopted by the project. aircraft specs is aerospecs developed to make it more like aircraft specifications. I believe aerospecs was originally drawn up for glider aircraft parameters. it's all there in the project talkpage archives somewhere. As said any discussion about one or other taking precedence needs to be done elsewhere. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would not be hard at all. One template should be selected, its parameters enriched with parameters it is missing in comparison with the other templates, including alternative names of the same parameters. In a second phase, alternative names could be eliminated. It is just a considerable amount of work to be done, that is all. Debresser (talk)

Not a simple task at all, because the templates don't simply display the same data - for example "aircraft specifications" relys on every field having its units filled in manually with data being added to main and alt fields, with "aerospecs" having individual fields for metric and imperial units (e.g. |length m=, |length ft=, |length in=, with the user filling in all of these fields, and in aircraft specs the user fills in just one of them and the and the template works out the others using vconvert - any changeover process will need a great deal of intelligence.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, but forgot about that. Conversions are always a pain in the behind. If just the whole world would use the metric system. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Savoia-Marchetti SM.81

Hello. There's a problem with the "specifications" section ("Performance when fitted with Alfa Romeo 125 engines" subsection) of this article and i don't know how to fix it. I know nothing about templates and I thought I'd better report it here. --92.154.149.104 (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you for reporting the problem.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ford Trimotor max takeoff weight

On Ford Trimotor page, max takeoff weight alt appears as "(6,120 kg" without closing bracket. I can't see whether the error is in the template or in Trimotor page ")" should be added. --Мирослав Ћика (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed that entry, lines had been added, breaking the template in that article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Мирослав Ћика (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wheel track dimensions

In my professional capacity, recently I have had to do research on wheel track dimensions for various aircraft, and found the data remarkably difficult to find, and certainly not at Wikipedia.

I suggest that these dimensions would be a valuable and important set of parameters to add to this template. This also implies some standard measure, and I would suggest "Main wheels centre track width" (centre-to-centre) rather than "Main wheels outer wall track width", as the wheel pivots on the centre (someone with better knowledge may argue differently).

A second dimension is the distance from the main wheels to the tricycle nosewheel or rear castor wheel/skid. This also implies one dimension is determinable. On many aircraft, where there is one main wheel only, or two side-by-side, this obvious; where there is a cluster of main wheels then this is more difficult. I suggest that this dimension be from the "Main gear oleo strut to nosewheel or tailwheel/skid".

Another and related dimension is "Minimum turning circle", that can be the "wheel turning circle (minimum)", but probably ought to be also expressed as "wingtip turning circle (minimum)".

I no longer have my pilot license, so I would welcome someone with more (current) knowledge than me assisting on these matters. I will also be copying this request to the other spec template talk page.- Peter Ellis - Talk 01:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As you have noted, the information isn't generally out there. Also wikipedia is for a general readership not a specialist one. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive reference for all data on an aircraft - how does adding this hard-to-find information aid the reader? I would also suggest raising the issue on the aircraft group of the WP:Aviation project. The template talk pages are watched by everyone and the main talk page will get a better response.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the typical lay reader has no need to know the aspect ratio or stall speed &c

We already report a wide variety of tech specs when we have sources to support them; I see no harm in including wheel-related tech specs if somebody's willing to go through the effort of finding a source that discusses it. At worst, we add two or three extra fields to the template which convey extra detail in 1% of articles, and the other 99% of the time, the reader doesn't even notice that it's missing. bobrayner (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say this particular spec is just a bit too trivial to include. Also Template:Aircraft specs is really the most current template, this one is slowly being replaced. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This template is more or less co-equal with "aircraft specs", the latter is slighty more numerous but I'm not aware of any consensus to replace one with t'other. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of template:convert

Why not use template:convert instead of

| length main  = 4.5 m 
| length alt ()   = 14.6 ft

Eg

| length = {{convert|4.5|m|ftin|abbr=on}} 
| length = {{convert|14|ft|9|in|m|1|abbr=on}} if source gives imperial.

Peter Horn User talk 01:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an alternative specs template (template:aircraft specs)

that does do conversion automatically. If you want to have an article without manual conversion then you can use that. For pre-existing articles, with properly sourced and cited specs, there is little to be gained in switching between templates.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly , this template does not have a warning message about its widespread use and unintended consequences. Perhaps that could be done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What is to be gained are accurate conversions either from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric, according to what is given in the quoted source. Manual conversions tend to be either inaccurate, or perhaps, sloppy. See comments above. Whether it be an airplane, helicopter, locomotive, rail car or anything else, reasonably accurate conversions should be the order of the day. In my time with Wiki I have come across enough sloppy manual conversions that I tend not to trust them. Peter Horn User talk 14:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot, the conversion data in the above samples were drawn from KAI KUH-1 Surion#Specifications and I have since posted a remark at Talk:KAI KUH-1 Surion#Conversion. I have also tweeked the above samples. Do I need to sy more about sloppy conversions?

• 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) or 4.5 m (14.8 ft)
• 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m) or 14.8 ft (4.51 m)
• 14.6 ft (4.45 m) or 4.45 m (14 ft 7 in) / 4.45 m (14.6 ft)
  Peter Horn User talk 15:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Eureka, use "|disp=output only""

| length main  = 4.5 m 
| length alt ()   = '''{{convert|4.5|m|ft|1|disp=output only}}'''

The visual result is

• 4.5 m (14.8 ft)

Peter Horn User talk 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Some data may be manual conversion but some may be taken from the cited source or from using the convert template in preview and then copy/pasting the output. I don't think all the current data can be considered suspect just because it isn't using a convert template - but my apologies if I have mistaken your comments. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Most sources, but not all, give the original data, be it airplanes or locomotives or any thing else, either in metric only or in imperial only. Whether the original data be in metric or in imperial it is the Wiki contributor who gives (makes) the conversion. If template:convert is used, the conversion would generally tend to be accurate. But when the conversion(s) is (are) done manually...it is then when "the fun and games" begin. Of course it may be on occasion that the source gives a conversion which is way off the mark. Whatever the case my be, 4.5 m = 15.8 ft, not 15.6 ft, the latter apparently being the manual conversion. Again, see comments above. Using the convert template in preview and then copy/pasting the output would only be done by contributors who are not familiar with "|disp=ouput only". I used to be one of those. Peter Horn User talk 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

One issue to consider is that it can't be assumed that the value in brackets is the output figure. It could be the case that the editor worked from a metric text back to feet and inches to match the "cultural" convention that stuff built in imperial units is given in imperial units. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Leave alone and if we have a problem then change to Template:Aircraft specs, messing about with what should be a depreacted template will probably break all the articles currently in use. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MB1, this template is out of date and has been superceded, but is in use in many articles and the sort of changes you are proposing here are likely to break a lot of articles. If this template doesn't do what you want in any given article then replace it with Template:Aircraft specs in that article instead. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO template in it's description should always use convert template for every example to actively discourage people from doing manual conversions and make sure that everything is done properly. Convert was created for a reason and I don't see why this template should give an improper examples extending the problem we have (with people manually messing with values and recalculations between the systems) only further and further as time goes by. SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Loading / max wing loading

In Aero Spacelines Super Guppy the "loading *" parameter displays as "wing loading" - Could it display as "max wing loading" ie wing loading at max takeoff weight ?
Also it might be useful to add "max fuel load" and/or say if 'useful load' = max (payload + fuel load) ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Loaded Weight

This name of this parameter listed under Aircraft specifications - General characteristics should be changed to either "typical mission weight" or "notional mission weight" as the current name is aeronautically incorrect and makes no sense logically. The definition for this parameter states that it is: "The weight of the aircraft when loaded for a 'typical' mission. This statistic is cited for almost any aircraft, but it is relatively arbitrary, so only use statistics given in sources." [Italics mine.] Many wiki aircraft articles posit this stat (however, most without any reference citaion for it), but even when cited, upon checking numerous sources cited (even in the few instances where they are) the stat is usually not present in the source, or is clearly stated to be a "typical" mission weight. This "stat" is confusing and so highly subjective as to be practically meaningless and useless

There are several problems evident here. The first problem is that the term "loaded weight" is not a commonly accepted or standardized aircraft parameter. It is defined on the template page as "relatively arbitrary", and it only has any real use for pilots, weapons systems officers, flight engineers, loadmasters, logistics and operations planners, transportation and air support coordinators, embarkation and weapons loading specialists, et al. In other words, highly trained and skilled specialists with access to aircraft operating manuals and performance charts, airfield information, and meteorlogical data, etc., who must use this information to plan, coordinate, and effect complex aviation missions. It is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of general information readers to have presented to them "empty weight/basic operating weight", "maximum fuel capacity/load", "maximum cargo/payload"' and "maximum gross takeoff weight". When it comes to aircraft weight specs, the average aviation "lay reader" is perhaps primarily interested in how much weight (cargo or weapons) lifting and total fuel capacity (quantity and weight) the aircraft possess. With the other weights provided these questions are answered.

Even to present a parameter named "typical" or "mission" weight is highly subjective as this "relatively arbitrary" parameter is dependent upon many, many factors. Among these factors are the purpose or objective of the mission, which will inform as to the number (and possibly type) of crewmembers, type and quantity of weapons or other special mission equipment and/or weight of cargo and/or number of troops/paratroops/liter casualties/passengers to be transported, required distance and altitude to be flown and/or endurance required. Then there are the many physical and environmental factors involved such as runway weight limits, takeoff and landing runway elevation, runway lengths, runway (and sometimes even taxiway and ramp/apron weight limits), ambient temperature, dew point/humidity and field elevation barometric pressure (density altitude), surface winds and crosswind components that limit the aircraft's performance.

This is a little too much "inside baseball" for non-aviation professionals, and for those who need and use this information wikipedia would not be a source for their data. Can someone either amend the template to either change "loaded weight" to "typical" or "notional" "mission weight" or perhaps better, just delete this widely variable and highly subjective "statistic" from the template. Thanks for your consideration. CobraDragoon (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Bug: Performance

The Performance section header is shown even if empty, see Tupolev Tu-95LAL.217.248.3.162 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a bug, you just have to select perhide=Y and it will not display. - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Auto-calc of wing Aspect Ratio?

I LOVE the convert function. Great idea. The important part of the world isn't going to be using metric for a good long while, so we're going to need this function. My 54C bike has a 120 stem, so obviously my handlebar stem is over twice as long as my top tube. Unless you know a lot about the domain that seems perfectly reasonable, and all it takes is an error of omission or one wrong letter to induce that error. Not a fan of metric. Be that as it may, could the calculation of Aspect Ratio be automated so long as wing length and wing area are available? Solidpoint (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is a good proposal. Perhaps someone who knows the coding can address whether this can be done and how it might affect the manual inclusion of the number, versus the calculation? I am thinking of cases where the ref provides the aspect ratio, but not the span or area, for instance and aspect ratio has to be entered manually.

"The important part of the world isn't going to be using metric for a good long while" - there are only two countries that don't use the metric system, so by "the important part of the world" I assume you mean Liberia. - Ahunt (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes... I am sure that Liberia is what he meant! Why, the economic, financial, industrialial, energy and other natural resources, political, educational, research and development, military and diplomatic prowess of no other nation in the history of the planet can match what it and that other unnamed nation can boast. Not to mention facilitating and effecting the defeat of Spanish Imperialism, German/Austro-Hungarian Imperialism, German/Austrian/Hungarian/Romanian National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, Soviet Communism, et al. No wonder that with all of their accomplishments, including liberating more people than any other combination of nations in history and contributing more of its citizens' tax and corporate money to build/re-build and improve the lives and infrastucture of other nations than the rest of the world combined, that she would be self-righteous enough to not bow to the "one world" movement in eliminating use of its customary measurement system. "Long live Liberia!" (and that other unanmed nation, those arrogant bastards!)CobraDragoon (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why does everyone always pick on the Liberians for refusing to adopt the metric system? I thought the days of European colonial influence were over? Now if that evil unnamed nation had invented its own decimal-based measurement system and tried to force third-world nations to adopt it, the enlightened Europeans would put a stop to that sort of imperial nonsense immediately! - BilCat (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, and since Liberia has the second largest merchant fleet (by flag registry) perhaps those metric-centric elitists should be converting to the customary system as probably an overwhelming amount of their bulk goods that are transported by sea are carried by Liberian-flagged vessels. Enough European hegemony over units of measurement already! CobraDragoon (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The coding is do-able but needs to take into account the number of wings, etc. I'd say it's easier and better use of time to calculate manually. Also if it's not a simple calculation then it may fall under the requirements for a cite. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting

This template appears to be causing directly a number of the errors in this category.

Is there a person willing to troubleshoot? :D --Izno (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Examples of faulty pages would be useful, that category won't load for me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And is it possible fault lies in ::something called by the template ie lies further upstream? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Upstream, possible. I haven't investigated. Some pages for you: Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Junkers Ju 87, Messerschmitt Me 262, Lockheed P-38 Lightning. --Izno (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Izno and GraemeLeggett: could be the </ul> tags. I don't know why we need them since there are no <ul> tags. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

okay, this probably fixed it, but I still think we can figure out a way to get rid of the </ul> tags. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

One of those /uls isn't needed anyway. The code literally reads: "If this, end the list. End the list." There's a similar case at the bottom of the template. Probably all that's needed is a return character or two. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Izno, agreed. I removed/replaced them and checked Lockheed C-130 Hercules, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, and Boeing B-29 Superfortress before and after. I found no visible changes to the output. if anyone spots any unintended side effects, we can make changes as necessary. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ornithopters

I know that very few ornithopters (aircraft that use flapping-wing flight) exist—including only one that has successfully flown under their original intended power source—but there doesn't seem to be any specifications unique for them. Do you think that these should be included? I'm no expert in ornithopter design, but figures like maximum wing flex angle in each axis, maximum wing angle of attack, and wing flap frequency (analogous to RPM in fixed-wing or rotor aircraft) could be useful. If anyone out there has worked on ornithopters (ornithopter UAVs seem more prevalent, probably due to the practical size limitations of flapping-wing flight) and knows what specifications are cited, please come out of the shadows. Grant Exploit (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Ornithopters may be one case where it is better to create a hand-build list for the specs rather than a special template, just due to the varying data that is available on each design, few as they are. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Minor problems with the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator's "Armament" subsection

General Atomics MQ-1 Predator#Armament: In "* 2 × AGM-114 Hellfire (MQ-1B)" the asterisk isn't being rendered as a bullet. In addition there is this: "Hardpoints: 2  and provisions to carry combinations of:" (the two spaces are sic). —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• The misformatting of the first hardpoint missile item seems to be caused by the the removal of line breaks preceding the asterisk. It can be prevented, as here, by inserting a html line break instruction immediately before the one generated by the return or enter keys from a keyboard. It would be possible to implement the fix by inserting the html line break in the template, but it would appear, from some experiments I carried out in the template sandbox, that this will break the formatting of other articles where the html line break has already been used to achieve acceptable formatting.
• I'm not sure I've properly understood why you consider the text "Hardpoints: 2  and provisions to carry combinations of:" to be a problem. That text (with only one non-breaking space, not two)[while this is literally correct as written, I nevertheless blundered in failing to notice that there are indeed two spaces, because the single non-breaking space is actually preceded by a normal one—see postscript below] is only produced by the template when one or more of the parameters "hardpoint rockets", "hardpoint missiles", "hardpoint bombs" or "hardpoint other" is given a nonempty value. The last two words of the text, "combinations of", do seem to me to be out of place when, as in the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator article, only one of the above-mentioned parameters has a nonempty value. In the template sandbox I have created a modified version of the template which only adds those two words when two or more of those parameters have non-empty values. I have checked the operation of this version on half a dozen or so articles where the template is used, without finding any problems.

Since I don't have the template editing privilege, I'm unable to replace the current version of the template with the modified version. If there's a consensus for the replacement to be made, someone who does have that privilege will have to do it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S: The double space before the added text actually comprises one normal space followed by a non-breaking space, rather than a double non-breaking space. I agree with user DocWatson42 that this is undesirable (article editors can always add any number of extra spaces themselves, if they so desire), so I have removed the first of these spaces from the version of the template I created in the sandbox, and updated the link in my comments above to point to this latest version.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@David Wilson: Thank you. ^_^ I checked the article, and have noted the necessary line break for future reference. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Add fuel-economy

For example (Fighting Falcon):

fuel-usage = 5,290 pounds per hour 
cruising-speed = 480 knots
fuel-economy = 0.7 mpg

-Inowen (nlfte) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree this should be added to the template. We have sourced fuel economy information for very few aircraft and this will just encourage WP:OR. Furthermore fuel economy is not a normally reported or used parameter for aircraft. Airliners are sometimes measured by passenger-seat-MPG, but not flat out MPG. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Ahunt. If it's relevant and reliably sourced, it can be included in the body of the article. But of course, I support linguistic imperialism and kiting (whatever the crap those mean!). - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 September 2018

request addition of:

root chord
tip chord
dihedral
wing sweep

as parameters below airfoil and above empty weight main. This allows for addition of critical information for flight performance specifications to be included in standard template. I tested this code out in the sandbox.

}} JKBodylski (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Such additions need to be discussed first. Please leave the proposal for a few days to get comments from other editors. If there is no response you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Please reactivate template when there is agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: These are very minor specs that are not available for 99% of aircraft. Keep in mind Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ahunt, wikipedia does not need to include every minute detail. MilborneOne (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - while such detail may be considered important in the context of the aircraft's, it would be better included in the body text than in the specs section.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per GraemeLeggett. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that root chord and tip chord are obscure, and in reevaluating the template I see that they would could be included in the text of specific aircraft discussions. However, definitely sweep, and probably dihedral are less obscure than existing characteristics included under general characteristics, such as "aspect ratio" and "airfoil". What if the request was changed to just include sweep and dihedral? JKBodylski (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, if these are available and notable for some reason then they could be mentioned in the article text. For instance the diherdral on the C-172 is 1.5°, but why would we need to mention that? - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of this template. It is not my intention that every aircraft specifications box include a wing sweep number, but if these values are available, there is not currently a way to include it in specifications. If the question is why would anyone want to include them, I can think of two examples. The first is that wing sweep drastically changes the appearance of an aircraft. A C130 and a C17 have similar off field requirements, but the nearly strait leading edge of the C130 gives a very different look to the 25° of the C17. If the worry is that sweep may not be an important aerodynamic characteristic, consider the ME262, which required wing sweep due to its lighter than expected engines. This sweep gave an unintentional, though welcome, increase in critical mach number, which directly relates to an increase in aircraft performance. If the worry is that adding wing sweep or dihedral to the list of possible specifications that could be included would then lead to ever more nuanced specs being added, perhaps a way to add a custom spec is in order?JKBodylski (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that is the main objection, that there will be just ever increasing requests for more and more minor specs to be added (as we have had in the past). "Strut airfoil section"? "Rudder tip chord"? "Tire inflation pressure (main and nosewheel)"? As indicated above, if wing sweep is really notable to the design (and the two examples you have mentioned are truly aircraft where it probably is notable) then mention it in the article text. Everything doesn't have to go in the specs section. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The case against adding ever more specification parameters has always been to comply with Wikipedia being a general encyclopedia, the details you and others are looking for are found in dedicated aircraft type monograph books, specialist websites and flight manuals (copies are either downloadable freely or can be purchased). The editors above and myself are all aviation enthusiasts so you would think that we would all be in favour of adding as many specification parameters as possible, as editors though we know that restraint and common sense has to be applied. Editors from outside the aviation project often complain that articles are too technical or overly complex and that the av project is 'doing its own thing'.

Adding wing sweep angle is not straight forward, is the angle taken as the leading edge, trailing edge, spar or somewhere else? Different manufacturers use different methods of quoting wing sweep, 25% mean chord line is sometimes used. Readers eyes will glaze over and they will move on to the next article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, seems to make sense. I suspect I have stumbled into a topic that has been debated in various incarnations before. Is there a process to remove this request?JKBodylski (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@JKBodylski: No, it will be archived in time. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 03:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 November 2018

The current link '''[[Stall (fluid mechanics)#Stall speed|Stall speed]]:''' is out of date, since the Stall article title and the Stall speed section title have both changed. To fix that, and prevent any future similar issues, the link should simply be '''[[Stall speed]]:''', i.e. it should more naturally take advantage of redirects per WP:NOPIPE. I've made the change in the sandbox (but note that the last sandbox revision was badly out of date, so a diff on the last sandbox revision will not be very meaningful). --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Airspeed heading clarity

Currently the "maximum speed" or maxspeed parameter of the template is ambiguous. There are a number of maximum speeds that an aircraft can have including never exceed speed, maximum cruise speed. For clarity it may be worthwhile for the maxspeed parameter to be labelled "Maximum Cruise Speed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.135.241 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This template REALLY needs an example

I'm getting a strong wiff of "only created for the small group in the know" here.

Please make it easier for regular wikipedians to use and modify these aircraft info templates. CapnZapp (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If you do not understand how to use this template, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would mean that our ability to edit articles ourselves would be compromised, having to go through a gateway process (waiting for help; possibly getting our ideas shot down). It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make something as simple as an aircarft info box equally simple to edit. It is unacceptable to replace proper documentation (and easily usable templates in the first place) with a request to first go through other editors. This is not an instance of "technical competence is assumed" - it's just an infobox. CapnZapp (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have got no idea what your issue is but as this template is depracated and not used for new articles anymore we dont really want to spend to much effort. If it has issues in an article then it should be replaced by Template:Aircraft specs which is the one currently maintained. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about deprecation of this template was moved to the topic Deprecation of this template. --Pipetricker (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It sure wasn't deprecated when I visited yesterday. Good riddance, I say. CapnZapp (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Deprecation of this template

This template isn't marked with Template:Deprecated template. Where is it said that it should be deprecated? --Pipetricker (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I cant remember when but I have asked at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specifications|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft]] if somebody can remind me. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I too can't remember when or where the discussion took place, but I did find proof of depreciation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)#Aircraft specifications. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 16:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that, I agree that it needs a deprecation tag. Being fully-protected, I guess an admin will have to add it? Something like this:

<noinclude>{{Deprecated|<nowiki>Aircraft specifications|Aircraft specs|date=March 2019}}</nowiki>

The same applies to Template:Aerospecs.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added the tag to the page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Just double checking here - {{tl|Aerospecs}} and {{tl|Aircraft specifications}} are replaced by {{tl|Aircraft specs}} right? --Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Right. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 12:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Will be nominating these then at TfD so this can be an official process. --Gonnym (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym That's not a good idea, hundreds of aircraft articles have not been switched to the new template. These templates are considered "legacy" templates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Aircraft specifications. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

We certainly want rid of the old templates or people will keep copy-pasting instances of them. A journey of several thousand instances begins with a single step - or maybe a bot if we get lucky. But is there a better way to formally transition than via TfD? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The TfD proposal is not to remove the templates while they still have uses, but to convert all current uses of the deprecated templates, to the new one, as that is what the deprecation notice and this discussion says to do. If this isn't the case, then the deprecation notice should be removed. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tfm template overflow

Comment: Adding this tag causes many style breaks on the pages I'm seeing. Please fix. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess you mean the line under the {{Tfm}} notice overflowing other content, like for example at Concorde#Specifications.

Wrapping the {{Tfm/dated}} call in <div style="overflow:hidden">...</div> would fix that.

But it should be fixed in the Tfm/dated template, so I have asked for that at Template talk:Tfm. --Pipetricker (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Assuming the above is what was meant, this has been fixed. --Pipetricker (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion

There's a discussion concerning the implementation of the merger of this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot --Trialpears (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

I've done around a thousand so far. Any feedback?--Petebutt (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

stripped </ul> tags

When the Armament header has to appear, this template generates stripped tag lint errors for </ul>. Over two edits, I moved a </ul>, which removed another lint error, but this is a bit difficult for me, so I'd ask the authors or other experts to work on this. Junkers EF 132 has 2 stripped </ul> tags. BAE Systems Hawk has 1 stripped </ul> tag. Heinkel He 274 has 2 stripped </ul> tags. Heinkel He 277 has 1 stripped </ul> tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)