Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Units

Some mention should be made about the preference (and conversions) for nautical vs. statute miles. It's not generally clear which is standard or when both and metric should be used (if ever). Also, is 'nm' or n. mi.' preferred? Askari Mark | Talk 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost every reference book, official web site, flight sim, etc. I've ever seen uses nm instead of mi, so far as I can remember. There could be an argument made that nm. is not as familiar to the layperson, and thus mi should be used on Wikipedia, but such prevalent use of nautical miles I would argue should prevail over common understanding. Marimvibe 22:01, 23

On a related note, I perceive that not stating airspeed in knots is confusing. It seems to be the standard unit of speed in aviation, the vast majority of sources I've seen only states airspeed in knots. Are land speed units used because of a community consent or is it something we could improve by adding the figures in knots as well? Rootmoose 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When possible, I'd prefer to see both nm and standard miles used. The standard specs templates include both plus metric when dealing with speed, range, etc., and I think that covers all bases well. - BillCJ 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be for nm & km for distance, knots (or mph) & km/h (kph) for airspeeds. That's most consistent with general usage, although I have seen range sometimes given in statute miles ... usually by someone who made the wrong conversion or didn't know the difference. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For information in specifications- I think that all three (i.e knots/nm, miles/mph and km / km/h should be used - the templates are designed that way. For info in the body of an article text, I would prefer miles and km - articles should be as easy as possible to understand - and most references that I have seen that are not aimed solely at avaition professionals (and virtually everything that I have seen that deals with historical aircraft) quotes data in miles and/or km. Nigel Ish 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "miles" is that the sources often don't identify whether they're using nautical or statute miles – and many of the popular encyclopedic sources mix them indiscriminately. Since we're only discussing aircraft here, I'd prefer knots & nm and km & km/h be used at a minimum and as a standard, since they're tradional. I'm neutral toward also including mi & mph; tracking three sets of units throughout, though, looks kind of ugly, so maybe list all three the first time an airspeed or distance is used in the article (for clarification), and then default to the former two? Askari Mark (Talk) 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just shuffling to the left for people with small screens !. I support Askari Mark comments, most reference books use miles, which are in fact nautical miles but the average reader does not notice. If we deviate from the common aeronautic terms, we have a lot of conversion work when most readers can readily assimilate knots and (nautical) miles. MilborneOne 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Askari. ALmost every book I know uses knots. I think it would be good to have primary as knots and maybye a seocndary in mph? (optional of course). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are essentially three reasons why statute miles and mph were originally settled on for WP:AIR over nm and knots:

1. (the most compelling reason, IMHO): these units are the most familiar to the widest audience, and I'll strongly disagree with Marimvibe and say that seldom should anything prevail against common understanding. This is particularly so when a member of a specialised audience who would like to know what that statistic looks like in nm should be able to easily convert it themselves; the converse is not necessarily true.

2. Contrary to what some people have said above, my experience is that practically all aviation reference books intended for a general audience (as Wikipedia primarily is) use statute miles; and very many (if not most) books intended for a specialised, enthusiast audience do too. Every one of the English-language books that I use on a regular basis for my contributions gives figures in statute, not nautical, miles.

3. The nautical mile is not only irrelevant to most readers of our articles, but in fact to the specifications of many (I would guess even most) of the aircraft we are have articles on. Consider:

• The UK and most (all?) British Commonwealth countries have always used and continue to use the nm for aviation, but:
• In the US, the Navy always used and continue to use the nm, but the Army/Air Force only introduced it after World War II (1946 or 48?), and civil aviation only started to use it in 1952. Even in 2007, many suppliers and manufacturers in the burgeoning homebuilt market seem to specify in statute miles (some cynics suggest because it produces bigger, more impressive-sounding numbers!) We cover a lot of pre-1948 US Army/Air Force aircraft and pre-1952 civil ones.
• Most of Europe most of the time uses and has always used metric units for aviation, as has Japan. We cover a lot of German, French, Italian, Soviet/Russian, and Japanese aircraft too.

It's already been pointed out that the current specification template offers the opportunity for using all three units: km, mile, and nm, so anyone who wants to contribute in nm and knots has the opportunity to do so. From what I've seen, however, very few contributors ever do. As current recommendations stand, best practice would be to include all three units (as some industry publications do); but if you're only going to include one non-metric unit, I really think it ought to be the statute mile. For a reader in the US unfamiliar with the metric system reading about a European aircraft, what's the point in converting a figure in meaningless km into a figure in meaningless nm? --Rlandmann 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not been reading comprehensively, but the newer articles I've seen seems to consequently use metric units. I think that is good, since I believe that the English language Wikipedia is read by more people outside the U.S. than inside. If that belief holds true, the use of imperial units lacks meaning to the larger public. There is a style guide that advises the use of units that are (1) unambigous (that is, don't use miles without clearly stating which type), (2) familiar to the field (which would, to a large extent but not exclusively, favor knots and feet over meters per second, kilometers per hour and (kilo)meters) and (3) international in scope (which certainly excludes statute miles). The use of units in this project is however the decision of it's active participants (I've unfortunately never belonged there), the only wish I have is that the system used is clearly labeled and used with some consequence. It would be nice if the conversions were provided as well, I really like that idea. Rootmoose (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)