Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)

3849:

Barling Bomber in their reference works. Jane's identifies it as the Barling Bomber. Artifacts from the aircraft are on display in the Air Force Museum under the title Barling Bomber. So far, all I have been able to find out about Witteman-Lewis was that it was formed by a group of investors just to bid on the Barling Bomber contract. When they failed to secure a production contract the company folded before the aircraft was even operational. They didn't assemble the aircraft. It was shipped in crates by rail to Dayton where a team of people working at the Fairfield Air Depot took 94 days putting it together. Based on the discussion on the article's talk page the current aircraft name was created in order to satisfy the current naming convention. This is one of the reasons I have proposed the naming clarification we are discussing here. I've recently seen the aircraft mentioned on eBay as the Witteman-Lewis, citing Knowledge as the source of the name. That means the current naming convention is already causing people to use this name, even though it is not correct according to official Air Force documents. -

2274:. In Russia D-D-N has been the only naming convention, with all Russian/Soviet aircraft using the name of the Design Bureau first, followed by the designation, than the common name (if any). The point that seems to have been missed is that the Design Bureau does not manufacturer the aircraft. At least until the early 1990s Russian aircraft manufacturing was done at any of a variety of state-owned factories, which may be building MiGs one month and refrigerators the next. That is the main reason that there is such a problem with commonality of parts on Russian aircraft. The canopy of a MiG-19 constructed at one factory will not fit on a MiG-19 constructed at another. I propose that the naming convention for aircraft on Knowledge should be amended to include both M-D-N and D-D-N at the very least. Once that has been done it should not be difficult to figure out which naming convention is most correct for the aircraft, and it will eliminate heated discussions of trying to fit aircraft that were officially name under one convention from being re-named to comply with another. - 2598:

the case with most creative endeavours, the purpose behind the name is to give credit to the creator of the work, though here it also has a secondary purpose; in the event of a problem with the design it allows the operator, or licensing agency, to identify the aircraft's origin. Because aircraft are very complicated most are designed either by a designer who has their own manufacturing capacity, or by a team of designers employed by the designing manufacturer. In this case the aircraft's name begins with the name of the designing manufacturer (using the name of the company at the time of the aircraft's introduction). It is important to note that this rule holds true regardless of what company ultimately manufactured the most examples of the aircraft. Examples of this are the

2606:, which were designed by one manufacturer but produced in greater numbers by other manufacturers. In the case of aircraft designed within the former Soviet Union the convention is simplified. All Soviet aircraft were designed by one of several design bureaus, generally named for the bureau's founder. Aircraft were named for the design bureau, and manufactured at various state-owned factories that had no connection to the aircraft's development. A third version of this convention is the case where an aircraft was designed by an individual with no manufacturing capacity, and produced by a manufacturer not involved in the aircraft's design. In this case the aircraft is named for the designer, not the manufacturer. Examples of this are the 3559:. The aircraft was officially named using a convention that places the emphasis on acknowledging the aircraft's designer, in deference to a manufacturer not involved in the aircraft's design. That shows a glitch in our naming convention, which currently allows an uninvolved manufacturer to have the aircraft named after them instead of the designing firm or designer, as is the case in most RS. It's a subtle but important distinction that needs to be addressed. Correcting it will allow the naming convention to follow the RS more closely (I've gone through 22 reference books in my collection and have found the aircraft identified as the "Barling Bomber" in all 22 books). - 3084:. You're putting together your own priorities, not necessarily reflecting the priorities of reliable sources, to suit one aircraft. It's more complicated than that, plus we give common usage in reliable sources as much weight as "official names", if not more. Again, the problem with the Barling Bomber's title is that there is no one common "name" used across sources, which is why the article's title is an editorial decision. Changing the wording guidelines to artificially give more weight in favor of the "designing entity" won't help change the fact there's still a dispute among the sources, and thus a dispute among the editors, on that one article. - 4085:

problems in the meantime. Since the convention is still fresh it is better to polish it now, then have it hang around until it's become fixed in place in its current form. Work on the convention should never really be "closed" as BilCat suggests, as there will always be new developments that come up that may call for a bit of tweaking. One should never consider something like this "done". I suggest that we discuss the best way of switching "manufacturer" to "designer", using the "designing manufacturer" or "design bureau" as the first preference, then the "individual designer" if no "designing manufacturer" or "design bureau" existed. -

3392:. I don't see any persuasive argument presented here that the current guidelines are a problem or that they aren't working and need changing, beyond maybe a note or two of clarification. We use M-D-N unless there is a reason not to and then it is discussed and a consensus formed for a more appropriate name. If the naming of the aircraft type is unclear, if different sources use different names, or similar problems, then the article should note that and all possible names should redirect to the article so that readers can find the article no matter which name is used for the article title or which one is searched for ( 4058:, and defeated each time. I opposed it every time I saw the issue come up. Then last year, it was submitted for consideration again, and passed with no opposition! Consensus can and does change, but harping over the same issue in several locations will not help to persaude people to change their minds. In fact, such harping is more likely to ensure that they don't, given human nature. In the long run, this is a relatively minor issue. Don't disparage the editors who disagree with you as not "considering the actual issues", back off the issue for a while, and see what happens next year. - 952:

by their "manufacturer-designation-name" at first mention and in the article title and then shortened afterwards. Also from the same policy, "Consistency" which says: "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred." More than anything that is what we agreed on. Because some aircraft require very specific naming to avoid confusion with similar names the principle of "Consistency" is invoked to avoid a massive hodge-podge of inconsistent naming. I would say that our current system hits four out of five conflicting requirements. -

3936:

convention, then our convention has a flaw. I would also question why you feel my advocating the name used by 22 different RS, including the sources I've mentioned above, would be considered an attempt to "ram though your own personal favourite name". Are you attempting to say that Jackson, Wagner, Jane's, AAHS, and Air Force documentation are for my use only? If that's the case, than what is your definition of RS? It is beginning to appear that you are attempting to establish a criteria for acceptable RS that they must first agree with the current naming convention. -

145: 3349:, but that is for reasons not related to this discussion. Btw, I disagree with the consensus as not following what reliable reference works use, but a consensus does exists, so I support it none-the-less as the consensus. I haven't made a major issue of it at every opportunity, nor have I been a disruptive presence in opposing it at several venues. Perhaps one day the issue will be brought up, and the consensus may change, but I don't see any support for changing it to this point, so vrigning it up now as a issue will probably fail to change it. - 2383:"convention" be an "exception" (and we're talking about a lot of airplanes here). Fortunately, allowing two possible naming conventions, D-D-N, and M-D-N, will accommodate the correct names for over 95% of all aircraft. It will also put an end to trying to force a D-D-N name into a M-D-N convention, which has resulted in recent (justified) disputes. I therefore propose that the naming convention for aircraft consist of either D-D-N or M-D-N, with the correct interpretation being drawn from the most accurate official records that can be found. - 178: 55: 5043: 24: 79: 1587:

years. Many of those complaining were not WPAIR project members. We finally adopted the new M-d-n system last year, and have had absolutley no complaints about it, within or without the project, except for those mentioned in this thread, and one other. For me, "if it works, don't fix it". You're welcome to disagree, but simply continuing to complain about it is not productive. File an RFC already, or please move on. -

2506:

the aircraft for the designer before putting it up for construction bids. Hense we have the "Kettering Bug", and not the "Dayton-Wright Airplane Company Bug", and should have the "Barling Bomber NBL-1" instead of the "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1". Having two possible naming conventions will eliminate the problem, and put an end to attempts to force M-D-N names on aircraft that were originally named using a D-D-N method. -

89: 2653:: This should be the aircraft's designer, design bureau, or the original designing manufacturer of the type. Aircraft designed by a manufacturer should generally be named after the manufacturer that designed the type, but if the type has been produced by different companies or under different company names then consensus should be reached on a case by case basis on which manufacturer to use. Examples include 2711:- The current system already allows exceptions to be discussed on local (case-by-case) basis. Having two accepted styles wouldn't eliminate the disputes, as we'd still have discussions over which syle is appropriate. We'd still have to have a move discussion for Barling Bomber, and I don't see the consensus changing in that case just because we allow editors to use D-D-N style when creating articles. - 2792:

sources use against common name (which is not always helped given that wikipedia, mirrors and lifts is now a dominant element in searching). Creating a second naming system will not be useful, better to draw up clear guideline based on consensus as to how to handle exceptions. Eg add to the guideline text such as "during the period 19** to 19**, the Department of xxxx, referred to aircraft by the

287:, editor s of this article could ask themselves whether they really go around using the term "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" most of the time, or whether they more often use an abbreviation such as "F-16 Fighting Falcon" or simply "F-16". If even die-hard aviation aficionados use abbreviated names, it is unlikely that "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" is really the common name. 4212:(for an OKB or similar) as alternate fields to Designer if needed to cover your who designed it points. Perhaps also a "Built By" to cover who actually built it which could include licensed building companies. Design Bureau would be covered by Design Organisation like the OKB. The Built By would be the same as Manufacturer but would have a narrow meaning to cover the actual construction: 2726:

also places greater weight on the designing manufacturer, as has been the convention for over 100 years. The term "designer" and "designing manufacturer" can be used interchangeably when discussing an aircraft designed by a company, and this still allows for the crediting of an individual when an aircraft has been designed by someone with no production capacity. -

2582:, it appears there is a misunderstanding as to what is meant by the use of the term "designer". I will try to elaborate, as once this is made clear there really isn't that much difference between the more precise naming convention and the one that is currently in use here. There are just a couple of very important points that have been overlooked. 1902:"The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used." 2258:

M-D-N format is one of two commonly used naming conventions, and outside the the U.S. probably not them most commonly used. The convention Designer-Designation-Name was used in the United States in the early years of aviation, and in Germany until after the end of WWII. An example of this naming convention in use in the United States is the

3917:

aircraft here on this page by changing the guidelines. No matter what is decided there will always be unclear naming and the need to gain a consensus on the naming. There will also be those editors who espouse one name over others, but consensus will be for another name and then that editor will just have to accept the consensus and

4181:" field to something that makes it more clear the field is for single-person designers, not project heads/design chiefs. This is per our current guidelines, whoch state:"The person or persons who designed the aircraft. Only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders." However, I'm not sure how to rename it, as " 2336:- the current system is working well for everyone except Ken. As it explains, exceptions need to be discussed and a consensus found when needed, we have done that quite successfully in a number of unusual cases where the guideline doesn't produce the best article title. A good example is the consensus named article 5201:

Moving on from de Havilland, the big RAF bombers from WWII come with their own issues; for instance Handley Page for most of their existence used a sequence from HP.1 up to HP.137 Jetstream. Although when it comes to the Halifax bomber article, we are offered H.P.57 Halifax, with rather too many full

5197:

Note that these photo captions are immediately adjacent to a definitive, accurate and wholly consistent list. You can guess what happens if we venture away from this page to other de Havilland aircraft articles; the problem just gets worse. But please note I do not have a problem with DHC-7 or DHA-3,

3006:

Why should "The emphisis should always be on giving credit to a designing entity before resorting to a non-designer"? How did you decide on that order? You've been railing agaisnt so-called fictional names, so where did this order come from? In general, most reliable aviation publishers use the m-d-n

2900:

Would it be pedantic to point out that the Royal Aircraft Factory did build some of their designs first though bulk manufacture during the war was by other companies? Or that Eurofighter GmbH is a consortium formed by the companies that do manufacture the aircraft? I think it questionable though that

2597:

The primary convention for naming aircraft, which seems to have been accepted worldwide since the beginning of aviation, was to base the aircraft's name on the designing entity. In most cases the designing entity is either the designing manufacturer, a design bureau, or an independent designer. As is

2257:

talk page, there has never really been a consensus on making this the standard naming format. It is clear that there has been strong objection all along, though a small number of supporters seem to be having their way without any real justification. Perhaps it will help those opposed to know that the

1868:

And if you use the general media and general public in my country as a guide then you would have all light aircraft types from Aeronca to Zlin under one article called "Cessna", because that is what most people think they are. While the M-D-N may seem a bit longer than you might like, it is still the

1740:

I'm hesitant to start an RFC unless it seems warranted. They can eat up the time of editors, and fray their nerves - which is unproductive to wikipedia as a whole. On the other hand, some articles now (IMO) have needlessly verbose, slightly unnatural, less instantly-recognisable, overly precise, but

1410:

In common parlance, cars are often referred to as Make-Model as google book and web searches will show, this fits entirely with the common name policy. Military aircraft are normally referred to by Designation-Name (as searches will also show). My current favourite for worst named aircraft article is

5230:

This brings up something that I've been meaning to research, bu never got around to doing. Did de Havilland (or any of the other manufacturers) ever change their standard for formatting model numbers? For example, did de Havilland switch between using a full stop and a space at different periods?

4513:

I think it would be less clear, as were trying to distinguish these builders from the initial designers(/builders). But it's an alternative worth considering. I'm certainly open to whatever the final consensus is on thses new fields, and I'm not trying to "dominate" the discussions by squelching any

3916:

Ken: even if your proposal here were adopted and there is no consensus to do so, then this particular case would still be one of unclear naming and would still require a consensus on the article talk page to agree on an article name. You can't ram though your own personal favourite name for this one

3599:

Ken: That example doesn't show any problem with the naming guideline. The aircraft's name is unclear from the sources available and so there should have been a discussion and a consensus formed, which there was. The article should also explain that the refs disagree and illustrate the names the refs

3329:

I don't accept the premise that it's been proven that our current guidelines don't follow what the reliable sources generally do. So far, only you and Ken support that premise, and there no consensus yet that the guideliens need to be changed beyond a possible minor rewording for clarification. I;ve

2725:

Although the current system allows for exceptions, it unfortunately generates exceptions that aren't actually exceptions at all if the convention were worded properly. When we switch "manufacturer" to "designer" we eliminate any confusion over who has priority in a designer-manufacturer conflict. It

2505:

Unfortunately we are running into problems with this. There are a few here who have become stuck on the M-D-N convention, even when the D-D-N is identified in official records. So far the problem seems to mostly involve early aircraft of the 1910s and 1920s, a time when the U.S. military often named

2382:

Certainly. Because the Soviet Union used the naming convention Designer-Designation-Name (D-D-N), and the majority of military aircraft constructed during the Cold War were of Soviet design, the current naming convention of Manufacturer-Designation-Name is an "exception". It doesn't work to have the

2135:

No one is "naming" the aircraft, or trying to set an international standard. What we have done is try to list the aircraft as they generally appear in most reference works, including Jane's, and that is in the m-d-n format. Does Jane's list aircraft according to common name only? Apparently even you

2056:

Ownership? No, I just dislike people who treat others as if their stupid for holding a certain view, and then adopt that same view for the exact same reasons later on, with no apologies whatsoever. "currently it's rather a clique consensus, arguably in the face of Policy" is quite indicitive of your

1657:

In short, it's all very well to complain about an article title but it must be considered that the current situation has not been arrived at by accident. I too would like to participate in an RfC on this subject having pushed for the US military aircraft articles to align with the rest of the world,

1586:

use two separate systems for the first 4 years that I was on WP from 2006-2010: designation name for US military aircraft, and manufactuer-name or manufacturer-designation (some types have only a name or a designation) for almost all others. But that was a very contentious system for the the whole 4

951:

is "Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article. There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus." In almost all reliable aviation sources aircraft are called

272:

The goal of the article title is to have it match what people are most likely to search for, while still being a unique article identifier. I understand that Knowledge is currently following the standard of aviation reference books, but news articles are also considered reliable sources and probably

3935:

What I'm suggesting is that there be a modification made to the naming convention to bring it in line with the convention employed by the most respected RS. When Robert Jackson, Ray Wagner, Jane's, AAHS, and U.S. Air Force documents all agree on one name, and that name doesn't conform to our naming

3848:

I obtained the original Army Air Service Test Manual from 1926 from the Air Force archives. It identifies the aircraft as the Barling Bomber NBL-1. I also had the original Air Service bid proposal which identified it as the Barling Bomber NBL-1. Both Robert Jackson and Ray Wagner identify it as the

3268:

Actually it was me who drew up the list first. You still haven't explained why the current guideline (which doesn't match what RSs normally do) is preferable to one that is based on what RSs normally do. Eurofighter could be described as a JV, but the factories that actually do the assembly are not

1275:

Go for it! If an extremely narrow interpreation of COMMON NAME is upheld to be the most important aspect of WPTITLE, I look forward to challenging other project guidelines that don't strictly abide by such a narrow interpretation either. Ought to be a lot of fun, especially those projects I haven't

1144:

Most articles were changed over 9 months ago so asking for an opinion on last years changes is in my opinion a bit late. So far only two users have been to this page with an objection to the current guideline. You are welcome to make any suggestion to change the guideline and that can be discussed.

4737:

I have no problem with the change in wording, but you picked an unfortunate choice to test it. The Army Air Service Engineering Division was never involved in the design or assembly of the Barling Bomber. In fact, several of my books make a point of mentioning that the Barling was never associated

3981:

There is no perfect standard, but there are minor clarifications that could be made to the current one that would cut down on the number of naming "exceptions" to this rule. Reducing the number of exceptions would reduce conflict, and generate names that more consistantly match those in use by the

1223:

In particular, the guidelines for US city names do not follow the Common name guideline in that most of the articles are required to use the stste name. Even Canadian cities have not been required to use their province name unless it's needed for DABbing for several years now. It would probably be

469:

establishes a two-format standard for aircraft articles - one for the United States, not using the manufacturer's name, and one for everyone else, using the manufacturer's name. Your proposed "designation name" format was, in fact, the format previously used by Knowledge; during the middle of last

5310:

However, as the signwriter didn't trouble himself with the hyphen between Rolls and Royce I would only use these examples to highlight the almost unknown application of VC9 for the Vanguard type. Other sources will confirm the absence of any punctuation between 'Vickers Commercial' and the design

1653:

For busy editors creating navboxes consistency in aircraft type naming convention is paramount, if a redirected article name is used in a navbox then it does not automatically display as bolded in the navbox as it should, there is a bot running around fixing this very problem. To sift through and

1515:

No, not all will be consistent, they don't have to be. Consistency is one of the five criteria, and it doesn't trump the others. Using the most common English name for US planes with one style, and (for instance) Russian ones with another isn't bias, it's reflecting what English speakers commonly

862:

That's where the "Consensus on entitling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems" part comes in. The guideliens ars constituted address the particular problems as we've explained. Also, most of the objections to the separate m-m/m-d and d-n formats did come from casual

664:

the D-N format , and would prefer it to the m-d-n format. However, I supported the change to the M-D-N format, as the d-n format caused a lot of controversy because it differed from the other aircraft articles. After several years of debate over the issue, a consensus was finally reached, and the

3213:

and others. Again, I don't think reliable sources always follow Ken's priorities, if ever, so trying to standardize on that list - itemized or not - isn't the best format to me. I think handling the situations on a case by case basis is still the best way to go. Editors just need to realize that

2932:

and Allison J35]], which is what most reliable sources list these engines as, not as GE products. I don't know if the following applies to the Barling Bomber, but in the US in the early 20s, the US government often bid aircraft designs to other contractors for production, and those manufacturers

1679:

I have to agree with Nimbus that the most important factor is "can the readers find the article?", not so much what the article name actually is. That means that redirects and to some extent the use of disambiguation pages, are the key issues. I know when I create a new aircraft type article the

279:

states, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a

4084:

The current convention is a good start to solving the naming issue for aircraft, and generally is not bad. It just needs cleaned up a bit to make it function more smoothly, and provide names that consistantly match the RS. Delaying that process is irrational, as it is only going to lead to more

3901:

In fact, it is quite relevant to this discussion. It is the current naming convention, being discussed here, that resulted in the name used in the Barling Bomber article. What is being discussed now is the consequences of this naming convention, and what changes should be made to prevent future

3550:

I don't think there's any reason to change the word "Manufacturer" to "Company", as "Manufacturer" is a bit more specific, and the word "Company" would not be appropriate for describing a Soviet Design Bureau. The Soviet Union didn't allow the existence of a "Company", as the term is applied to

2811:

I hope you see now that this would not create a second naming system, but rather clarify the system now in place, placing greater emphasis on the designing manufacturer, as well as individual designers, and encompassing several situations that would previously have been considered exceptions. -

1953:

That is exacty what we settled on some time ago, what Jane's uses for titles, which is Manufacturer-Designation-Name. The only difference is that we sometimes group similar types into one article, which results in a shorter name. For example the 1982-82 edition of Janes All The World's Aircraft

446:

Personally, I think that simply using *DESIGNATION* (e.g. F-16, B-2) for U.S. military aircraft best complies with the common name rule, but my proposal of *DESIGNATION* *NAME* is more likely to win acceptance among other editors and would still be an improvement over the current naming scheme.

4272:

Keep it simple. Just add "|design organization=". Manufacturer remains the business that built the airframes whether they also designed it or not. So you'd handle cases like this. Designer is understood to be an individual in common use so need to change. Design organization is patently not an

2791:

for US military aircraft the Manufacturer-designation-name format seems to be extensively used by sources and in some cases retrospectively applied. There are instances where multiple designations are used in the course of the aircraft's use and after. We need to balance what the (third-party)

2116:

or some other authority. Now it's presented like a royal decree on aircraft names. Wiki has no authority to set an international standard. It should not be assumed that every aircraft has a name in some particular format. IMO, the JAWA name should be treated as a long-form official name, given

741:

I also oppose changing it again right now. As noted we recently had this debate and came to a wide consensus on the current nomenclature for exactly the reasons that you specify. I would argue that the current system does violate "Conciseness", but within aviation circles and nomenclature, the

3411:

What if we changed the "Manufacturer" to the more vague "Company", for "Company-designation-name" (C-D-N)? Would this be acceptable, as long as we realize that changing the manufacturer's name to the designing person's name still needs to be discussed locally to gain a consensus? We often use

2061:

be a smart as you are, and have some wisdom and experience worth sharing. Anyway, I am as fully capable of making this as personal as you are, though why you've chosen to do so here and now is beyond me. If you'd like to move on before someone sends us both to ANI, then now would be the time,

4346:

Those are good points, but I still would like to have "built by" as an option, especially for licensees and contructors in the OKB system. I'm OK with keeping "Designer" as is, though we could make the output read "Design engineer". Also, we could reconsider using the "Design" field only for

2927:

Re: "In fact in all the cases I can think of where the designing organisation (DO) and manufacturer (M) are different the WP title begins with the DO." There are several cases where this isn't so, and probably more if we search for them. One that springs to mind is an aircraft engine, not an

894:

If I understand it correctly, the previous problem was that different countries have different naming conventions for their aircraft, and that there are different naming conventions between military and commercial aircraft. I don't understand why that would be an issue. Just use the naming

2614:. As always, there are exceptions to the rule. The most common exception is the case where an aircraft was designed by a manufacturer that has gone out of business, and later produced by a different manufacturer who has acquired sole design and production rights. Examples of this are the 4249:

Looks good to me. Sometimes the brain isn't very creative lat e at night, so thanks for coming up with good terms to use! I think it would be good to drop notes at the template page and at WT:AIR, as sometimes editors only watch certain pages, or they get de-watchlisted inavdertantly. -

440:, e.g. F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-35 Lightning II, Boeing 747, Airbus A380. (I am unfamiliar with foreign aircraft naming conventions.) This would better match the common names used by the public, while still being unique identifiers for just about all aircraft, even the B-1. In addition, 3193:, I think it's best described as a joint-venture "consortium", which is somewhat common for aircraft and aero-engines produced by multiple manufacturers. It is properly the designer and manufacturer. Some other co-produced aircraft and engines were made by such consortiums, such as 2136:

have admitted that they do not. If we need to cite sources for what an aircraft's manufacturer, designation and name are, individually per reliable sources, I have no problem with that, and in fact most of the time that info is available in the sources already cited in an article.

4938:

I think I'm not making myself clear here. From what I understood, the consensus was that the template should include designing organisations as well as individual designers. If that is correct, the template itself does not properly reflect that consensus as the description reads

746:

would be found at "Chopper" or some other similar term that is not used in the aviation community. The other main problem is one of "Precision" and consistency. There is only one "172", but does "206" mean a "Cessna 206" or a "Bell 206"? There are at least five aircraft called a

751:

which would be the common name for all of them. This would lead to a very patchwork nomenclature whereby some aircraft would require very precise names and others could get away with very imprecise names because everyone knows what it means. Do keep in mind that the reason for

2149:. These should really be dealt with on a case by case basis by consensus, which is already permitted by WP guidelines, and which we are doing on that article's talk page. "Spruce Goose" is another example of an aircraft type with only one built and a common name, and it is at 3126:

Ken's priority order is better than mine - stressing that this would only come into play in the rare cases where looking at RSs hasn't made it obvious what the "make" part of the article title should be (and we probably don't need the bulleted list itself in the guideline).

1204:

This has been dealt with in detail in the sections above, especially on how the general naming conventions do allow projects to create naming conventions that suit their subjects. Rather than rehash the same arguments over again, it wiuld be better to seek outside opinion

4174:" (or "Constructor", or something more appropriate), that would give us more flexibility in addressing the actual designers and builders. This wouldn't affect the naming conventions, as we already give precedence to the OKBs in the article titles as "Manufacturers". 712:"Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another. 1869:

least-worst solution. We have been around this before, but if you want to give some examples of articles that you think should be renamed then we can look at that and see if it creates any known problems. Let's start with the article I created yesterday, which was

1209:, or take the issue up at a central location for naming convetion discussions on WP. Please note that other WP projects have naming conventions that do not follow COMMONNAME, and these should probably be dealt with at the same time, in such a central location. - 280:

search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word 'Knowledge'." Therefore, news articles and Google search results can and should be used in judging the common name.

3135:) doesn't fit that definition of manufacturer. Similarly Eurofighter descibe themselves as "co-ordinators" - AFAIK they don't have any factories. As to the comments about this being "synthesis", isn't that normal for WP guidelines ? - for example in writing 1224:

best to tackle the whole issue of projects that do not abide by the Common name guidelines at one central location, rather than have such battles fought in individual projects. This would help to settle the issue with a general consensus once and for all. -

5117:

has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the

2848:

were generally not mass manufacturers). In fact in all the cases I can think of where the designing organisation (DO) and manufacturer (M) are different the WP title begins with the DO. The first part of aircraft type article titles should be (in order of

742:

current system does not violate "Recognizability", "Naturalness" or "Precision". One of the problems is that what the average general public reader vs the somewhat knowledgeable aviation reader would use. Face it if we relied on the former the article on

2928:

aircraft, though the aeroengine articles follow the WPAIR aircraft naming conventions without exception. The J33 and J35 were both designed by GE, but the production licenses and rights were given by the US government to Allison, thus our articles are at

1426:

appears to be hand-waving which ignores the point of the policy - for articles to be named according to Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency - not for Consistency, Consistency, Consistency, Consistency and Consistency.

756:

is to make the articles easy to find. Once you find the article the title is not very important. Most of us create lots of redirects and disambiguation pages to make sure that any search will quickly allow the reader to find what they are looking for. -

2153:, also by consensus. As to whether the common name guideline should apply to all aircraft articles without following any set format, that has been dealt with extensively in the sections above, with no consensus reached to change the current format. - 506:

I understand that this was debated recently, but editors often make decisions based on what they personally like, rather than based on Knowledge standards. The current naming scheme is INCONSISTENT with the naming of most other articles on Knowledge.

970:

I think you guys are starting to argue in circles. I already addressed the "aviation sources" and "consistency" arguments. I say you're hitting one out of five of the article naming requirements. I have to go. I don't expect any immediate changes.

3007:

style, and that's what WP:AIR has chosen to follow. Not some fictional priorty list made up by a user who has threatened to tamper with sources to obtain the results he wants, and now wants to tamper with the guidelines to suit his preferences. -

2405:

The guideline already explains that "manufacturer" in M-D-N means "main designer and manufacturer of the type" so it accommodates Soviet aircraft etc. However the guideline probably could be made clearer - for example here's a suggestion based on

3555:'s claim there isn't any evidence "that the current guidelines are a problem or that they aren't working and need changing". A good example of the problem the current guidelines are generating is the discussion going on on the talk page for the 2175:

It's of course not a question of documenting the manufacturer, designation, or name, by rather the use of the m-d-n form for a specific aircaft. Even when such names are documented, using them as article titles is the equivalent of putting

2222:

article is about an aircraft type (it has specification etc). If you think that the convention for the titles of aircraft type articles should depend on the number built (0,1,2+) then please explain what the advantage of this would be.

1654:

find the right names would take forever, if we can have an educated stab at what it should be called then life is easier. There are over 10,000 aircraft type articles, it's entirely possible that some of them don't have the ideal name.

265:

The common name rule states, "Knowledge does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

5213:. FWIW I'm pretty confident I already know the answer for most manufacturers, but that isn't the same as a consensus. Then can we publish the advice in an appropriate way for those that follow us. (Or has this all been done before?) 3710:

If you ignore the manufacturer as has been suggested and use the designing organisation then in this example you would actually be the "Engineering Division NBL-1 Barling Bomber" as Barling designed it under contract for the Army

2449:"). The article name needs to include the make because many aircraft model names are often too ambiguous by themselves. Rather than ad hoc disambiguation, it is better to have a consistent standard, which also happens to be the 2218:) than they do with articles about people or countries. And anyway, if every country name was of the form "X Republic of Y" and the X was sometimes necessary to resolve ambiguity then that probably would be the WP standard. The 2796:

name rather than that of the manufacturer. For these aircraft, where a consistent name has not been established in reliable sources, it is preferable to place the article at.... and create redirects from common alternatives."

2622:. A second exception is the curious tendency of the U.S. military to change the name of foreign-designed aircraft (usually British) when they're put into domestic production. Examples of this are the Dayton-Wright DH-4, and 3695:

Witteman-Lewis was not involved in the design of the aircraft. They won the bid to construct it after the aircraft had already been designed by Walter Barling and named the ""Barling Bomber NBL-1" by the Army Air Service. -

1040:

seems rather flexible about it; both are mainly about recognisability for the public. Commonname even specifically points out that technically correct names aren't essential. I can see very little reason to call an article

4413:, I think that should answer the points made with the mimimum of disruption. If the two new fields are not compulsory the current articles are ok as is but they can be added if needed. We would need to make the notes for 2933:

would then own the rights to production. We'd have to investigate those individual cases so to see how're there listed on WP and other reliable sourcers, as I can't recall which aircraft were affected by that policy. -

1732:

BilCat: This is a discussion, not a "late complaint". There is no deadline and no final state for wikipedia articles or their names. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but trying to dismiss discussion isn't

3330:

also give examples of where reliable sources don't follow the proposed priorities. As to Erofighter, as I understand it, the factories that build the Typhoon belong to companies that are members of the joint venture:

3139:

I combined information from RSs (RAF Museum Aircraft Thesaurus), from existing WP guidelines (e.g. MOS) and comments from editors. We're suggesting the guideline should be changed to make it match RSs more, not less.

3041:

If you look at the "official" names you will see that the emphisis has always been on crediting the name to the designing manufacturer, not just any manufacturer. That's the distinction that's being addressed here. -

5335:. So the additional step associated with this this may be the reason that some of the articles related to the company originally began with a capital letter. In addition, as many English speakers are unfamiliar with 863:

readers, who could not understand why one format was used for the bulk of the world's aircrft, but US (and also Canadian) military aircraft articles used a differnt format without the manufacturer. Again, no one has

4028:) being raised again. However, as long as there are several editors who reply to any proposed improvement with "Oppose any change" (rather than considering the actual issues) there will be no consensus for change. 867:

difficulty in finding the articles. Your primary objection is on the grounds that it's not following COMMONNAME very strictly - not that you have had difficulty finding the aircraft articles you were looking for. -

3188:

My point on synthesis is that Ken has been accusing our guidelines of promoting "fictional" "names", yet he then produces a list based on his own priorities that is not always followed in real-world sources. As to

4672:

I think "Design group" has the right level of amibiguity to cover an organ of the state, a university department, a private design bureau, or a bunch of like minded individuals. Could even be "Designing group".

1724:

GraemeLeggett: "At the start of this discussion it was '....most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources' now it's just what the English speaking (public) use?" The policy

4982:. That seems infobox-mentionable, except "designer" is meant for single designers, not groups, while "Design Group: Ed Heinemann" looks very odd, as would "...Ed Heinemann-led". Would it be possible to change 5155:

I am frustrated by a lack of consistency in Knowledge's presentation of model names for this manufacturer. There may be other manufacturers with similar issues, but let's start with DH. A list of products at

3648:

was designed by Blackburn Aircraft but "detailed design" was by Boulton Paul who also built it. Were Witteman-Lewis just some carpenters and metal workers who worked entirely from plans supplied by Barling?

2661:. Although either is correct the former is used by consensus. Aircraft designed by individuals and manufactured by a company not involved in the design should be named for the designer. Examples include the 1737:, people would still be able to find them because of all of the redirects. The discussion is about the actual titles used. Using a title so an infobox entry is in bold seems to be the tail wagging the dog. 4381:

I should chime in and point out that "Design engineer" is probably a bit too specific as a large number of small aircraft have been designed by non-engineers (ie amateurs). "Designer" is probably best. -

5176:

All names in the list include 'DH', a full stop, a sequential design number, and (optionally) a common name. So far, so good - until you read the variety of captions under the accompanying photographs.

1173:

MilborneOne; I only just noticed the change. I don't think it's ever "too late" to discuss issues, there isn't a deadline for a final version of wikipedia, and a core value is to continually improve it.

562:

titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions

4568:

The output on "Designer" is currently "Designed by". I think that would work for "Design Organization" too, so we wouldn't have to add a separate field for Design organization, just for "Built by". -

1242:

Just to inject my two cents here; I recently looked over some aircraft names and, not having been involved with aircraft pages before, it also struck me that the current naming convention contradicts

665:

change-over was suprisingly well received. I don't think we've had another complaint abou the new M-d-N format since the change over, which is far different from the situation before the change. -

1658:

there were no objections when the change happened and indeed there was a massive effort to correct them all, mostly by US editors. BTW, 'violation' is a silly term and should not be used on WP.

5138: 4540:

Oh, do we have an alternate word for "organisation"/"organization that aviods the spelling differences? I can add fields for both spellings, but it would be better to have just one field. -

1302:

Looking over this again, I think it's worth noting that cars seem to almost universally be titled using a "make & model" formulation even when that formulation might arguably contradict

2832:

We have dozens (possibly hundreds) of aircraft articles with titles that begin with the designing organisation rather than the main manufacturer(s). Examples include Soviet aircraft (e.g.

1702:- I think we all agree that is the most important factor. Unfortunately, there are a lot of sticklers out there who insist that articles are titled in a systematic and logical fashion. 3961:

any change to the current standard. While it may not be perfect, it works, and avoids the previous confusing hodgepodge of systems that the current standard was adopted to resolve. -

973:

I request that this section remain unarchived for a while so others have an opportunity to reflect on whether aircraft article titles really comply with the letter and the spirit of

5114: 1534:

At the start of this discussion it was "....most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" now it's just what the English speaking (public) use?

1110:

I'm also unconvinced that this discussion has enough visibility across wikipedia - currently it's rather a clique consensus, arguably in the face of Policy. How about putting up a

290:

Here is a short table comparing the Knowledge title to its corresponding Encyclopaedia Britannica title. According to Knowledge policy, Britannica is considered a reliable source.

4143:

This has been discussed before, but since it is somewhat related to the naming conventions issues discussed above, I'm raising it again in a separate post. Currently, we use the "

2314: 4020:

I still think that there are a number of improvements that could be made to this guideline. For example, a brief explanation of why we include "make" in article titles (as per

5259:

went through a change of format, but I now believe their post-war civilian transport aircraft were always in the format "VCx" without any punctuation. Unfortunately that is

4443:

Concur with those suggestions. I can adde the fields in once we have the consesnsu to do so simply by copying the ecxisting fields, as this template os only semi-protected.

1680:

first thing I do after the article is complete is to create as many redirects, plus links on disambiguation pages, as I can to make sure that readers can find it easily. -

2674: 1469:

Just to note that not all military aircraft are referred to by designation-name as has been said before designation-name is mainly a US thing. Perhaps we should also add

997:

I don't see any reason why not to leave it here for others to comment on, but so far we seem to have a pretty solid consensus, although that can be revisited any time. -

3887:

Dont really think this is the place for repeating the same arguments, whatever the agreed guideline here it will not change the local consensus related to that article.

1176:

Ahunt; Article naming using common names which our users will most readily recognise isn't POV - not using them seems closer to pandering to political correctness IMO.(

1276:

been involved in either, and therefore really don't have a clue as to why those guideliens exist as they do, but oh well, if COMMONNAME is most important, so be it. -

190: 4500: 3991: 3705: 3658: 2985: 2821: 4430: 2301:

any change, nothing wrong with the current guideline, in unusual cases they can be discussed locally and a talk page consensus reached. Any guideline that allows

3911: 3858: 3724: 2341: 2253:

After re-reading all of the objections to using the M-D-N as the primary method for naming aircraft it is apparent that, contrary to what has been stated on the

474:

aircraft articles, regardless of nationality I doubt there is any desire by editors to change back. (In addition, comparisons to Britannica should bear in mind

5058: 5036: 5020: 4716: 4682: 4523: 4356: 4325: 3972: 2942: 2910: 2887: 2806: 2310: 1821: 1365: 202: 197: 4761: 1791: 1543: 1440: 1381: 5127: 4468: 4259: 3795: 3778: 2095: 838: 812: 779:: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." -- 547: 516: 497: 432:

leads to a disambiguation page because the name is common for many things besides aircraft. In addition, there are multiple B-1 aircraft, so Knowledge has a

5090: 4952: 4747: 4124: 4094: 3896: 3093: 3051: 3016: 2775: 2749: 2735: 2697: 2549: 2515: 2419: 2392: 2283: 1529: 1482: 1168: 1154: 5005: 3945: 3930: 3609: 3568: 2345: 1372:

In the Canadian general media in my experience Piper PA-28 Cherokees are most often called "Cessnas" and Cessna 172s are most often called "Piper Cubs". -

4899: 4853: 4803: 4730: 4647: 2232: 2197: 2162: 1689: 651: 590: 574: 5076: 2306: 4667: 4629: 4577: 4549: 4241: 4067: 4037: 3495: 3358: 3278: 3223: 3149: 2720: 1335: 1285: 1262: 1233: 610:

Recognizability – One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject. -

4943:- The person or persons who designed the aircraft. Only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders" and thus excludes design organisations. 3525: 3469: 3443: 3425: 2071: 2031: 1993: 1882: 1761: 1711: 1596: 5202:

stops. Meanwhile over at Avro, history tells us that the Avro 679 Manchester was the type that was developed into the Avro (blank space) Lancaster. A

5145: 1967: 1940: 1854:

is even more common, with all definitions of that word get 274 million ghits, but filterin down the results to the correct meaning is problematic. -

1189: 1127: 1103: 714:

Consensus on entitling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, is stated and explained on the guideline pages referenced.

4739: 4086: 3983: 3937: 3903: 3850: 3697: 3560: 3043: 2977: 2813: 2767: 2740:

There's no need for "crediting of an individual" in the title - that can be done in the text, and in the Infobox if it's a single-person designer. -

2727: 2689: 2507: 2384: 2275: 904: 877: 730: 696: 674: 581:

Just to note you mention names in the infoboxes as a guide, this is subject to a different consensus which has nothing to do with the article title.

2437:"). The make should be a short form of the manufacturers name (or the designing organisation if that is different), as would be commonly used (see: 1006: 988: 961: 934: 788: 766: 4606: 4194: 2540:

what you would like changed in the guideline (e.g. "In the first sentence of the lede replace ... by ...") we might be able to make some progress.

5331:

Just a quick note here about something unique to de Havilland. Creating a title that begins with a lowercase first letter requires a template for

1984:

Hohum, I do hope you leave us alone now, and perhaps give greater weight to a project's views before wasting their time re-inventing the wheel. -

1094:

They are used in the article text, just not in the title as they represent a US, NATO or western-centric POV, which Knowledge strives to avoid. -

2666: 2611: 5113:

policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled:

4220:|designer = Only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders - depracted use design engineer and design organisation as required 1074:

There seems to be a strong urge not to use NATO reporting names, but the fact is, they tend to be the most widely recognised names in English. (

5348: 2326: 829:

No, it's not what he stated. He's arguing in favor of "the somewhat knowledgeable aviation reader" over "the average general public reader". --

253: 4890:

This is an old discussion on the template itself. We can discuss it on the Gripen's talk page, and you can present reliable sources there. -

2302: 1673: 5322: 5250: 2126: 5193:

de Havilland Sea Vixen (satisfies WP:CommonName for the few of us left who actually remember the Sea Vixen, but omits DH.110 design number)

438:

I propose switching to a system of *DESIGNATION* *NAME* for U.S. military aircraft and *MANUFACTURER* *DESIGNATION* for commercial aircraft

248: 4012: 2482: 2373: 2106: 1863: 1218: 1012: 3405: 2357: 1087: 456: 2441:), unless disambiguation with other makes is required. For most aircraft types the model consists of an alphanumeric designation (e.g. " 3342:, not including sub-contractors. If a joint venture isn't named, we usally list the prime contractors by name. The major exception is 2766:

We're not talking about crediting an individual in the body of the article, we're discussing how the aircraft was originally named. -

2574:

Sorry for the delay. I have two books I'm working on at the same time, and a chapter deadline came up. Based on the comments below by

2145:

What you are proposing is merely to allow aircraft articles such as that on the "Barling Bomber" to be listed as such, rather than as

5224: 2641:. In some cases, the type may not have a designation or name, or its inclusion would not make sense to meet the common name criteria. 5368: 5363: 5104: 3131:

says "one that goods systematically or on a large scale" so making a few prototypes prior to mass production elsewhere (e.g. the

2627: 617:

Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article -

5378: 5373: 4699:

So we're OK with adding "Design group" - is that fine as the infobox output also? Any problems with me changing the output of "

3600:

use, which it does. The fact that you disagree with the consensus would not be rectified by anything you have proposed here. -

4612:

If we decide we want separate fields for the single-person designer and design organization, we can change the output of the

2214:

Articles about aircraft types have more in common with articles about car types (which include the manufacturers name - e.g.

340: 2266:, which has been the subject of discussion recently. In Germany the D-D-N can be found in the names of aircraft such as the 1650:. This, to me, shows that considerable thought has been expended by many editors on helping readers to access the article. 1647: 3214:

there preferences won't alwys win the consesnus, accept that as part of life on a cooperative encyclopedia, and move on. -

1069:

is a more complex issue - one standard which would have relatively few inconsistencies would be <Designation/Number: -->

328: 273:

better represent the names most common in the minds of the public. Very few people actually read aviation reference books.

2840:...) and aircraft licence-built by companies other than the original designer/manufacturer (during both World Wars - e.g. 1736:

Nimbus/Ahunt: Finding the article is moot; if all of the aircraft articles were renamed Gobledygook-<serial number: -->

5132: 4201: 2018:

to have a simple discussion when I feel it's warranted. You do great editing work, but appear to have ownership issues. (

1618:

Does it matter if redirects or DAB pages are in place for all variations of an aircraft name? Let's try the F-4 Phantom;

5293: 4138: 1954:

describes the Circa Reproductions Nieuport 11 and the Circa Reproductions Nieuport 17, etc. We have combined them into

4151:

for both the actual prime contractor/designer/builder, and generally include the Soviet/Russian-style design bureaus (

119: 3786:

uses the term Engineering Division NBL-1, it is considered a reliable source for information on American aircraft.

2185: 1635: 1627: 470:

year this was extensively debated, and the "m-d-n" format was established by consensus as the format to be used by

106:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of 5281:- another rarity, but at least three (Invicta G-AXOY, G-BAFK, G-AXNT) displayed 'Rolls Royce VC9' on the tail (*) 4840:

with the comment "Infobox designer field is only meant for individual(s)" which also what the description on the

4974:

Apologies for digging this back up, but I ran into a bit of a problem while wondering how to work this into hte

4514:

input I don't necessarily agree with. I'm not quite as bad about that as some other editors seem to think! ;) -

2431:

Articles about aircraft types should generally be placed under a title named in a two-part format: <Make: -->

4841: 4791: 4347:

single-person designers, as the use of project heads/chief desingers in that field seems to be quite common. -

4148: 3516:

As Wikitionary states a company is just a "companionship" or "A group of individuals with a common purpose". -

2638: 2446: 154: 101: 65: 60: 1642:(first entry). I personally disagree that it should be 'Phantom II' as it is unlikely to be confused with the 604: 2057:

attitude here. That's not "temerity", it's arrogance. Be a bit less contentious, and treat others as if they

4994:? I realise that would open it up from "just one person", but it would make more sense overall, I think. - 3412:"Manufacturer" and "Company" interchangably in writing the articles anyway, and this would allow using the 3132: 2976:

The emphisis should always be on giving credit to a designing entity before resorting to a non-designer. -

2841: 2658: 1955: 721:

I think the guidelines here fit well with the spirit of the policy, especially the part I've italicized. -

316: 35: 2637:

The naming of aircraft articles should follow a standard format of designer-designation-name, for example

5141:

which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —

4204:

on this discussion, I think the same players watch both so we probably dont need to move it. Perhaps add

2615: 1920:(eb.com) seems to use the shortest title possible - but is hardly exhaustive in its coverage of aircraft. 376: 235: 5332: 5318: 5220: 4794:. What articles are you trying to use it on? I can take a look and see why it's not working for you. - 4285:|manufacturer=Airco, Glendower Aircraft Company, Palladium Autocars, Vulcan Motor and Engineering et al 3210: 3202: 2878:" and also emphasised the importance of only using an article title that matches a title found in RSs. 2603: 400: 3393: 1314:). Perhaps planes could be similar? On the other hand, planes are cars are quite different in that 388: 5110: 5030: 4999: 4703:" to read "Designer" instead of "Designed by"? And are we fine with "builder" having an output of " 3966: 3136: 2619: 948: 806: 801:...which is exactly what is being stated. Using your system would only lead to reader confusion. - 557: 491: 352: 218: 107: 5198:

for the Canadian and Australian sub-divisions, as long as they stick to that format in each case.

5081:

Use the template's design group field, which was added at the time this discussion was going on. -

2410:(I realise it's not perfect because we don't normally use the terms make and model in this sense) 1114:

asking for wider opinion, or temporarily tag the articles being changed with a message template. (

4678: 4496: 4321: 3654: 2906: 2802: 2470: 1787: 1539: 1470: 1412: 1361: 442:

my proposal matches what most Knowledge aircraft articles I've seen are using in their infoboxes.

4837: 4597:

for a test, using "Designed by" and "Built by", but with nothing in the "Manufacturer" field. -

3198: 4226:|design organisation=Company or bureau who designed or holds the design rights to the aircraft 3982:

best RS. The convention would continue to work, it would just work better than it does now. -

1748:

Can anyone explain why consistency should override the other criteria for aircraft articles? (

1646:

as it is an obscure type and no one ever calls it that, but there it is. In fact there are 56

1032:

The recent swathe of title changes appear to have been motivated by a desire for consistency.

5314: 5216: 4975: 4594: 4426: 4237: 3892: 3791: 3720: 2438: 2322: 2254: 2146: 2091: 1478: 1150: 586: 570: 425:

It looks to me like Britannica is obeying Knowledge's common name rule and Knowledge is not.

41: 1887:

I'm not sure why "General media" is being discussed when I already agreed that the usage in

538:. That is not the issue being debated. WP:NOTPAPER has nothing to do with article naming. -- 5123: 4743: 4229:|built by = Who actually built the aircraft if different from the design organisation 4090: 3987: 3941: 3907: 3854: 3712: 3701: 3564: 3047: 2981: 2817: 2771: 2731: 2693: 2654: 2623: 2511: 2388: 2279: 1896: 1643: 1356:

In the British media, in my experience, the B-2 Spirit is called the "B-2 stealth bomber".

1303: 1243: 1033: 753: 463: 284: 276: 260: 3128: 2875: 8: 5266: 5026: 4995: 3962: 3918: 2219: 2150: 1835: 1662: 1419: 802: 487: 433: 364: 357: 304: 417: 345: 333: 321: 309: 5336: 5086: 5072: 4948: 4849: 4757: 4726: 4674: 4643: 4492: 4317: 3650: 3339: 2902: 2798: 2599: 2579: 2193: 2122: 1812:

Most published aviation reference works also list their entries by the m-d-n format. -

1783: 1535: 1357: 1307: 857: 626:

but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

527: 475: 405: 393: 381: 1159:

This guideline does have wide support amongst editors working on aircraft articles. -

369: 5344: 5011:

It may be just best to explain that in the text and leave the box parameter empty! -

3206: 1873:, which is M-D-(no name ever given), what would be a better name for this article? - 5294:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Invicta-International/Vickers-952-Vanguard/2381257/L

5157: 1253:'s original sentiment and would like to like to see some kind of RfC on this issue. 5278: 5272: 5256: 5190:

de Havilland Mosquito B.35 (satisfies WP:CommonName, but omits DH.98 design number)

4895: 4799: 4712: 4663: 4625: 4602: 4573: 4545: 4519: 4464: 4422: 4352: 4255: 4233: 4190: 4120: 4063: 4050:

The current M-D-N atyle was submitted on several occasions during the last several

4033: 4008: 3888: 3787: 3774: 3716: 3491: 3465: 3421: 3354: 3274: 3219: 3190: 3145: 3089: 3012: 2938: 2883: 2837: 2833: 2745: 2716: 2545: 2478: 2415: 2369: 2318: 2228: 2158: 2087: 2067: 1989: 1859: 1851: 1817: 1707: 1592: 1474: 1331: 1281: 1258: 1229: 1214: 1146: 1111: 925:

We do use that - whatever the manufacturer designates and names it, we use that. -

873: 726: 670: 582: 566: 144: 3460:" (a commercial venture) appropropriate for (Soviet era) OKBs, gov agencies etc ? 5305: 5299: 5209:

In a nutshell, can we arrive at a consensus for the correct way to name aircraft

5150: 5119: 5054: 5016: 4387: 4000: 3926: 3605: 3521: 3439: 3401: 2434: 2364:

Ken, Can you explain precisely what change to this guideline you are proposing ?

2353: 2026: 1963: 1935: 1892: 1878: 1756: 1726: 1685: 1524: 1435: 1423: 1377: 1184: 1164: 1122: 1099: 1082: 1037: 1002: 974: 957: 930: 776: 762: 684: 113: 94: 4589:

I've added the "builder" field to the infobox template, which has an output of "

4417:(OKBs and companies that designed but not built as Graeme described aboved) and 3457: 428:

The Britannica titles can occasionally cause problems on Knowledge. For example

5241: 5109:

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of

4055: 4021: 3556: 2407: 2263: 1870: 1659: 486:

of Knowledge; this is a case where consistency and clarity trump COMMONNAME. -

483: 259:

I believe the aircraft naming conventions currently in use violate Knowledge's

214: 5357: 5142: 5082: 5068: 4944: 4845: 4753: 4722: 4639: 4291: 4217:|manufacturer = Use when the type is designed and built by the same company 3645: 3081: 2662: 2607: 2259: 2189: 2118: 984: 900: 834: 784: 692: 647: 543: 512: 479: 452: 177: 4638:

Suggest using "group" to avoid the organisation or organization spellings. -

2970:

3. Manufacturing organisation (provided RSs use that in the aircraft title).

2859:

2. Manufacturing organisation (provided RSs use that in the aircraft title).

5340: 5284: 5064: 4979: 2442: 2215: 1311: 412: 4738:

with McCook Field, apart using pilots from the Test Division to fly it. -

2871: 2184:, giving a monarch his full list of titles, or having an article entitled 4891: 4795: 4708: 4659: 4621: 4598: 4569: 4541: 4515: 4460: 4348: 4251: 4186: 4116: 4059: 4029: 4004: 3770: 3487: 3461: 3417: 3389: 3350: 3335: 3270: 3215: 3141: 3085: 3008: 2934: 2929: 2879: 2741: 2712: 2670: 2575: 2541: 2474: 2411: 2365: 2224: 2154: 2063: 1985: 1855: 1813: 1703: 1631: 1588: 1327: 1277: 1254: 1225: 1210: 869: 722: 666: 624:

Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise,

2964:

1. Designing organisation (provided RSs use that in the aircraft title).

2856:

1. Designing organisation (provided RSs use that in the aircraft title).

220: 5050: 5012: 4383: 4277: 3922: 3601: 3552: 3517: 3435: 3397: 3209:, etc. On the other hand, some were just co-produced, such as with the 2349: 2337: 2177: 2019: 1959: 1928: 1874: 1749: 1695: 1681: 1639: 1517: 1428: 1373: 1323: 1177: 1160: 1115: 1095: 1075: 998: 953: 926: 758: 743: 634:

Conciseness – shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones. -

556:

Oppose any change, this has been debated recently and in-line with the

4155:) in this filed also. Sometimes editors add the design bureau to the " 2117:

boldface in the opening. The article title should be the common name.

607:, but let's look at the other four criteria which are being violated: 5235: 4790:

It has been implemented, at l east the coding is in the template, at

4658:

I'm fine with "Design group", if we think it's unambiguous enough. -

4491:

to parallel the "user" and "more users" fields? Clearer or less clear

1847: 748: 78: 54: 5275:- technically correct, but so rare I hesitate to even mention 'VC2' 3644:

Was Witteman-Lewis not involved in the design of the aircraft? The

3346: 1839: 1250: 980: 896: 830: 780: 688: 643: 539: 508: 448: 216: 2967:

2. Designing person (provided RSs use that in the aircraft title).

2862:

3. Designing person (provided RSs use that in the aircraft title).

5115:

Knowledge talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice

3194: 1782:

experience reliable sources eg Flight use the manufacturer name.

1619: 1319: 3486:

Loosely interpreted, yes. Armies have companies, after all :) -

3784: 2271: 2267: 1315: 4177:

I'd also like to propose a change the output of the existing "

221: 709:

That's only your opinion/interpretation. WP:TITLE also says:

3999:

Can we close this discussion as no consensus to change? Per

268:

The common name rule is a Knowledge policy, not a guideline.

3331: 1927:

et. al., and don't see an RFC as likely to be productive. (

895:

conventions of the home country. Am I missing something? --

4405:

Good points, I think we are saying stick to Designer, add

1899:, contrary to BilCats incorrectly self defeating comment)? 1071:- Which would yield F-15 Eagle, MiG-29 Fulcrum, and so on. 565:

the current consensus is m-d-n for all aircraft articles.

5206:

case of inconsistency between two closely related types.

5187:

De Havilland Hercules-66 (so much wrong with this one...)

5139:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)

4166:

I'd like to propose adding 2 new fields to the infobox, "

4152: 4025: 3413: 2845: 1623: 683:

You guys are agreeing, but you are doing so by violating

429: 4836:

The info was added to the JAS 39 Gripen article, it got

2348:. The current system works, it doesn't need changing. - 5234:

On a side note, the Lancaster was the Avro Type 683. -

5025:

Likely so, but what can I say, I'm the Box Ghost! ;) -

2626:. In reply to the question asked, I recommend that the 4978:

article. The aircraft was designed by "a group led by

4223:|design engineer= Individual who designed the aircraft 2344:, but the proposed D-D-N would produce the never-used 4024:) might avoid the "M-D-N vs commonname" issue (which 171: 84: 5231:

Did Handley Page switch from using "H.P." to "HP."?

1322:have to use disambig pages, whereas something like 5160:gives us a fairly decent linear progression from 2870:It might be clearer if the guideline referred to " 1648:redirects in place just for this one aircraft type 4421:(for additional constructors per Bill) clearer. 1916:and Ian Allen guides use the long version, while 462:This has been debated before. Strictly enforcing 5355: 1778:I just wanted to clarify that point, because in 5184:DH 83 Fox Moth (a space instead of a full stop) 660:Oppose any change. To be honest, I actually do 5306:https://www.airhistory.net/photo/459475/G-AXNT 5300:https://www.airhistory.net/photo/507897/G-BAFK 3396:). There is no need to change what we have. - 4316:This way, we have minimal transition issues. 2340:, which the guideline would name confusingly 1838:(in quotes, 2.33 million ghits) should be at 229:This page has archives. Sections older than 1246:and ought to be brought back into line. I 5137:There is a move discussion in progress on 530:does not apply. WP:NOTPAPER is only about 2669:. Be wary of using modernized names like 1070:<Most common name used in English: --> 34:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 5339:, so they may handle them incorrectly. – 2901:we choose the priority for name choice. 5263:how it currently appears on Knowledge. 4752:Why has this not been implemented yet? 4616:field to read "Designer", and have the 2628:Knowledge:Naming conventions (aircraft) 2317:is clearly non-standard in most cases. 1729:says it should generally be the former. 5356: 4003:, this discussion is going nowhere. - 239:when more than 5 sections are present. 118:. To use this banner, please see the 4159:" field, and put the builder in the " 605:WP:TITLE#Deciding on an article title 341:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon 100:This page is within the scope of the 3434:I don't have a problem with that! - 2469:For an improved version of this see 329:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle 249:Systemic common name rule violations 23: 21: 17: 4202:Template talk:Infobox aircraft type 4115:That's not what I said or meant. - 2836:...), some European aircraft (e.g. 2471:User:DexDor#Aircraft name guideline 2112:The guideline should at least cite 1914:The Encyclopedia of World Air Power 1700:"can the readers find the article?" 40:It is of interest to the following 13: 4457:field, that's beyond my abilities. 2961:It would be best to use the order: 2014:No Bill, what I'll do is have the 143: 14: 5390: 4620:field output as "Designed by". - 1906:Jane's World Recognition Handbook 1622:(second entry under 'Military'), 233:may be automatically archived by 5105:RFC – WP title decision practice 5041: 4282:|designer= Geoffrey de Havilland 2688:I hope this clears things up. - 2186:Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 1912:and my rather ancient copies of 1636:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II 1628:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II 176: 87: 77: 53: 22: 5369:Project-Class aircraft articles 5364:Project-Class aviation articles 4390:) 16:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC 4185:" is to wordy and contrived. - 2114:Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2062:otherwise it might get ugly. - 4842:Template:Infobox_aircraft_type 4792:Template:Infobox aircraft type 4748:21:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4731:13:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4717:11:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4683:08:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4668:01:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4648:21:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 4630:21:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 4607:18:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4578:18:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4550:18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4524:18:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4501:17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4469:18:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4431:16:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4357:15:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4326:14:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4296:|design organisation=Blackburn 4260:14:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4242:12:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4195:11:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 4149:Template:Infobox aircraft type 4125:18:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 4095:17:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 4068:17:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 4038:06:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 4013:20:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 3992:23:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 3973:07:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 3946:21:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 3931:23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 3912:22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 3897:22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 3859:22:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 3796:21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3779:21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3725:20:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3706:19:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3659:19:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3610:19:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3569:18:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3526:14:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3496:14:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3470:13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3444:12:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3426:11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 3406:22:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 3359:22:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 3279:22:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 3224:21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 3150:21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 3094:18:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 3052:17:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 3017:00:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 2943:18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 2776:17:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 2750:00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 2639:Morane-Saulnier MS.755 Fleuret 128:Knowledge:WikiProject Aviation 1: 5379:WikiProject Aviation articles 5374:WikiProject Aircraft articles 5255:At one point I did wonder if 5128:19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 4026:started this whole discussion 3769:Is that name used in an RS ? 2986:21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2911:21:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2888:19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2822:19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2807:10:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2736:19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2721:05:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2698:18:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 2550:18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC) 2516:23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 2483:18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC) 2420:22:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 2393:21:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 2374:21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 2358:20:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 2327:19:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 2315:Barling XNBL-1 Barling Bomber 2284:19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 2020: 1929: 1750: 1518: 1429: 1178: 1116: 1076: 1007:01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 989:01:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 962:00:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 935:01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 905:00:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 878:00:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 839:00:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 813:00:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 789:00:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 767:00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 731:00:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 697:00:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 675:00:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 652:00:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 591:00:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 575:00:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 548:00:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 517:23:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 498:23:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 457:23:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 131:Template:WikiProject Aviation 5091:16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 5077:17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 5059:10:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 5037:09:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 5021:09:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 5006:01:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 4953:20:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 4900:19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 4854:19:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 4804:18:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 4762:17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 4022:the equivalent car guideline 3133:Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 2842:Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 2659:Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire 1956:Circa Reproductions Nieuport 1043:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 1036:isn't about consistency and 317:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 7: 5181:Airco DH9 (omits full stop) 5133:Move discussion in progress 3269:part of that organisation. 3080:As you've written it, it's 2874:" (as a noun) rather than " 2616:American Champion Decathlon 2445:"), a name, or both (e.g. " 2233:19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2198:06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2163:04:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2127:02:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2027: 1936: 1757: 1525: 1436: 1185: 1123: 1083: 377:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress 10: 5395: 4299:|manufacturer=Boulton Paul 4139:Infobox data for companies 3211:Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet 3203:International Aero Engines 2675:British Aerospace Spitfire 2604:Lockheed F-104 Starfighter 2096:06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC) 2072:03:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) 2032:20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 1994:17:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 1968:16:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 1941:16:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 1883:22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1864:21:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1822:21:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1792:21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1762:18:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 1712:18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 1690:11:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 1674:00:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 1597:21:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 1544:21:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 1530:20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 1483:18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 1441:18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 1382:21:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 1366:15:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 1336:12:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 560:policy in particular note 411: 401:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 399: 387: 375: 363: 351: 339: 327: 315: 303: 152:This page is supported by 5211:per specific manufacturer 4487:as the parameter we used 4483:What if instead of using 2973:4. Whatever else RSs use. 2865:4. Whatever else RSs use. 1418:Most of the dismissal of 1286:19:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1263:15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1234:22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1219:22:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1190:20:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1169:21:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1155:18:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1128:18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1104:21:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1088:17:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 389:Boeing B-29 Superfortress 151: 72: 48: 5146:11:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC) 4721:That seems fine to me. - 4208:(for an individual) and 4200:Perhaps leave a note at 2620:Fairchild C-123 Provider 2182:Marion Mitchell Morrison 1061:. It is marginally less 558:Knowledge:Article titles 353:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk 5349:16:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 5323:01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 5251:02:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 5225:01:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 3902:issues such as this. - 3129:Wiktionary:manufacturer 2086:Time to close I think. 1918:Encyclopædia Britannica 1413:CAC / PAC JF-17 Thunder 947:The main statement for 5287:- just as it should be 5273:Vickers (VC2) Viscount 4183:Single-person designer 3199:Europrop International 2455: 1473:to the alphabet soup. 236:Lowercase sigmabot III 148: 5158:De Havilland#Aircraft 4976:Douglas BTD Destroyer 4595:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 4445:If we decide we want 2439:Knowledge:Common name 2429: 2342:Flightstar Flightstar 2255:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 2147:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 1923:I'm happy to go with 283:Although not part of 147: 5304:(Vanguard G-AXNT) - 5298:(Vanguard G-BAFK) - 5292:(Vanguard G-AXOY) - 5279:Vickers VC9 Vanguard 5067:'s design-group " . 5063:Suggested wording " 4054:years, primarily by 3713:Engineering Division 3551:business. Regarding 2655:Supermarine Spitfire 2624:Martin B-57 Canberra 2536:Ken, if you tell us 2311:Heinmann A-4 Skyhawk 1895:recommends (as does 1049:is more immediately 155:the aircraft project 103:Aviation WikiProject 5337:nobiliary particles 5267:Vickers VC.1 Viking 4618:design organisation 4451:design organisation 4415:design organisation 4407:design organization 4210:Design Organisation 2630:be amended to read: 2220:Hughes H-4 Hercules 2151:Hughes H-4 Hercules 1836:Fixed-wing aircraft 434:list of B1 aircraft 365:Rockwell B-1 Lancer 305:Grumman F-14 Tomcat 254:Initial discussions 4489:more manufacturers 3416:to be more clear. 3340:Alenia Aeronautica 2600:Vought F4U Corsair 2346:Peghiny Flightstar 1308:Lamborghini Diablo 536:number of articles 149: 36:content assessment 5333:technical reasons 5111:WP:Article Titles 3207:AMX International 3137:WP:AIR/NC/BRITMIL 2794:designing company 2453:standard in use. 2307:Mitchell Spitfire 2107:Newest discussion 2103: 2102: 1022:Later discussions 1013:Later discussions 861: 716:" (Italics added) 423: 422: 299:Britannica Title 243: 242: 208: 207: 170: 169: 166: 165: 162: 161: 134:aviation articles 120:full instructions 5386: 5315:WendlingCrusader 5249: 5244: 5238: 5217:WendlingCrusader 5045: 5044: 5033: 5002: 3969: 3191:Eurofighter Gmbh 2834:Mikoyan-Gurevich 2028: 2024: 1937: 1933: 1891:sources is what 1852:Plane (aviation) 1850:'s 9.6 million. 1842:, which gets 70 1758: 1754: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1526: 1522: 1437: 1433: 1186: 1182: 1124: 1120: 1084: 1080: 1018: 1017: 855: 809: 494: 480:Ignore all rules 293: 292: 261:common name rule 238: 222: 194: 193: 180: 172: 136: 135: 132: 129: 126: 97: 92: 91: 90: 81: 74: 73: 68: 57: 50: 49: 27: 26: 25: 18: 5394: 5393: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5354: 5353: 5247: 5246: 5242: 5236: 5153: 5135: 5107: 5042: 5035: 5031: 5004: 5000: 4449:to disable the 4206:Design Engineer 4141: 3971: 3967: 2456: 2435:Panavia Tornado 2109: 2104: 1834:Per COMMONAME, 1667: 1665: 1663: 1023: 1015: 811: 807: 496: 492: 296:Knowledge Title 256: 251: 234: 223: 217: 185: 133: 130: 127: 124: 123: 95:Aviation portal 93: 88: 86: 63: 12: 11: 5: 5392: 5382: 5381: 5376: 5371: 5366: 5352: 5351: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5312: 5308: 5302: 5296: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5282: 5276: 5270: 5240: 5232: 5195: 5194: 5191: 5188: 5185: 5182: 5174: 5173: 5166: 5165: 5152: 5149: 5134: 5131: 5106: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5029: 5027:The Bushranger 4998: 4996:The Bushranger 4988:chief designer 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4734: 4733: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4633: 4632: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4434: 4433: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4283: 4274: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4231: 4230: 4227: 4224: 4221: 4218: 4214: 4213: 4140: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4056:User:Rlandmann 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3976: 3975: 3965: 3963:The Bushranger 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3783:Aerofiles.com 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3557:Barling Bomber 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3429: 3428: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2974: 2971: 2968: 2965: 2962: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2851: 2850: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2632: 2631: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2447:MS.755 Fleuret 2433:(for example " 2432:<Model: --> 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2377: 2376: 2361: 2360: 2330: 2329: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2264:Barling Bomber 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2130: 2129: 2108: 2105: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1921: 1903: 1900: 1871:Schreder HP-13 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1746: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1416: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1237: 1236: 1207:through an RFC 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1174: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1072: 1025: 1024: 1021: 1016: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1009: 994: 993: 992: 991: 965: 964: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 805: 803:The Bushranger 794: 793: 792: 791: 770: 769: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 719: 718: 717: 702: 701: 700: 699: 678: 677: 657: 656: 655: 654: 640: 639: 638: 632: 622: 615: 599:You mentioned 594: 593: 578: 577: 553: 552: 551: 550: 532:article length 522: 521: 520: 519: 501: 500: 490: 488:The Bushranger 421: 420: 415: 409: 408: 403: 397: 396: 391: 385: 384: 379: 373: 372: 367: 361: 360: 355: 349: 348: 343: 337: 336: 331: 325: 324: 319: 313: 312: 307: 301: 300: 297: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 241: 240: 228: 225: 224: 219: 215: 213: 210: 209: 206: 205: 200: 187: 186: 181: 175: 168: 167: 164: 163: 160: 159: 150: 140: 139: 137: 99: 98: 82: 70: 69: 58: 46: 45: 39: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5391: 5380: 5377: 5375: 5372: 5370: 5367: 5365: 5362: 5361: 5359: 5350: 5346: 5342: 5338: 5334: 5330: 5329: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5313: 5309: 5307: 5303: 5301: 5297: 5295: 5291: 5286: 5283: 5280: 5277: 5274: 5271: 5268: 5265: 5264: 5262: 5258: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5245: 5239: 5233: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5222: 5218: 5214: 5212: 5207: 5205: 5199: 5192: 5189: 5186: 5183: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5163: 5162: 5161: 5159: 5148: 5147: 5144: 5140: 5130: 5129: 5125: 5121: 5116: 5112: 5092: 5088: 5084: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5066: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5056: 5052: 5048: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5034: 5032:One ping only 5028: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5003: 5001:One ping only 4997: 4993: 4992:lead designer 4989: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4901: 4897: 4893: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4838:reversed here 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4745: 4741: 4736: 4735: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4684: 4680: 4676: 4675:GraemeLeggett 4671: 4670: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4493:GraemeLeggett 4490: 4486: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4403: 4389: 4385: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4358: 4354: 4350: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4318:GraemeLeggett 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4298: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292:Blackburn Roc 4289: 4284: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4228: 4225: 4222: 4219: 4216: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4175: 4173: 4169: 4168:Design bureau 4164: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3974: 3970: 3968:One ping only 3964: 3960: 3957: 3956: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3651:GraemeLeggett 3647: 3646:Blackburn Roc 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3388:I agree with 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2972: 2969: 2966: 2963: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903:GraemeLeggett 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2864: 2861: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799:GraemeLeggett 2795: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2707: 2706: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2667:Horten Ho-229 2664: 2663:Kettering Bug 2660: 2656: 2652: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612:Horten Ho-229 2609: 2608:Kettering Bug 2605: 2601: 2596: 2595: 2581: 2580:GraemeLeggett 2577: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2332: 2331: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2260:Kettering Bug 2256: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2060: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2023: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1932: 1926: 1922: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1897:WP:COMMONNAME 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1784:GraemeLeggett 1781: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1753: 1747: 1744: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1661: 1655: 1651: 1649: 1645: 1644:first Phantom 1641: 1637: 1634:redirects to 1633: 1629: 1626:redirects to 1625: 1621: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536:GraemeLeggett 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1521: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1432: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358:GraemeLeggett 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304:WP:COMMONNAME 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1249: 1245: 1244:WP:COMMONNAME 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1181: 1175: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1119: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1079: 1073: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1035: 1034:WP:COMMONNAME 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1020: 1019: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 995: 990: 986: 982: 978: 976: 969: 968: 967: 966: 963: 959: 955: 950: 946: 936: 932: 928: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 906: 902: 898: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 879: 875: 871: 866: 859: 858:edit conflict 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 840: 836: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 814: 810: 808:One ping only 804: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 773: 772: 771: 768: 764: 760: 755: 754:WP:COMMONNAME 750: 745: 740: 739: 732: 728: 724: 720: 715: 711: 710: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 672: 668: 663: 659: 658: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 631: 627: 623: 620: 616: 613: 609: 608: 606: 602: 598: 597: 596: 595: 592: 588: 584: 580: 579: 576: 572: 568: 564: 559: 555: 554: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 526: 525: 524: 523: 518: 514: 510: 505: 504: 503: 502: 499: 495: 493:One ping only 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 468: 465: 464:WP:COMMONNAME 461: 460: 459: 458: 454: 450: 444: 443: 439: 435: 431: 426: 419: 416: 414: 410: 407: 404: 402: 398: 395: 392: 390: 386: 383: 380: 378: 374: 371: 368: 366: 362: 359: 356: 354: 350: 347: 344: 342: 338: 335: 332: 330: 326: 323: 320: 318: 314: 311: 308: 306: 302: 298: 295: 294: 291: 288: 286: 285:WP:COMMONNAME 281: 278: 277:WP:COMMONNAME 274: 270: 269: 264: 262: 246: 237: 232: 227: 226: 212: 211: 204: 201: 199: 196: 195: 192: 189: 188: 184: 179: 174: 173: 157: 156: 146: 142: 141: 138: 121: 117: 116: 111: 110: 105: 104: 96: 85: 83: 80: 76: 75: 71: 67: 62: 59: 56: 52: 51: 47: 43: 37: 33: 29: 20: 19: 16: 5285:Vickers VC10 5260: 5215: 5210: 5208: 5203: 5200: 5196: 5175: 5172:DH.106 Comet 5167: 5154: 5151:de Havilland 5136: 5108: 5046: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4980:Ed Heinemann 4973: 4940: 4704: 4700: 4617: 4613: 4590: 4588: 4488: 4484: 4454: 4450: 4447:Manufacturer 4446: 4444: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4232: 4209: 4205: 4182: 4178: 4176: 4171: 4167: 4165: 4161:Manufacturer 4160: 4156: 4145:Manufacturer 4144: 4142: 4051: 3998: 3958: 3387: 3343: 2876:manufacturer 2793: 2788: 2708: 2657:rather than 2650: 2537: 2450: 2430: 2333: 2298: 2216:Ford Model T 2181: 2113: 2058: 2021: 2015: 1930: 1924: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1888: 1843: 1779: 1751: 1742: 1699: 1656: 1652: 1617: 1583: 1582:We actuslly 1519: 1430: 1420:WP:COMMONAME 1312:Ford Mustang 1247: 1206: 1179: 1117: 1077: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1051:recognisable 1050: 1046: 1042: 972: 864: 713: 661: 635: 629: 625: 618: 611: 600: 561: 535: 531: 484:fifth pillar 471: 466: 445: 441: 437: 427: 424: 413:Douglas DC-3 289: 282: 275: 271: 267: 258: 257: 244: 230: 182: 153: 114: 108: 102: 42:WikiProjects 32:project page 31: 15: 5204:prima facie 4423:MilborneOne 4273:individual. 4234:MilborneOne 4147:" field in 3889:MilborneOne 3788:MilborneOne 3717:MilborneOne 3390:User:BilCat 3336:BAE Systems 2930:Allison J33 2838:Eurofighter 2671:Boeing DC-3 2319:MilborneOne 2303:Tank Ta 152 2088:MilborneOne 1632:F-4 Phantom 1475:MilborneOne 1147:MilborneOne 1067:consistency 1057:, and more 601:consistency 583:MilborneOne 567:MilborneOne 528:WP:NOTPAPER 476:WP:NOTPAPER 115:task forces 5358:Categories 5164:Airco DH.1 5120:Mike Cline 5065:Heinemanns 4740:Ken keisel 4278:Airco DH.4 4163:" field. 4087:Ken keisel 3984:Ken keisel 3938:Ken keisel 3904:Ken keisel 3851:Ken keisel 3698:Ken keisel 3561:Ken keisel 3044:Ken keisel 2978:Ken keisel 2849:priority): 2814:Ken keisel 2768:Ken keisel 2728:Ken keisel 2690:Ken keisel 2618:, and the 2610:, and the 2508:Ken keisel 2385:Ken keisel 2338:Flightstar 2276:Ken keisel 2262:, and the 2178:John Wayne 1846:Ghits, to 1743:consistent 1668:floats by) 1640:Phantom II 1326:does not. 1324:B-2 Spirit 1047:F-15 Eagle 949:the policy 744:Helicopter 109:open tasks 3082:synthesis 1848:Aeroplane 1664:(Cumulus 1112:WP:NOTICE 865:expressed 749:Cloudster 203:Archive 2 198:Archive 1 5143:RMCD bot 5083:Fnlayson 5069:BP OMowe 4984:designer 4945:BP OMowe 4941:designer 4846:BP OMowe 4754:BP OMowe 4723:Fnlayson 4705:Built by 4701:Designer 4640:Fnlayson 4614:Designer 4591:Built by 4485:built by 4455:built by 4419:built by 4411:built by 4179:Designer 4157:Designer 4001:WP:STICK 3347:Concorde 2844:). (The 2651:Designer 2451:de facto 2313:or even 2190:Kauffner 2119:Kauffner 2016:temerity 1893:WP:TITLE 1889:reliable 1840:Airplane 1733:helpful. 1727:WP:TITLE 1424:WP:TITLE 1038:WP:TITLE 975:WP:TITLE 777:WP:TITLE 685:WP:TITLE 636:Violated 630:Violated 619:Violated 612:Violated 467:de facto 231:180 days 183:Archives 125:Aviation 66:Aircraft 61:Aviation 5341:Noha307 5311:number. 5269:- oops! 5257:Vickers 4593:". See 4172:Builder 4170:" and " 3919:drop it 3458:company 3394:example 3195:SEPECAT 2789:Comment 2538:exactly 2408:WP:WPAC 1745:titles. 1666:nimbus 1620:Phantom 1471:WP:BIAS 1320:Mustang 1248:support 1063:precise 1059:natural 1055:concise 1053:, more 482:is the 5118:RFC.-- 4892:BilCat 4844:says. 4796:BilCat 4709:BilCat 4660:BilCat 4622:BilCat 4599:BilCat 4570:BilCat 4542:BilCat 4516:BilCat 4461:BilCat 4349:BilCat 4252:BilCat 4187:BilCat 4117:BilCat 4060:BilCat 4030:DexDor 4005:BilCat 3959:Oppose 3771:DexDor 3488:BilCat 3462:DexDor 3418:BilCat 3351:BilCat 3338:, and 3271:DexDor 3216:BilCat 3142:DexDor 3086:BilCat 3009:BilCat 2935:BilCat 2880:DexDor 2742:BilCat 2713:BilCat 2709:Oppose 2665:, and 2602:, and 2578:, and 2576:BilCat 2542:DexDor 2475:DexDor 2412:DexDor 2366:DexDor 2334:Oppose 2299:Oppose 2272:Ho-229 2268:Ta 152 2225:DexDor 2155:BilCat 2064:BilCat 1986:BilCat 1925:Jane's 1910:Flight 1856:BilCat 1844:millon 1814:BilCat 1704:NickCT 1660:Nimbus 1589:BilCat 1516:use. ( 1328:NickCT 1316:Diablo 1306:(i.e. 1278:BilCat 1255:NickCT 1226:BilCat 1211:BilCat 1065:, and 870:BilCat 723:BilCat 667:BilCat 38:scale. 5051:Ahunt 5013:Ahunt 4707:"? - 4384:Ahunt 4052:users 3923:Ahunt 3602:Ahunt 3553:Ahunt 3518:Ahunt 3436:Ahunt 3398:Ahunt 2443:VC-25 2350:Ahunt 2059:might 2022:Hohum 1960:Ahunt 1931:Hohum 1875:Ahunt 1752:Hohum 1698:- re 1696:Ahunt 1682:Ahunt 1520:Hohum 1431:Hohum 1374:Ahunt 1180:Hohum 1161:Ahunt 1118:Hohum 1096:Ahunt 1078:Hohum 1045:when 999:Ahunt 954:Ahunt 927:Ahunt 775:From 759:Ahunt 603:from 358:F-117 191:Index 30:This 5345:talk 5319:talk 5237:ZLEA 5221:talk 5124:talk 5087:talk 5073:talk 5055:talk 5047:Like 5017:talk 4949:talk 4896:talk 4850:talk 4800:talk 4758:talk 4744:talk 4727:talk 4713:talk 4679:talk 4664:talk 4644:talk 4626:talk 4603:talk 4574:talk 4546:talk 4520:talk 4497:talk 4465:talk 4453:and 4427:talk 4409:and 4388:talk 4353:talk 4322:talk 4290:For 4276:For 4256:talk 4238:talk 4191:talk 4153:OKBs 4121:talk 4091:talk 4064:talk 4034:talk 4009:talk 3988:talk 3942:talk 3927:talk 3921:. - 3908:talk 3893:talk 3855:talk 3792:talk 3775:talk 3721:talk 3702:talk 3655:talk 3606:talk 3565:talk 3522:talk 3492:talk 3466:talk 3456:Is " 3440:talk 3422:talk 3414:OKBs 3402:talk 3355:talk 3332:EADS 3275:talk 3220:talk 3146:talk 3090:talk 3048:talk 3013:talk 2982:talk 2939:talk 2907:talk 2884:talk 2872:make 2846:OKBs 2818:talk 2803:talk 2772:talk 2746:talk 2732:talk 2717:talk 2694:talk 2546:talk 2512:talk 2479:talk 2416:talk 2389:talk 2370:talk 2354:talk 2323:talk 2280:talk 2270:and 2229:talk 2194:talk 2159:talk 2123:talk 2092:talk 2068:talk 1990:talk 1964:talk 1958:. - 1879:talk 1860:talk 1818:talk 1788:talk 1708:talk 1686:talk 1593:talk 1540:talk 1479:talk 1422:and 1378:talk 1362:talk 1332:talk 1318:and 1282:talk 1259:talk 1230:talk 1215:talk 1165:talk 1151:talk 1100:talk 1003:talk 985:talk 958:talk 931:talk 901:talk 874:talk 835:talk 785:talk 763:talk 727:talk 693:talk 687:. -- 671:talk 662:like 648:talk 587:talk 571:talk 544:talk 534:and 513:talk 453:talk 418:DC-3 406:B-52 394:B-29 382:B-17 346:F-16 334:F-15 322:F-15 310:F-14 112:and 5261:not 5168:to 4990:or 4986:to 3344:the 2673:or 2180:at 1624:F-4 1584:did 1251:JHP 981:JHP 897:JHP 831:JHP 781:JHP 689:JHP 644:JHP 563:box 540:JHP 509:JHP 478:.) 472:all 449:JHP 430:B-1 370:B-1 5360:: 5347:) 5321:) 5223:) 5126:) 5089:) 5075:) 5057:) 5049:- 5019:) 4951:) 4898:) 4852:) 4802:) 4760:) 4746:) 4729:) 4715:) 4681:) 4666:) 4646:) 4628:) 4605:) 4576:) 4548:) 4522:) 4499:) 4467:) 4459:- 4429:) 4355:) 4324:) 4258:) 4240:) 4193:) 4123:) 4093:) 4066:) 4036:) 4011:) 3990:) 3944:) 3929:) 3910:) 3895:) 3857:) 3794:) 3777:) 3723:) 3715:. 3704:) 3657:) 3608:) 3567:) 3524:) 3494:) 3468:) 3442:) 3424:) 3404:) 3357:) 3334:, 3277:) 3222:) 3205:, 3201:, 3197:, 3148:) 3092:) 3050:) 3015:) 2984:) 2941:) 2909:) 2886:) 2820:) 2805:) 2774:) 2748:) 2734:) 2719:) 2696:) 2548:) 2514:) 2481:) 2473:. 2418:) 2391:) 2372:) 2356:) 2325:) 2309:, 2305:, 2282:) 2231:) 2196:) 2188:. 2161:) 2125:) 2094:) 2070:) 2030:) 1992:) 1966:) 1939:) 1908:, 1881:) 1862:) 1820:) 1790:) 1780:my 1760:) 1710:) 1688:) 1638:, 1630:, 1595:) 1542:) 1528:) 1481:) 1439:) 1380:) 1364:) 1334:) 1310:, 1284:) 1261:) 1232:) 1217:) 1188:) 1167:) 1153:) 1126:) 1102:) 1086:) 1005:) 987:) 979:-- 960:) 933:) 903:) 876:) 837:) 787:) 765:) 729:) 695:) 673:) 650:) 642:-- 628:- 589:) 573:) 546:) 515:) 507:-- 455:) 447:-- 436:. 64:: 5343:( 5317:( 5248:\ 5243:T 5219:( 5122:( 5085:( 5071:( 5053:( 5015:( 4947:( 4939:" 4894:( 4848:( 4798:( 4756:( 4742:( 4725:( 4711:( 4677:( 4662:( 4642:( 4624:( 4601:( 4572:( 4544:( 4518:( 4495:( 4463:( 4425:( 4386:( 4351:( 4320:( 4254:( 4236:( 4189:( 4119:( 4089:( 4062:( 4032:( 4007:( 3986:( 3940:( 3925:( 3906:( 3891:( 3853:( 3790:( 3773:( 3719:( 3700:( 3653:( 3604:( 3563:( 3520:( 3490:( 3464:( 3438:( 3420:( 3400:( 3353:( 3273:( 3218:( 3144:( 3088:( 3046:( 3011:( 2980:( 2937:( 2905:( 2882:( 2816:( 2801:( 2770:( 2744:( 2730:( 2715:( 2692:( 2677:. 2544:( 2510:( 2477:( 2414:( 2387:( 2368:( 2352:( 2321:( 2278:( 2227:( 2192:( 2157:( 2121:( 2090:( 2066:( 1988:( 1962:( 1877:( 1858:( 1816:( 1786:( 1706:( 1694:@ 1684:( 1591:( 1538:( 1477:( 1427:( 1415:. 1376:( 1360:( 1330:( 1280:( 1257:( 1228:( 1213:( 1163:( 1149:( 1098:( 1001:( 983:( 977:. 956:( 929:( 899:( 872:( 860:) 856:( 833:( 783:( 761:( 725:( 691:( 669:( 646:( 621:. 614:. 585:( 569:( 542:( 511:( 451:( 263:. 158:. 122:. 44::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.