User talk:Greyengine5/interesting info

This older talk remains because its interesting info on various subjects:

HTML doesn't support spaces as parts of URLs, so when an article is created with spaces in the title, the wiki software converts the spaces to underscores in the filename. For example, the article titled "Junkers Ju 87" is automatically assigned the filename "Junkers_Ju_87.html" The wikis [[junkers Ju 87]], [[Junkers Ju 87 ]], and [[Junkers_Ju_87]] all point equally to the same file. If you're seeing the underscored versions while editing pages, they're probably mistakes (possibly caused by people cutting-and-pasting from URLs, or thinking that because the underscores are in the URL, they're needed in the wiki as well). HTH --Rlandmann 03:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See here for a List of RLM paint designations. Yes - they were the official specifications for the camouflage paints used (some hotly debated amongst Luftwaffe historians)Rlandmann 23:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The other designation you're referring to are simply German civil registration codes, that begin "D-". US civil codes begin "N-", British "G-", Australian "VH-", Israeli, "4X-" etc. Seehere for a list --Rlandmann 07:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Soviet fighters prototypes are given an "I-" prefix. When they're accepted for production, they're issued with a prefix derived from the manufacturer's name. If the I-270 had been accepted for production, it might have been the MiG-17. There is no such thing as the "MiG I-270". Actually, this is similar to the confusion over designations like "Junkers W 34" - "W" is the prefix for seaplanes under the old Idflieg designation system. Under the new system, the type seems to have sometimes been called the "Junkers Ju 34". but there's no such thing as a "Junkers Ju W 34". Rlandmann 04:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi again - I think that the analysis of early flying machines page raises a lot of really interesting and relevant points about these pioneering efforts. I'm not quite sure how encyclopedic it is though - to me it seems to border a little on "original research". As I'm sure has become apparent to you, the question of what constitutes the "first flight" by a human being in a heavier-than-air machine pretty much comes down to hair-splitting definitions in the end. Even the Wright brothers' celebrated flight is subject to qualification.

An encyclopedia's primary function is to present claims, not to evaluate, assess, or analyse them. You say that you're concerned about the accuracy of claims being made (presumably on the aviation history page. Any in particular? --Rlandmann 11:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Check out the 19th Century section of list of years in aviation for a few more claims. You're right about the fact that there's far far less controversy over lighter-than-air claims, so just considering heavier-than-air claims, the issues seem to really boil down to (all just in my opinion...):

flight - out of the multitude of small hops made by different people in different machines, which ones constitute "flights"? (no easy answer!)
power - did the machine really fly under its own power? Put another way, did it generate enough thrust so that the lift created by the wings was enough to negate the weight of the craft?
control - to what extent (if any) could the person on board direct the craft?

Then, more generally:

verifiability - how checkable is the claim?
repeatability - could they do it again?

it's in these last two categories that the Wrights' attempts really stand out. They took photos of their experiments, and could repeat them over and over, becoming more and more successful at what they were doing. In issues of power and control, they seem initially no more successful than many of their predecessors. As far as "flight" goes - if they had given up after the fourth flight (still less than a minute and resulting in a written-off aircraft) I think the focus of "first flight" would probably have shifted elsewhere; but I think the Wrights' real success is that they kept perservering at it to the point where their ability to fly was unquestionable and then could later point back to Flyer I as where it all started for them. All IMHO, of course. --Rlandmann 05:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)