Archive 1

Archive 2

1. figure out props- change to number of props, not blades.
2. decide on more "more" parameters to use for notes. What if you could just add the word "note" to the parameter, ie. |max speed kmh=124 and the if you need a note, use |max speed kmh note=at sea level. and the note will be placed directly after the units.
3. fix more * issue
4. " Time to altitude: xx ft in xx min. "
   • The notes should be something that an editor can pick. Somebody may want speed at sea level, but I might want speed at altitude, forex--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
     • Exactly. The note parameter would just be tacked onto the end of each existing parameter, to allow for things such as:
     • Maximum speed: 593 km/h (368 mph; 320 kn) TAS (|max speed kmh note=TAS is the note)
     • Cruise speed: 593 km/h (368 mph; 320 kn) at sea level (|cruise speed kmh note=at sea level is the note)
     • Cruise speed: 593 km/h (368 mph; 320 kn)^[1] (|cruise speed kmh note=<ref>secondary source</ref> when a second source is used) so can be any test required. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

   Are you going to add these to the documentation page including the template parameters on that page? Otherwise people will miss these when copying the template from the documentation page. - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

   Working on in right now. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

   Super, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

5. When kts is selected, in order to put kts first (for Max speed for example), if all other parameters are not entered as kts (missing kts in cruise speed for example) then parameters will be missing. The template needs to try to put kts, mph, or kph first, but then if unable, then recognize when to use another unit. See Cessna 441, try switching |prime units?=imp to |prime units?=kts to see what I mean. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

   I figured out for to do this one, and now I'll start incorporating it into the template over the next few days. You can see it in action with this edit to the length parameter of Pilatus PC-9. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   This part is very labor intensive. If anyone want to lend a hand, I've updated at least 1 parameter in each of the three sections so you can see what to duplicate for each parameter. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   This one should be done now. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of substituting this template in place of the choice of the two older ones still in use at at Template:WPAVIATION creator/Aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Done. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wwe haven't actually adopted the new template yet, have we? Perhaps making it available before finalised is a step too far? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We had a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Specs_templates.3F to move forward and deploy this template and then do any further debugging as required rather than continue the months of testing. So far there have been a few glitches, but they are getting sorted out as we go along. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And using it on newly created articles and old ones without a specs template should cause the least amount of problems (for readers, I actually want to see problems, at least minor ones). - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 15:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose yes , that does count as concensus. And yes deployement in new articles does make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)

Polikarpov TIS Automatic conversion is awesome! Only caveat that I have would be to convert to the nearest whole digit if that's possible. The prop blade line didn't display at all; maybe cause I didn't have diameter? It would be useful to have a prop blade type line so we can specify the exact type of propeller and if its variable pitch or not. The time to height line I added using |more performance= didn't display properly at all; it butted up right against the data for service ceiling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the prob blade line didn't show because it didn't have a diameter. I'll fix it show even without the diameter it will show up as "x per engine". And I'll add a |prop name= parameter. The problem with the more parameters is it requires that " * " to start a new line. I'm not sure if we should hardcode those into the template or require the editor to use them.

The rounding is something to tweak. I'll work on precision soon. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer them hardcoded, if at all possible. Thanks for adding the prop name=. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blade count displays as x per engine, not per propeller, and only with the diameter field filled out. I think that it would read better as "x-bladed name propeller. But prop name still doesn't show up unless I need to change something in the template as used in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what your looking for. I can do that. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated, see below. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Take at look at the Polikarpov TIS; the prop section is still messed up. Is it trying to say how many propellers per engine?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The change produced an error in the one article where I have the prop section used already Fisher FP-101. I managed to get it to work right by adding:

|prop blade number=1 x
|prop name=wooden two bladed propeller
|prop dia m=
|prop dia ft=5
|prop dia in=0

although if the "x" (or some other non-numerical text) doesn't appear in the first line the second line is suppressed. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 - I manged to troubleshoot the problem in the prop section at Polikarpov TIS, it needs a diameter value or else it doesn't display correctly. I added an arbitrary guess of 3m and it now displays, but you need the real number there to make it correct! - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, the displayed parameters keep jumping around as Trevor works on the template. I think we have to let him finish the template and then correct the articles to make them work, so I will stop making changes to the articles! Trevor: perhaps you can post here when you think it is fixed to your satisfaction. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll leave it alone until we get it figured out. Looks like it's still trying to do propellers per engine instead of propeller blades. Unfortunately I don't have a real diameter for the VISh-61.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully Trevor will get the template figured out so that where you have the type of prop, but not the size, it will still display correctly. I am hoping the title on that line can be changed too as it seems to want number of propellers and not number of propeller blades, even though "blades" is what it says. - Ahunt (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I've updated it, so that depending on the number of blades and the number of engines, you may see:

• Propellers: 1 blade per engine, 5 ft 0 in (1.52 m) diameter
• Propellers: 1 blade, 5 ft 0 in (1.52 m) diameter
• Propellers: 2 blades per engine, 5 ft 0 in (1.52 m) diameter
• Propellers: 2 blades, 5 ft 0 in (1.52 m) diameter

- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Per above conversation, it's now either:

• Propellers: 3-bladed VISh propeller, 3 m (9 ft 10 in) diameter
• Propellers: 3-bladed propeller, 3 m (9 ft 10 in) diameter
• Propellers: single blade VISh propeller, 3 m (9 ft 10 in) diameter
• Propellers: single blade propeller, 3 m (9 ft 10 in) diameter

With more work I could make it show up if you don't put the blade count in, but do have the prop name, but would that ever happen? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 04:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that broke it, but it's close. I'll finish it tomorrow. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Single-bladed propeller? Is such a thing even possible? Hey, thanks for all the work that you're putting in on this, Trevor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How about something along this line

if: {{{prop name|}}} |* '''Propellers:''' {{{propname}}} , if:{{{propeller diameter m|}}}, convert etc {{{propeller diameter m}}} {{{propeller diameter note|}}} if: {{{number of propellers per engine|}}}, |, {{{number of propellers per engine}}} per engine And move away from parameterising the number of blades on the propeller. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The current pre this template implementation of propeller configuration within the specifications gives outputs like these:

• Propellers: 4 blade Rotol propeller, 1 per engine
• Propellers: Four-bladed Rotol or de Havilland propeller
• Propellers: paired contra-rotating 3-bladed Rotol

Propeller diameter: 16 ft ()

For the Tempest (single engine), Argosy (4 engine) and Brabazon (8 engine) respectively. Is that acceptable? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Single blade propeller? They are flying today! We even have an article on it: Single-blade propeller. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Words fail me! Who knew?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Still can't get prop name to display in the TIS article, or even the blade count if I don't add diameter. Is there some change in the syntax that I need to copy from the template or something?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, should be working now. Nothing will show unless a blade count is entered, but you can have on;y blade count, blade count and name, or count, name and diameter. I stayed with the number of blades parameter because I figured this would be used more than number of props per engine (how often is it more than 1?).- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, works fine now. Contra-rotating props are about the only time I can think with more than one prop per engine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick check shows that it does seem to be working right, now! Thanks for fixing it! (I won't ask about aircraft that have two engines per prop, like the He-177) - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just used the template on a re-hash of Supermarine Attacker only problem so far was the armament= - if you want to use the following specific parameters, do not use this line at all it wasnt clear that the line had to be deleted - perhaps just a reword might make it clearer if you want to use the following specific parameters, then delete this line or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That exact same problem appears in the earlier templates as well - I agree that better instruction wording is needed - "Remove before flight". - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording, is it clearer now? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is endurance in hours and minutes as separate items when there is no conversion to work on (unlike ft and inches)? It would be better as simply a line of text then it could be anything from "5 hours at maximum take off weight" to "8 to 10 hours". At the moment it would require three parameters to achive the same |endurance hr, |endurance min= and endurance more=. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound good to me, I'll change it to |endurance= . - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just checked Fisher FP-101, which you changed to the new format, but endurance now doesn't display. I had to change it back to the two line version to get it to work. Is work on this finished? Disregard my last - I see the template has been updated and the new parameters are checked as working now. Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that the documentation now says:

A "note" parameter is available for most parameters for qualifying the entry. Its name is always the same as the parameter you are amending, with "note" attached to the end. For example |range miles=420 and |range note=with max wing fuel, VTOL, & 10% reserves

Just a question: are these "note" parameters going to be included in the examples to be copied on the documentation page or are we just to insert them when needed? I was just thinking that most users probably won't be able to do that consistently without breaking the template. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistyping a parameter will have no effect on display so adding "length noet=excluding refuelling probe" to an article will neither display anything extra nor cause the length to not be displayed. That said, if the parameter is not obvious in the documentation nor present in examples it will probably be overlooked. A new editor might spot a empty parameter in the article and then look to fill it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a new error that has crept in this morning, as seen on Cessna 180 and Cessna 185, but not on Fisher FP-101. For some reason "mid wingspan" is causing an error even though it isn't even in the templates for these articles. Not sure why only some are affected and not others. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One is using "knots" as prime units and the other "imp". The template handles the different prime units by having different sections formatted for each unit preference and that display according to which is selected. By that token there should be some slight difference in the code between the two sections I've fixed a minor quirk in the code but copying the working code from imp over the "non-working" in kts doesn't appear to fix it either. Thought it might have a brackets issue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have done it this time, though by eye every character in the code is the same as before. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever you did seems to have fixed it. I removed the more performance = none that you added and it seems to be working fine now like that too. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My mistake leaving that extra line in. I was using it while forcing an update and I forgot it was there. is the sum total of the changes I made to the template and there's no reason I understand why that should have had the effect seen. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is weird - it appeared on Cessna 180 and Cessna 185 as an inserted parameter and a red error, even though the mid span parameter wasn't even used in that version of the template. Maybe it is haunted? I say blame it on poltergeists. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

can't see it in the parameter list or the code. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added these myself. Having checked previous discussions on the subject, there is a view that these should be supplied only when sourced and not calculated from the other parameters, automatically or by hand. That said and since calculation would depend on a lot of #if and similar, it was simplest to go for a straight *wikilinked subject: first value and unit (second value and unit) note" format. Its still up to the editor to provide the units but that's no great task. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I just remembered that thrust/weight is dimensionless! GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since thrust to weight ratio for jets is just thrust in lbs or kg divided by gross take-off weight in lbs or kg and also since piston engined aircraft use "power loading" in either lb/hp or kW/kg based on installed power and gross take-off weight, wouldn't it be relatively easy to have the template calculate these based on the entered gross weight and entered engine thrust or hp? - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible to do this automatically, but GraemeLeggett say's this was decided against in previous discussions (If you could give us a link to this it would be great, but I'll take a look around). I see that "Thrust/weight" works fine in Rockwell X-30 but the Power/mass produces an error in Pilatus PC-9, which I think we can easily fix. If we go with hand entered values only, why have both |power/mass met= and |power/mass imp= ? "|power/mass=0.31 kW/kg (0.19 hp/lb)" or "|power/mass=0.19 hp/lb (0.31 kW/kg)" works the same. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed doable to calculate the thrust/weight and power/mass from weight and rated thrust or power. However.

1. the calculation has to be thorough enough to sum all the engines with power ie for up to 3 different piston engines or sum all the thrusts from three different engines (for both dry and afterburner conditions)
2. both weight and power (or thrust) requisite values have to be present - if it's calculated on gross weight what if the MTOW has been given?
3. the situation has to be handled when a (reliable) source quotes weight, engine power and power/mass ration but the latter does not match with a calculation based the former. The source takes priority over anything we calculate.

This added complexity (more to add/more to go wrong) in the template has to be weighed against the benefit of having it calculated.

The reference to OR was here GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now cracked that one, for some reason (which I'm certain is explained somewhere in the mediawiki information) in some cases the parameters are displayed in the text eg "Power/mass: 0.15 kW/kg {{{power/mass note}}}". Adding the parameter with no value eg "|power/mass note=" cures this. But shouldn't be necessary! The answer is to add an "|" to the end of the parameter in the template code such as "{{{power/mass note|}}}". Which I think I've done including "prop name"GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since for now we're going with the manual way for the power/mass parameter, I changed it to |* '''[[Power-to-weight ratio|Power/mass]]:''' {{{power/mass|}}} {{{power/mass note|}}} , so the editor must enter the units manually. Also, in this form, the "note" parameter is not needed in this case, since any text will show in the |power/mass= parameter. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What happens when the power is shp rather than hp? Having

• Powerplant: 2 × Bristol Proteus turboprops, 2000 hp (nnn kW) each rated as shaft horsepower

is rather clumsier than

• Powerplant: 2 × Bristol Proteus turboprops, 2000 shp (nnn KW) each

Can this be handled more elegantly? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a few ways to fix this:

1. We could add a parameter "|shp=" and if the editor enters "yes" (|shp=yes) then the unit will show as shp, otherwise any other entry (or omitting the parameter from the page) will show hp as the default unit. This way adds a step different from any other option in the template, and may confuse new editors.
2. Add a parameter "|eng1 shp=" where the editor enters the number like all the rest of the parameters, and will show up/convert like normal. Would there be any cases where both hp and shp would be shown on the page, or should one overwrite the other? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I went with the |eng1 shp= option. I've started by updating the template for eng1 only. Eng 2 and 3 still need to be updated. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 04:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a resonable way of doing it, will any contributory thrust from the turbo part of the turboprop show if that data is given in the thrust params?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It won't show anything different than the other parameters, it only changes the units shown from "hp" to "shp", everything else works exactly the same as the other units. Getting into details such as %'s of thrust from where should probably be done with the "eng1 note" parameter. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 18:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to ask was if, say, an engine was rated at say 2,500 hp and 250 lbf thrust how this would display?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that type of combination was used, or wanted. Right now it only displays as either "x lbf (y kN) thrust" / "y kN (x lbf) thrust" or "x hp (y kW)" / "y kW (x hp)". I'd have to do some work to make it act otherwise. Can you provide a few examples of articles requiring this? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

On Agusta_A.105 we have a different case. Data sheet states only kW and we need more flexibility in order to show a more appropriate 260 kW (350 shp) rater than present 260 kW (350 hp). Any hint on this ? --EH101 (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to think on that. Of the top of my head I guess we could use a |eng1 kW/shp= parameter, but I'd prefer to find another way. In the interim, just use |eng1 shp=350 and blank the |eng1 kw=260 and it'll show correctly.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like to have an entry for fuel, either by volume or weight, because otherwise I'm liable to forget to enter it into the more= line. I'll concede that it's often ignored in many sources, but it's one of the more important characteristics when trying to judge trade-offs of range vs. payload.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added it, but only as a note type entry. I think it would be far too complex for little benefit to have it convert from the unit of your choice (either size of gallon and litres) into the other ones and also display in the correct order. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What do the "flips" do? (ie: this - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, when some selects a "|prime units?=met" and enters a bunch of parameters ("span m=45") the template will convert and order the units "x m (x ft x in)". With the new "flipping", if they have to enter some parameters in other units (miles, f,t etc) because of their sources, but still want "met" to be prime to template can now take those parameters, convert them, and still place the met units first. I've got a test case running at Template:Aircraft specs/testcases. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you for that explanation and great work, too! Incidentally as long as the example of the template to copy on the doc page gets updated when you are done then I can update the version on the Aircraft Page Creator, too, so they match. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but the flips require no extra work in the doc or by the editors, its all internal workings. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that is good! I have updated the Aircraft Page Creator a couple or times as changes were made, like when "fuel" was added. If you make sure that Template:Aircraft specs/doc/examples is up to date, that will be all I need. I assume that most people will get the new template by copying from there or else from the Aircraft Page Creator. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is missing an equals sign at the end. |wing loading kg/m2--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

what's the difference? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know, something to do with gliders wings vs. powered aircraft wings?. I just noticed it was in there, so I added it to the doc. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge they both refer to the airfoil used, but the two original templates used these two different terms. I think we can remove "wing profile" and go with "airfoil". - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Super, thanks for fixing that! - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

|fuel capacity note= doesn't work. See the Polikarpov NB article for an example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have a note parameter. Like |crew= or other parameters that don't use the auto-convert function, it is text only and any text entered (including notes) will show in the main parameter.I edited the article to show what I mean. But this issue raises the question. Should all the parameters have a note parameter, even if not required? This would avoid issues like this, and allow for template upgrades in the future. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll make note parameters for all the ones not having them. I won't add them to the doc page, because they aren't really necessary, their only purpose will be to allow users to mistakenly use them. I'll make it so the article is added to a maintenance category when used (how about Category:Aircraft specs templates using improper note parameter a subcategory of Category:Aviation articles needing attention, so that if we want to we can clean things up after. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Either way is fine; I just want it documented whichever way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on an article at Vought YA-7F. When I add just the afterburner thrust rating, "dry" pos up right after the engine type (turbofan). I can put the afterburner's rating in the "eng1 lbf" field, and add a note that this is "with afterburner". Can teh "dry" field be disabled when blank, or should we use it if it's the only thrust available, and add the note? Also, would a note field for the afterburner be good? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the space issue for the display. It might be a bit over the top to say no unreheated thrust value is available because someone might come along later and find a source. The dry value can be disabled but thats another #if layer to the code for that. The simple fix is probably easier and I'll edit the article for it as a short term measure.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. thanks. Btw, I menat no dry thust available in the given source - obviously if someone finds it elsewhere, it could be added - I was just trying to keep the note short. Thanks for adding the note, as tht is better way to do it, barring changes to the field coding itself. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can add a bit of code to fix this so you can use the afterburner parameters without the dry thrust parameters. Iv'e also created a category to track this problem at Category:Aircraft specs templates using afterburner without dry parameter. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For helicopters it seems to put the more power field into the rotor section.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the error you're getting. I believe you're trying to use the |more power= parameter to place something at the end of the powerplant line. eg Powerplant: 1 × Lycoming T53-L-11 turboshaft, 1,100 shp (820 kW) your note here. For this type of note use the |eng1 note= parameter instead. The |more power= parameter is for adding completely new info. For example Caproni CH.1 uses it to add Note: Engine power rating is at 4,000 m (13,125 ft) - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As some of us have been using this template for a while without serious issues is it time to seek its official application to aircraft articles? All our page layout guidelines etc still point to the older [[Template:Aircraft specifications]]. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that - I have been using it extensively and I think all the bugs have been wrung out of it. The new template is already incorporated into the page creator. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a good going over the documentation/example code etc first to be sure we haven't missed anything and its all quite clear. Then we can be happy the change over will be smooth. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started creating a series of maintenance categories to monitor the workings of the template. See Category:Aircraft specs templates for the top level category. If there are any issues, persistance or otherwise, please let me know and I will try to fix them, and add more categories to find future pop-up problems. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Although the template itself works fine, the template page is unusable with Internet Explorer, with the examples off the side of the page. Could someone fix this?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be this diff to the examples template that broke it. Any objection if I change it back?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the width of the explanatory text within the template, that seems to have helped in part on my display. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks , that seems to have fixed it.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just written a brief article on the Curtiss KD2C Skeet which used a variety of pulsejets with differing thrusts. I can't find anything on which engine had which thrust so I tried to use a range, but it won't display properly. I even tried to use a conversion in the original thrust field, but it wouldn't display at all. Any ideas on how to fix this, if it can be fixed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Having had a fiddle with that article it seems that moving the thrust to the |eng1 note= parameter solves your problem. I think if you add the convert now to that line it should be alright. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fixed it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look - it works fine like that - nice work all around! - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just added the template to Martin Jetpack, and I can't figure out why but it's showing the "Main rotor diameter" parameter twice... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It has recently been brought to my attention that the metric to imperial conversions for speed have some errors in them. For instance entering 200 km/hr in the "Maximum speed" parameter results in 120 mph (110 kn), when the correct numbers should be 123 mph (107 kn). The same problem exists for other parameters, including "Cruising speed". Can anyone fix this? - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This error is still present. To that extent this template is not reliable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We need to get this fixed. Can anyone do the coding? - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at the problem. I think I know the answer. The convert template is assuming that when you type in 40 mph you mean "about 40 mph" - 40 miles per hour (64 km/h)^* - and not "exactly 40" - 40.0 mph (64.4 km/h) - and this appears more pronounced when you get larger numbers - hence 200 km/h (120 mph)/200.0 km/h (124.3 mph) and 1,800 km/h (1,100 mph)/1,800.0 km/h (1,118.5 mph). In theory the code just needs a missing parameter added to the template call as described here Template:Convert#Rounding. It'll jsut take a little while to check this and then implement it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can fix it that would be great! Precision counts! - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of this template because of concerns about problems with complex code, but do I think I've solved this one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually like it a lot - thank you for fixing it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that if an imperial dimension of N ft & no value for inches is entered an unacceptable rounding is applied: eg 48 ft is converted to 15 m, not 14.63. Entering a zero value for the inches fixes the conversion but to me "48 ft 0 in" looks odd. Thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if you add the numbers to the precision you have from the ref then the metric will reflect the same precision, as with 48'0". - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've set the precision for when only a "feet" value is given. But it'll take me a while to figure out how the ft and in works. ideally it should display parts of inches as fractions but I don't think I'll worry about that. In the mean time you could use decimal fractions of feet rather than feet and inches - right values but bad presentation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You can enter fractions of inches - 5+3/4 comes out as 53⁄4 but it would be nice if it worked the other way round.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Give a fraction as {{frac|3|4}} seems to break the template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You enter "5+3/4" - which is how the convert template appears to cope with fractions - see Savoia-Marchetti SM.93 for an example - porhaps this should be included in the documentation?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative ly input the metric numbers and the template will automatically insert the relevant inches even if the prime units are imp or kts.Petebutt (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but then you only get output to the nearest inch, which loses accuracy.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

would it be possible to move the Wing loading parameters to the General characteristics section?, probably best below wing area.Petebutt (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the capitalisation because G and g are two very different animals.--Petebutt (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Also should we note sustained turn rating in addition to maximum g-limit? For example: F-35 stat block note Hcobb (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that is such an unusual parameter that it is better handled either in the article text or just as a note on the g limits line. You can note that that line accepts all text. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The prime units parameter appears to be causing a display bug. When the template uses kmh speed parameters and prime units is set to kts, the kmh speed values are parsed as kts. For example:

{{Aircraft specs |prime units?=imp |max speed kmh=400 |cruise speed kmh=200 }} displays correctly as:

General characteristics Performance

• Maximum speed: 250 mph (400 km/h, 220 kn)
• Cruise speed: 120 mph (200 km/h, 110 kn)

But {{Aircraft specs |prime units?=kts |max speed kmh=400| cruise speed kmh=200 }} displays as:

General characteristics Performance

• Maximum speed: 220 kn (250 mph, 400 km/h)
• Cruise speed: 110 kn (120 mph, 200 km/h)

--Muchness (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it - I hope - have a look, but I've always preferred [[:Template:Aircraft specifications]]. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will bear {{[[Template:Aircraft specifications|Aircraft specifications]]}} in mind for future reference. One question, should kn be listed before mph in the speed fields if prime units is set to kts? That's how the values are ordered in the Range fields. In other words:

• Maximum speed: 216 kn; 249 mph (400 km/h)

--Muchness (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe in triple units so no help there, I'm afraid. I don't recall the issue being mentioned in any previous discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This template uses {{convert}} to convert between kg/m2 and lb/sqft, where each is a pressure. For example, Bell Sidewinder shows "Wing loading: 3.25 lb/sq ft (15.9 kg/m²)". A discussion at Template talk:Convert#Pressure confusion concerns the fact that kg/m2 and lb/sqft are really mass per unit area, and not pressure. Would there be any problem if the the template were changed so that the output shows "Wing loading: 3.25 lbf/sq ft (15.9 kgf/m²)" instead (with an "f" for force in "lbf" and "kgf")? This change, apart from being more technically correct, would be part of a wider effort to fix some convert units which currently have the problems outlined at convert's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

These units are actually not "pressure" but represent "loadings", in other words the weight or mass of the aircraft supported by unit area of the lifting surfaces. As such it has to use the customary units used in aviation, which are kg/m2 and lb/sqft. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; this is not pressure at all. The suggested change would in fact be technically wrong (and not reflected in any source). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have been working on Module:Convert which is intended to replace the extensive set of templates used to implement {{convert}}. I spent most of yesterday totally confused after finding that the existing templates and the new module both had some incorrect definitions for some mass-per-unit-area and pressure units. A lot of locomotive articles are using kg/m2 for boiler pressure, and they are mostly correct only because they convert between kg/m2 and lb/sqft—that works by good luck because the convert template assumes both are mass-per-unit-area. However, some articles try to convert between kg/m2 and (for example) Pa, and the converted value is incorrect because Pa is a pressure and kg/m2 is not. In that situation, the module would display an error message ("unit mismatch"), so if kg/m2 remains mass-per-unit-area, it will not be possible to convert it to a pressure unit when the module is used.

I have now read wing loading and see that it is mass/area, and is actually a factor in an equation rather than my earlier superficial understanding of force/area (my error came from relying on "loaded weight [force] of the aircraft divided by the area" in the lead). I'm still pondering what to do for the general case (possibly the locomotive articles will have to be changed to use kgf/m2 rather than kg/m2), but it looks like nothing will change here. Sorry for the noise. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wondering why this parameter has no alternative units?TheLongTone (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a free form field. So you can type "35 imp gal (160 L)" or "3,000 lb fuel and 1,000 lb in drop tanks" or any sentence fragment you want. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, especially given the problem with US & Imp gallons.TheLongTone (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added Cruise (aeronautics) and Stall speed to the sandbox, see results. These are important aircraft aspects that viewers should have easy access to, from all aircraft articles. Do you think they should be included in the main template? TGCP (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think most readers are already (at least roughly) aware of the meaning of cruise and stall speed. We don't link to everything in the template. But others may disagree.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears the template section for powerplant information is broken and does not show in the article(s). Check for example the article CarterCopter and its raw text/code. Mightyname (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The documentation at {{Aircraft specs}} includes "|eng name= the manufacturer and model of the engine. You need to specify something here otherwise nothing will be shown" and I see there is no "|eng name" in CarterCopter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not match the full parameter list. Besides not all aircrafts have a homogenous engine installation. Some have different engines & rotors etc. Therefore, there's a need for the "|eng# name=" to work, too. Mightyname (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It didn't work with "|eng name=" but the "|eng# name=" do work now. I only need to adjust the "extras" in the note parts. Thanks anyway. Mightyname (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't get |fuel consumption= and |more performance= to show in Kestrel , despite numerous different tries. I had to put them in manually. TGCP (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So "|more performance=" depended on "|eng1 name=" , but "|fuel consumption=" still won't show. Can we highlight the "You need to specify something here otherwise nothing will be shown" please ? TGCP (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

the parameter used should be "|fuel consumption lb/mi=" (or ...kg/km=), the template isn't expecting weight/hour, but a test with those didn't work either. Nothing obviously wrong with the code, but that's not unexpected, it's seldom something obvious...

There is always the alternate template template:aircraft Specs which is more flexible and does do the automatic conversion of units into the other systems of measurement. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Having put a few examples in the testcases subpage, I am fairly confident that it is the template that is broken when knots is selected for display first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And I think I have fixed it, there was no code at all to display fuel consumption if knots was selected as the units of choice. Won't necessarily help with the Kestrel since the value is not in pounds per mile, or kg per kilometer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

At this edit please note the before and after. When the number of propeller blades was not specified, it shows a 1.6m diameter engine where it should show a 1.6m diameter propeller. Not sure if the fix should be documentation or code, but something needs to be adjusted. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Just finished working on the Yakovlev Yak-19 article and am having a small problem in the engine power field. I don't have a dry thrust rating available for its Klimov RD-10F engine, only an afterburning rating and it's displaying like this: 1 × Klimov RD-10F axial-flow turbojet dry, 10.79 kN (2,425 lbf) with afterburner. Obviously the template is expecting a dry rating and thus displays the "dry" in the middle of the field. Can we change the template so that it will not display dry when a dry rating is not present?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, fixed. although, the better solution is to do this. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have started some code simplification. there should be no significant change in the output, but this will reduce the massive amount of code duplication and help reduce the chances of inconsistencies. please let me know if you see any problems. I will be monitoring the testcases to make sure nothing breaks. one positive change is that 2 ft is now converted to 0.61 meter instead of 1 meter. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the simplification should be complete now. again, there should be no significant change in the output. you can see the testcases for a comparison. the simplification has (1) reduced the amount of code by about factor of 5 by moving the unit switches inside of unit conversion subtemplates, and (2) fixed several bugs (a) miles vs mi for range parameter names, (b) kts units not displaying first, (c) bad rounding, and (d) mangled labels when some parameters were blank. let me know if you see any problems. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This template appears to be causing directly a number of the errors in this category. I posted a similar issue on Template talk:Aircraft specifications also just now. --Izno (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I think the same change needs to be made over here. --Izno (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Izno, okay, done. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In this article it can be seen that in the first "Max speed" line ("at 40.000 feet") the Mach number is missing. Mach number is only stated in second line, without reference to altitude: McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18C/D)

So I think that this line:

|* '''Maximum speed:''' {{convert|{{{max speed kts|}}}|kn|mph km/h|0|abbr=on}} {{{max speed note|}}}

must be changed to this, adding the auto-calculated "mach" number:

|* '''Maximum speed:''' {{convert|{{{max speed kts|}}}|kn|mph km/h mach|0|abbr=on}} {{{max speed note|}}}

I hope one of you is experienced enough (and has the wiki-permission to change the template) to apply this fix ASAP.

D4n2016 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The template cannot sensibly use auto calculated mach numbers as the mach number varies with altitude and the template has no way of knowing what the altitude is - in addition adding mach number is pointless for most non jet aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that auto-conversion between Mach number and absolute speed is impossible, as it is temperature-dependent. Variation with altitude is primarily because of the temperature variations at different altitudes, and those are not stable. The documentation for Template:convert notes that it is "complex", but I don't know what that means. It blithely delivers ordinary conversions though, which it probably should not do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not important but FYI "complex" means there is no simple conversion factor for Mach number so there is code built-in to convert that allows it to handle the unit. Convert accepts an altitude for a Mach number as input, but there is no way to specify the altitude if using Mach as an output. In convert, the unit is "Mach" ("mach" would be an error). Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that automatic conversion to Mach is not possible, as you need altitude and temperature inputs, but I would also argue that even if it could be done it is undesirable to automatically have Mach displayed for light aircraft, airships, ultralights, hang gliders, helicopters, paragliders and many other types of aircraft. It would not make Wikipedia look smart. - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Some recent edits over at the F/A-18 Hornet page have seen the 'Range' spec changed to 'Radius'. I am personally not clear on the difference between the two, but I thought I would bring up the possibility of adding 'Radius' to the template. Does anyone here who is familiar with the two terms think that the difference is sufficient to justify adding addition parameters? Sario528 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Are not combat range and combat radius the same thing? MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Combat radius is related to the area an aircraft can cover on a combat mission usually with a time on station. The radius is less than 1/2 of the range for an aircraft type. Others could probably explain this better... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Also why does this template need both Range and Combat range fields? They seem effectively redundant. The Combat range fields should be relabeled as Combat radius fields, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

To my knowledge the range is how far an aircraft can fly without refueling, and the combat radius, or just radius, is the range in which a combat aircraft is effective. A combat radius field should be added as this template applies to both civilian and military aircraft. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If "combat radius" and "combat range" are not the same then what use is the term "combat range", and I thought it was called "combat range" (how far can it go and cause trouble and come home) rather than "range" (how far can it go without coming home) MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, combat radius is a back and forth distance like the combat range you described. I don't believe I've seen "combat range" used in my aviation books, for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I rarely see "combat range", but when I do it's used interchangeably with "combat radius". If we add a combat range/radius field I think it would be best to call it "combat radius" so it isn't confused with the true range. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 20:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of the detailed refs for military attack aircraft that I have list "range" (distance from one airport to the next, plus a reserve) and "combat radius" (distance from airport to the target with a payload carried, allowing the aircraft to get back, plus a reserve). Many also specify the profile of the mission with regard to altitude as low level greatly reduces range in jets. Combat radius is typically about 1/2 or 1/3 of the range. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Could another set of parameters be added for Combat radius to the template? This will allow the Combat range parameters to be kept. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No interest here? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently no consensus to add this! - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I think we should go ahead and change "combat range" to "combat radius" with a description of "maximum distance an aircraft can fly, perform a mission, and return to its point of origin". Sario528 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No - because that would be Original Research - we don't know that that is always meant by combat range.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also caution against changing an existing parameter. What numbers are already used in articles for "combat range"? Would this change break them, cause them to not display or cause them to display inappropriately? - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Combat radius, which redirects to radius of action, cites Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (2005), which I found (and linked) here. It defines "radius of action" as "The maximum distance a ship, aircraft, or vehicle can travel away from its base along a given course with normal combat load and return without refueling, allowing for all safety and operating factors." The terms "combat radius" and "combat range" do not appear.

The current version is dated February 2019. It mentions "radius" just once. Apparently, "radius", which appears 29 times in the 2005 version, has become undesirable. "Combat range" does not appear.

This version of the document, dated January 1972, uses "combat radius" twice, in a single paragraph, without defining it. However, "radius of action" is defined identically to the 2005 version. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The template cannot cope with ehp/eshp - if this template is to replace the existing templates this needs to be fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Never exceed speed, unlike maximum speed, does not appear to be able to use Mach number - this should be fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

|prop note= should be |prop dia note= (|prop note= does nothing).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been using last name(s), pages in citation format for this which matches the format I use for my cites, but it looks a little odd when it's not trailing any text. It occurs to me that perhaps I shouldn't put them in citation format, but rather leave them as naked text. You can see an example at Douglas A2D Skyshark if @Petebutt: hasn't changed it to his preferred format. I know that this is a weighty issue ;-) but I just thought that I'd solicit some opinions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Usually I cite the last name or the publication and a ref for this, but there does seem to be some variability. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Per a discussion at Talk:Lilium Jet #‎Propulsion, there appears to be a need for engine specs parameters designed for electric motors. Since sources for these generally give only the total horsepower/kW, I'd support added a fourth engine parameter section designed for electric propulsion. We might also need to have an option for noting hybrid propulsion. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Btw, I don't have template editor rights, so I can't make any changes myself. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally cannot think of any examples of electric/hybrid aircraft that the template cannot already handle, but the number of electric/hybrid types is currently exploding so there is a good possibility that I'm missing something. There is also a good chance that I'm misunderstanding the template. Sario528 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The only elements that engines have within the template are "power" (or "thrust"), "engine type" and "engine name". So I can't see anything needs to be added. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The issue with the discussion I linked to is that template is designed for individual engine power, not total engine power. In many cases with electric aircraft, there are dozens of motors, with some producing more power than others. Sometimes sources don't break down the individual power for each motor type, at least early in the development stage. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

See what you're getting at, though to build an aircraft with umpteen motors that aren't the same would be engineering madness. But I digress. What is wanted is a total installed power figure for those occasions? The answer is to use eng_note parameter.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

the output from this line is:- Lower wingspan, but should read Swept wingspan

}}{{aircraft specs/length|prime units?={{{prime units?|}}}|{{#if:{{{lower span m|}}}{{{lower span ft|}}}| spread,|* '''Lower wingspan:'''}}|m={{{swept m|}}}|ft={{{swept ft|}}}|in={{{swept in|}}}|note=swept {{{swept note|}}}

should it not be:-

}}{{aircraft specs/length|prime units?={{{prime units?|}}}|{{#if:{{{lower span m|}}}{{{lower span ft|}}}| spread,|* '''Swept wingspan:'''}}|m={{{swept m|}}}|ft={{{swept ft|}}}|in={{{swept in|}}}|note=swept {{{swept note|}}}

--Petebutt (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is what it does:

{{Aircraft specs |prime units?=met |genhide=Y |perfhide=Y ...

1. ... |span m=20 }}

2. ... |span m=20 |swept m=12 }}

3. ... |upper span m=15 |lower span m=20 }}

4. ... |upper span m=15 |lower span m=20 |swept m=12 }}

I'm not clear on exactly what the specs are describing, but it seems the "swept" parm, when given with the "lower" pars, is meant to specify the part of the lower wing that is swept; when the "swept " parm is given with the "span" parm, it (perhaps wrongly) adds another line with the "swept" value (incorrectly?) labeled as "lower wingspan". Can someone find some use cases and maybe describe what it's supposed to be doing (the doc wasn't clear either). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking back at the original code for the template from 2009 by Trevor MacInnis. It did not not have the upper/mid/lower parms – only the span parms. If given the "swept" parms, it added the string " spread, m m (f ft i in) swept" after the value of the span parm, just like it does now for the lower parm. I think it should now add that string to the end of the span value if the upper/mid/lower values are not present; if they are present, add the string to the end of the last of them (in the order shown). I'll set it up in the sandbox shortly. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done (in sandbox) Before I copy it to the production code, would someone look at the testcases here and confirm that I didn't miss something? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by

{{Aircraft specs|genhide=Y|lower span m=20|prime units?=met|swept m=12|upper span m=15}} No need to differentiate between upper and lower. An aircraft with variable sweep wings is 99.9% likely to be a monoplane and the othe 0.1% (if any) would not sweep just upper, mid or lower wings.--Petebutt (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The only examples I can ever recall seeing would use the "span" and "swept" parms to produce case #2, which is now correct (here), right? Without some examples of multi-wing cases that have a swept wing, I can't really see how it would have to be handled, and it would complicate the code regardless, so I think we should probably leave it this way until/unless we find one. Somewhere, there's probably a tool that can find template parm usage. Are there perhaps categories? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think tyou are confusing wing-sweep (a fixed angle), with variable wing-sweep span ( a linear dimension). We don't have a parameter in the template for wing-sweep! The swept parameter is for the span of the wings of a variable sweep aircraft , like F-14, Tornado, F-11 or B-1, when the wings are swept, as opposed to spread!--Petebutt (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)