User talk:Danners430

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Danners430's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 7 days

This user's mind-reading skills are not so good. Please leave an edit summary.

What did you do?

This user includes edit summaries in their contributions and thinks that everyone else should use them too.

This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Strathspey Railway (preserved).

This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles:

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him!

787 deliveries edit

Howdy! Yeah I try to leave citations everywhere but that table didn't seem to have anywhere suitable for it to go. The sources included the GE press release from 2024 https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press-releases/british-airways-orders-first-genx-engines-new-787-dreamliners along with a bunch of aviation news articles. BA had ordered 18 781s initially and so the reference to 6 in that press release covers the 12 deliveries pending off the original order, then there was the additional 24 ordered recently. Joeykins82 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that source is that all it really says is BA have placed an order for GENx engines - obviously that means they’ve ordered some 787s fitted with those engines, but it doesn’t say which aircraft those will be, when deliveries will start etc. It doesn’t say that the next 787 will be BA’s last with RR engines, nor how many GE-powered 787s there will be - especially given airlines often have a few spare engines. Danners430 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of engine availability that they've made the swap: the 787 fleet has had major reliability issues because of RR engine problems. The press release is naturally putting the glossy positive spin on things because BA are still a major customer for RR and they don't want to attack another major British specialist industry, but it's indisputable that the initial order of 18 787-10s were spec'd with RR engines but only 12 will now be delivered as RR powered; the remaining 6 will be GE powered, as will the further 32 ordered in March 2025. My understanding is also that it's not possible to directly switch an aircraft between engines from different manufacturers. Joeykins82 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know the reasons - but it still remains that there simply isn’t a definitive statement saying that deliveries of RR planes have finished, and that all the remainder will be GE powered. For all the sources say there could still be 3 more RR planes under construction. You and I know that not to be the case, but is there a source that confirms that? Danners430 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the BA/GE press release BA had firm orders in place for 18 787-10s, and now per that PR 6 of those aircraft will instead be delivered with GE power plants, leaving 12 aircraft to be RR powered. G-ZBLL is the 12th 787-10 to be delivered to BA and which landed in Cardiff over the weekend (per FlightRadar24 tracking) and that aircraft has RR engines evidenced by the photograph on FR24. Therefore the remaining 6 from that original order, plus the new order of 32, are currently expected to be GE engined. IMO that's sufficient to be definitive. Joeykins82 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so where’s the source? It’s not to to readers to figure things out, this is an encyclopaedia - it’s based on reliable sources, not conjecture. Danners430 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Class 47

There weren't any sources in the article giving the previous total either! So having been reverted, it includes locomotives that don't exist any more or are not mainline registered. For example, I could have cited the scrapping of 47492 [1], or that 47816 has been deregistered from TOPS (same website), but where would I put the cites given that I was removing them from the table? Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the List of British Rail Class 47 locomotives article honestly... I'd personally be inclined, given that article exists, to remove the table altogether and instead put a textual summary in the Class 47 article. You do raise a good point, hence my thinking here - because you could quite easily cite the fact that a loco has been scrapped or moved in the list article, but not so much when removing an entry from a summary. Danners430 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is that there is no single source saying "X number of Class 47s still exist" (well, there is one, but it's a blog, and I think someone decided that WNXX was user-generated as well) so either we WP:SYNTH it by adding them up, or we remove it from the lead completely. Incidentally, my adding up *is* terrible - the total is actually 70 (32 preserved, 37 mainline, and 47816 which is neither). I would be tempted to remove the table and the total - they keep not agreeing anyway because people have been removing scrapped locos from the table but not updating the lead para. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if simply adding up totals counts as SYNTH, or whether it would be counted as a exception given it's pure maths? Whereas traditional synthesis is about rewriting text based on sources, you can't misrepresent a total... But if we do remove tables from the article and keep it in the list article, then that becomes a WP:CIRCULAR issue... Perhaps the solution is to move the list into the article and collapse the list... then that becomes an issue with hiding content in articles, which is also against a policy (I can't remember which)...

I need more coffee! Danners430 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm AFK for tomorrow and most of Friday but I'll have a think about it ... I'm sure we can sort it (simply doing maths is fine as regards SYNTH, but the issue is how those totals that add to the grand total are sourced!). Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

737 stabilizer

Moved to Talk:Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The movement of a horizontal stabilizer produces a nose up or down movement opposite the stabilizer movement. Angling the stabilizer down produces a downward force on the tail, moving the nose of the airplane upwards. Likewise, angling the stabilizer up produces an upward force on the tail, moving the nose down.

See here:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-emergency-procedure-for-737-max-may-have-failed-on-ethiopian-flight/ Cmaylo (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your similar reversion on 16 March 2025 was also incorrect, you're confusing elevator and stabilizer. Cmaylo (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're also getting mixed up - you're talking about a "force" on the stabilizer, whereas the articles are talking about "movement" of the stabilizer. When a stabilizer moves down, it pushes the nose of the aircraft down. Neither of the articles which you reference talk about forces - they talk about movement.

Also - I'm going to put the articles back into the status quo until the discussion is concluded... re-reverting without discussion isn't part of WP:BRD. Danners430 (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not talking about a only force on the stabilizer. Please refer to the source I just provided; it states what's happening clearly.

"Just a week after the Oct. 29 Lion Air crash, Boeing sent out an urgent bulletin to all 737 MAX operators across the world, cautioning them that a sensor failure could cause a new MAX flight-control system to automatically swivel upward the horizontal tail — also called the stabilizer — and push the jet’s nose down."

When the stabilizer moves down, this directs the airflow upwards. This produces an downwards force on the tail, and it pivots around the center of lift, bringing the nose up.

When the stabilizer moves up, this directs airflow downwards. This produces an upwards force on the tail, and it pivots around the center of lift, bringing the nose down.

This is also easily see by paying attention to the stabilizer trim markings on the tail. "Nose down" is up, and "nose up" is down. Cmaylo (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see exterior stab trim markings here: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/72672/why-is-the-angle-of-the-horizontal-stabilizer-marked-on-the-fuselage

Angled up is nose down, angled down is nose up. In the crash, the trim set the stabilizer to near its maximum up position, producing a strong nose down force. Cmaylo (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Cmaylo's edit.

From the Seattle Times article, linked in this thread:

"swivel upward the horizontal tail — also called the stabilizer — and push the jet’s nose down."

"Then swivel the tail down manually" (to raise the nose)

"MCAS had swiveled the stabilizer upward by turning a large mechanical screw inside the tail called the jackscrew. This is pushing the jet’s nose down"

The "angling" refers to the leading edge of the stabilizer. If leading edge is up, nose goes down. If leading edge is down, nose goes up. DonFB (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a lot appears to have happened in the half hour that I stepped away, I suggest this discussion be moved to the article talk page. Danners430 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.