| Revision as of 06:26, 23 September 2013 editMztourist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users72,121 edits →Typhoon max speed← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:14, 23 September 2013 edit undoZ07x10 (talk | contribs)1,605 edits →Typhoon max speedNext edit → | ||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
| ::::And making the same change under an alias won't help you either.] (]) 19:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC) | ::::And making the same change under an alias won't help you either.] (]) 19:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Actually ] you're the one edit-warring and you have 3R'ed. I agree with ], but we will see what the outcome of the DRN is. ] (]) 06:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | :::::Actually ] you're the one edit-warring and you have 3R'ed. I agree with ], but we will see what the outcome of the DRN is. ] (]) 06:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::So if someone changes something 3 times in a day without using revert it isn't edit-warring, but if they do then it is? Good policy. Go see German and Spanish wiki, they quote the same source (Austrian Airforce). See last posts by Julian H and Bushranger above. Now tell me who is edit warring.] (]) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == German Eurofighter Typhoon controversy == | == German Eurofighter Typhoon controversy == | ||
Revision as of 09:14, 23 September 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurofighter Typhoon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 8 months  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eurofighter Typhoon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eurofighter Typhoon at the Reference desk. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurofighter Typhoon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 8 months |
 |
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. |
Specification
Hi, the service ceiling is only 16765m according to the source (service ceiling=Dienstgipfelhöhe) the absolute ceiling is 19810m (absolute ceiling=max. Flughöhe). I didn't edit it myself because I'm not sure how to enter the data, so both ceilings are shown.
IAF £15 billion contract may still be up for grabs
It seems that BAE are paring down the cost £3.5 million per unit and have re-approached the Indian gov after some very serious disquiet in the Indian military community over choosing the Rafale.
Typhoon max speed
Typhoon max speed is said to be mach 2 at high altitude, which dcorrespond to 2150 km/h and not 2450 km/h which correspond to mach 2 at low altitude...
- The source says "2.495 km/h in 10.975 m Höhe", which translates to "2,495 km/h at a height of 10.975 kilometers". There is no Mach number given. So if anything, shouldn't the Mach number be changed? At a precision of only one digit versus four, it's probably a lot less exact, too. --Julian H. (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Correction: The official site does mention Mach 2.0 to be the maximum speed. Now I don't know what's correct. Eurofighter: Technical Data --Julian H. (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Royal Air Force specification is mach 1.8 (1900 km/h) . But we can assume that RAF limits the top speed to preserve airframe and engines lifespam. 2495 km/h (mach 2.3) isn't possible, for more than few seconds, as the composits parts of the airframe coud'nt support the resulting temperature (abaout 200°C). Old fighter could reach such speed because they were maid of metal : aluminium alloy allow speed up to 2600 km/h (heat wall) and steel alloy (like MIG-25) only allow higher speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klem1982 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Composits parts of the airframe coud'nt support the resulting temperature? The SR-71 rudder is a composit part and good for Mach 3.5 and the nose cone and leading edge of a space shuttle. It's a big difference between cold-curing composit systems and CO2 annealed composits.--HDP (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the Eurofighter using carbon ceramics or other ceramic composites. If that would be the case, high temperatures would not be a problem, but as far as I know, only standard prepreg CFCs are used. --Julian H. (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The speed is listed in multiple places as 1550mph at 10975m. Reference 257 shows Mach 2+ from 28,000ft to 55,000ft, which is damn near identical to this official speed chart for a MiG-29.
- You can see that also tops out at over Mach 2.3. The limit of the Typhoon Titanium's diffusion-bonding was originally quoted as Mach 2+ because I worked on it. It was never quoted as just Mach 2. If you look at the Rafale and then the Typhoon you'll notice a clear difference. The Rafale has pitot intakes that are stealthier (in theory) but less efficient at high speed (above Mach 1.2 and especially so above Mach 1.6). The Typhoon has longer ramped intakes to minimise total pressure losses in the intake at high Mach. It is quoted in multiple other places as 1550mph:
- and this obviously isn't at sea level. The 1550mph is very specific because it is not simply Mach 2 at sea level miscalculated. Mach 2 at sea level would be 1530mph or 2448kph. Reference 256 is also an official source, so it should be Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Z07x10 - your first source there looks like you could have knocked it up yourself - what is its provenance? And you can't add anything to any article "... because you worked on it." Your Airshow source looks more respectable, but maybe not be considered a WP:RS for technical aircraft specifications. So this seems to leave just "Reference 256"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The first source in my post above is from an official performance spec for a MiG-29. If I 'knocked it up myself' how come you can see the Russian writing on the reverse side through the page? It is supposed to demonstrate that an aircraft capable of Mach 2+ from 28000ft to 55000ft (see reference 257 in Eurofighter page) is likely to top out above Mach 2.3. Reference 256 is from the Austrian airforce, which is very official and there are now 2 other sources backing this up. 1550mph crops up everywhere but unfortunately people who don't understand jack have divided it by the speed of sound at sea level to get the Mach.
- Besides this, it's scientifically illiterate to have a wiki page that says 'Mach 2 at altitude' and then '1550mph afterwards'. They can't both be right and 1550mph is stated everywhere. Notice how the Su-27 says Mach 2.35 and gives the same speed of 1550mph:
- Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you're very clever with Russian writing and PhotoShop - how should I know? What a coincidence that these two aircraft should have the exact same top speed. But then, maybe I'm a "scientific illiterate" who "doesn't understand jack". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not quite the same but many aircraft are designed for a similar role and have similar performance. Seriously? 'Clever with Russian and photoshop'? Be serious.Z07x10 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- You could simply provide the source of your image alongside it, to demonstrate its provenance. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes because everyone can demonstrate the provenance of everything they find on the web? The speed is 1550mph at 11km altitude which is Mach 2.35. This is plainly stated in Reference 257 and Reference 258 states Mach 2+ from 28,000 to 55,000ft, which is consistent with Mach 2.35 at the optimal altitude in between. Please stop changing it back as not every aircraft can be as slow as an F-35.Z07x10 (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- um, my last edit was on 2 August? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes because everyone can demonstrate the provenance of everything they find on the web? The speed is 1550mph at 11km altitude which is Mach 2.35. This is plainly stated in Reference 257 and Reference 258 states Mach 2+ from 28,000 to 55,000ft, which is consistent with Mach 2.35 at the optimal altitude in between. Please stop changing it back as not every aircraft can be as slow as an F-35.Z07x10 (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have tweaked your edit (and please dont use reference numbers as they can change every time somebody does an edit), the second ref is not reliable and the first ref gives 2.346 not 2.35. MilborneOne (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- (2495/3.6) / (1.4*287*216)^(.5) = 2.35 (of course it depends what value of gamma you use).
The world's oldest air force says Mach 1.8.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm
Hcobb (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's because they're instructed not to fly above that just as MiG-25 pilots are instructed not to fly above Mach 2.5. I've changed it back. We can play this game all day. Z07x10 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- . We don't "play games" on Misplaced Pages, we use reliable sources. Z07x10, you are edit-warring on this issue, and have not sourced the edit you desire to make to the satisfaction of the consensus of editors on the talk page. This is a warning: do not edit-war further on this. It doesn't matter if you're "right", your constant reverting on this issue combined with your "we can play this game" attitude has put you in the wrong, and you need to stop and discuss this, without constantly re-adding the information in the meantime, before you get blocked, the page gets locked to force discussion, or both. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
So basically you want to turn Misplaced Pages into an American encyclopedia of BS. I've listed 2 reliable sources showing Mach 2.35:
and
Mach 2+ from 28-55,000ft
and so far I've listed several other supporting sources stating 2495kph. So unless you believe that's at sea level, it isn't Mach 2, it's Mach 2.35. You can't say Mach 2 and then say 2495kph at 10,975m because they're contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I want to head off an edit war and avoid people getting blocked. Regardless of what you believe is "right", or regardless of what is "right", this is obviously not a non-controversial change. Therefore you need to discuss, thoroughly, what it is you want to change, and why, providing the sourcing here on the talk page, and have a full discussion before re-adding the change to the article at all. If you are, in fact, correct, then it should be reasonable that over the course of the discussion that you'll be able to convince other editors of the verifiable factuality of your position. Either way, though, the constant re-adding to the article in the meantime, even if it is 110% correct, is disruptive edit-warring. Also, please indent your posts as it makes the discussion easier to follow, and please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- hmm, so maybe that is 110% of max speed?! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference that talks about the horrible things that happen to a EF when it goes past Mach 1.8? Hcobb (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- No because there aren't any. Many airforces imposes operating restrictions to improve longevity. If you want to talk about terrible things happening, how about you stop interfering with articles on EU planes or I'll go to the F-22 article and start linking some figures from this documentary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90giTk e.g. 1 critical failure every 1.7 flying hours, 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 flying hour etc. How does that grab you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:POINT. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- By the way is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- If that's so, and that is the only source that gives that value, it's not quite so easy to add it to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, does the Austrian Air Force count as a primary source in this case? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- It would be tempting for the Austrian Air Force to tell a few porkies to scare away the opposition, we really need a reliable secondary source like Janes or Flight. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Aviation Week says Mach 1.6 in the 2008 Aerospace Source Book. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Source? Well at the moment the page says 'Mach 1.8, 2495kph at 10,975m', which is a complete contradiction.
- Also, does the Austrian Air Force count as a primary source in this case? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- If that's so, and that is the only source that gives that value, it's not quite so easy to add it to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- No because there aren't any. Many airforces imposes operating restrictions to improve longevity. If you want to talk about terrible things happening, how about you stop interfering with articles on EU planes or I'll go to the F-22 article and start linking some figures from this documentary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90giTk e.g. 1 critical failure every 1.7 flying hours, 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 flying hour etc. How does that grab you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
2495kph(1550mph) http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmlv.gv.at%2Fwaffen%2Fwaf_eurofighter.shtml&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 http://markosun.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/the-worlds-current-top-10-jet-fighters/ http://www.ukairshows.com/aircrafttyphoon.html http://www.fighter-aircraft.com/eurofighter-typhoon.html http://www.militaryplanes.co.uk/typhoon.html http://historywarsweapons.com/eurofighter-typhoon/ http://globaldefencesystems.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/eurofighter-typhoon_6870.html http://fighter-planes-mania.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/eurofighter-typhoon.html http://f-25.com/fighter/ef-2000/ http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/fighter-plane-dimensions/#!/exjun_ http://webaviation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/eurofighter-typhoon.html http://destianariwibowo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/crew-1-operational-aircraft-or-2.html
Can agree that 2495kph or 1550mph at altitude (11km) is Mach 2.35? If so, what is the issue? At the moment we're saying it's Mach 1.8 which is factually and mathematically inaccurate.Z07x10 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
So can anyone actually source another speed specified at an altitude? Mach 2.35 again listed here: http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f35/Z07x10 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- So what altitude is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- And here's another problem: none of those links are reliable sources. None of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay well here's what the aircraft manufacturers have to say:
BAE SYSTEMS - 1521mph http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon EADS - Mach 2+ http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.htmlZ07x10 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- So they both basically say Mach 2.0. But give no altitude. How much faster than Mach 2.0 do you need to go to be at "Mach 2.0+"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, now we have reliable sources stating "Mach 2+", is there anythingn in secondary sources, which are preferred, to confirm or refute this? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well I have provided a whole listing of secondary sources above that state either 1,550mph or 2,495kph. The speed of sound is given by sqrt(gamma*R*T). The value of gamma is 1.4. R is the gas constant (287J/kgK) and T is the temperature, which at 11,000m is 216K. That gives Mach 1 as sqrt(1.4*287*216) = 294.6m/s. 2,495kph*1000/3600 = 693.1m/s. 693.1/294.6 = Mach 2.35. If you look on some of my other sources you'll see the speed of other Mach 2.35 aircraft also listed as 1550mph.Z07x10 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Er...no, you haven't. All those "secondary sources" are not reliable sources. Rule of thumb: if "blogspot" or "wordpress" is in the URL, a reliable source, it is not, and none of the other links you have provided are to RSes either - so far the only reliable sources you have linked are manufacturers' websites and the Austrian AF - all of which are primary sources, and all of which only confirm "Mach 2+". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well what exactly do you mean by a 'secondary source'? What is there in between the primary sources listed and the other sources listed (an example would be good)? Furthermore the BAE SYSTEMS source states 1521mph, which I've explained in my calculation is around Mach 2.3 at the edge of the troposphere, which is almost invariably where fighter jets achieve top speed because it's the best trade-off between cool air and good air density for lift at lower alpha, which reduces drag. The only place these mph figures equate to Mach 2 is at ground level and that sure as heck wasn't where 1550mph was achieved. So far with have 2 primary sources listing 1521-1550mph(2495kph), which is obviously around 11km altitude by common logic, and a fairly specific source stating Mach 2+ from 28,000-55,000ft: http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm This matches up favourably with this performance graph for a MiG-29 (which apparently I fabricated, in Russian, which I don't speak):
- Er...no, you haven't. All those "secondary sources" are not reliable sources. Rule of thumb: if "blogspot" or "wordpress" is in the URL, a reliable source, it is not, and none of the other links you have provided are to RSes either - so far the only reliable sources you have linked are manufacturers' websites and the Austrian AF - all of which are primary sources, and all of which only confirm "Mach 2+". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well I have provided a whole listing of secondary sources above that state either 1,550mph or 2,495kph. The speed of sound is given by sqrt(gamma*R*T). The value of gamma is 1.4. R is the gas constant (287J/kgK) and T is the temperature, which at 11,000m is 216K. That gives Mach 1 as sqrt(1.4*287*216) = 294.6m/s. 2,495kph*1000/3600 = 693.1m/s. 693.1/294.6 = Mach 2.35. If you look on some of my other sources you'll see the speed of other Mach 2.35 aircraft also listed as 1550mph.Z07x10 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4430/l6mh.pngZ07x10 (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Z07x10, I'm sure your calculations are perfectly reliable. But on this highly sceptical website they constitute WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Calculations that any editor can perform given the information presented are not considered WP:OR. However since the source in question does not give an altitude at which the speed is relevant, we can not assume it's at altitude for the calculation, which does make it WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- 'Secondary source' - Jane's, Aviation Week, The New York Times, etc. Sources that are not a manufacturer or operator, but that are not self-published. To be quite honest if you don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, what constitutes a reliable source, and why blogs are not reliable sources, you need to take a break from editing and read the relevant policies and guidelines until you do. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Z07x10, I'm sure your calculations are perfectly reliable. But on this highly sceptical website they constitute WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well I don't mean to quibble but Jane's and Aviation get their facts from primary sources, which is exactly where the other 'non-secondary' sources get their data from. The only actual primary source is sitting on the Warton Proquis Information Management System and has a classification of 'SECRET'. In fact, only the header sheet is actually sitting on the system, the document itself is locked away in a fire-proof safe with back-up copies at Iron Mountain. One of the two primary sources does specify an altitude, and then there's just the simple fact that the Vmax altitude given by the Austrian Airforce is roughly true for most fighter jets. This is a primary source backed up by common knowledge, more than enough to base a calculation on. There is a reason why fighters achieve top speed at this altitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg and https://en.wikipedia.org/Flight_envelope and https://en.wikipedia.org/File:AltitudeEnvelopeText.GIF. Furthermore using a = sqrt(Gamma*R*T) to calculate the speed of sound is very much not 'original research'. It's a very well established formula that's expressed on your own pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/Speed_of_sound#Speed_in_ideal_gases_and_in_air Here R is expressed in J/molK which divided by the molar mass gives J/kgK, i.e. (8.31451J/molK)/(0.0289645kg/mol) = 287J/kgK. This is kind of why I get annoyed discussing things here. I'm stating things that are indisputable facts as an engineer in conjunction with a primary source, and being told that they are merely 'opinions' or 'original research'. The link I've posted also specifies the speed of sound at 11km altitude (295m/s or 294.6m/s exactly using formula) and the temperature there (273-57) = 216K.Z07x10 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that secondary sources get their data from primary sources, it doesn't change the fact that secondary sources are preferred (although primary can be used for simple statements of fact). If you have one source that gives a top speed and an altitude that that top speed is at, then calculating the Mach number from that data is not WP:OR; if, however, you infer the altitude, that the speed-at-altitude is the top speed, or you take the top speed from one source and altiude from another, that's synthesis and not allowed. But, as I said, if you have a reliable secondary source that gives "top speed at altiude" then calculating the Mach number from that is pefectly acceptable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Except that isn't what I did. The speed and altitude are both listed on this one primary source: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml. I only used this second primary source to verify the mph speed: http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon and support the first primary source. The supposition of altitude only applies to the second of the 2 primary sources. The calculation is based purely on the speed and altitude in the first primary source.Z07x10 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Then, now that that's all sorted, it should be alright, I think? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- So we can change it to 2.35? Thanks. Changes made.Z07x10 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late to the discussion. So no, you cannot make the change. There is no problem making simple calculations (assuming we have all the relevant parameters) when we are missing a reference for a specific value. But this is not the case at all here. We have numerous, concordant primary and secondary sources virtually all agreeing on the Mach 2 value. So doing our own calculations to contradict those sources is the textbook definition of original research. On wikipedia, we just report what the sources say, so unless you find at least one secondary, reliable source with a different Mach value, there is nothing we can do here. --McSly (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the case and we have done this to death already. The Austrian Air Force clearly states 2495kph at 10,975m - the calculation is based on that. BAE SYSTEMS (the manufacturer) states 1521mph which roughly agrees and works out to Mach 2.3+. So the calculation is based on speed and altitude figures from a primary source, backed up by speed from another primary source and an assumed altitude. Note that 'Mach 2+' does not specifically contradict these values. Also, the changes have already been agreed after a very lengthy discussion, so if you want to change it back you need to get agreement here first! You can't just barge in and edit an already contested and argued at length edit.Z07x10 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- To me, 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6) is not a complicated calculation. We do have all parameters needed for it. It's not really much more than a unit conversion imo. — Julian H.(talk) 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed; since the sources say "Mach 2+" the 2.35 number is not inconsistent and has been shown to be a routine calculation given that all available numbers for it are right there in the source. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- To me, 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6) is not a complicated calculation. We do have all parameters needed for it. It's not really much more than a unit conversion imo. — Julian H.(talk) 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the case and we have done this to death already. The Austrian Air Force clearly states 2495kph at 10,975m - the calculation is based on that. BAE SYSTEMS (the manufacturer) states 1521mph which roughly agrees and works out to Mach 2.3+. So the calculation is based on speed and altitude figures from a primary source, backed up by speed from another primary source and an assumed altitude. Note that 'Mach 2+' does not specifically contradict these values. Also, the changes have already been agreed after a very lengthy discussion, so if you want to change it back you need to get agreement here first! You can't just barge in and edit an already contested and argued at length edit.Z07x10 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late to the discussion. So no, you cannot make the change. There is no problem making simple calculations (assuming we have all the relevant parameters) when we are missing a reference for a specific value. But this is not the case at all here. We have numerous, concordant primary and secondary sources virtually all agreeing on the Mach 2 value. So doing our own calculations to contradict those sources is the textbook definition of original research. On wikipedia, we just report what the sources say, so unless you find at least one secondary, reliable source with a different Mach value, there is nothing we can do here. --McSly (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- So we can change it to 2.35? Thanks. Changes made.Z07x10 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Then, now that that's all sorted, it should be alright, I think? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Except that isn't what I did. The speed and altitude are both listed on this one primary source: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml. I only used this second primary source to verify the mph speed: http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon and support the first primary source. The supposition of altitude only applies to the second of the 2 primary sources. The calculation is based purely on the speed and altitude in the first primary source.Z07x10 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that secondary sources get their data from primary sources, it doesn't change the fact that secondary sources are preferred (although primary can be used for simple statements of fact). If you have one source that gives a top speed and an altitude that that top speed is at, then calculating the Mach number from that data is not WP:OR; if, however, you infer the altitude, that the speed-at-altitude is the top speed, or you take the top speed from one source and altiude from another, that's synthesis and not allowed. But, as I said, if you have a reliable secondary source that gives "top speed at altiude" then calculating the Mach number from that is pefectly acceptable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
McSly, why do you change the value now without even mentioning it here? — Julian H.(talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, I cited the reasons before. We are in no shortage of sources giving the top speed as a Mach factor. Spoiler alert, they say Mach 2 or 2+, none say Mach 2.35. Therefore, we have absolutely no business doing our own half-ass calculations based on cherry-picked sources in order to contradict the values that primary and secondary sources already provide. At best, it's just synthesis or original research. The question has nothing to do with the calculation being easy or hard, the only question we have here is do we have sources stating the Mach number? And since we do, we just cite them, no calculation required. As a side note, the other time the same editor tried to replace a directly cited value by a "simple" calculation where we had "all parameters needed for it", we ended it up with that change which was laughably wrong. --McSly (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- One says Mach 2, one says Mach 2+ (which contradicts Mach 2 in my opinion) and one says Mach 2.35 (via a basic calculation, which contradicts Mach 2 but not Mach 2+). I can't say which one is closest to reality either, but the most precise value is Mach 2.35. — Julian H.(talk) 09:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- We've gone over this before a few times now. The source specifying 2495kph (1550mph) at 10,975m is a primary source and is very specific. The other primary source quoted is a manufacturer and specifically states 1521mph, which is a very close figure and it only requires a small stretch of logic and subject matter knowledge to know that this is at the edge of troposhere and not at ground level. Furthermore EADS (the other manufacturer) states '2+' http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html. And so does this technical guide http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf. So we have 2 primary sources agreeing with the mph figure, one of which states an altitude enabling a calculation and 2 other primary sources that state '2+'. So that's 4 primary sources that are not in dispute. Furthermore there are other seemingly well informed tertiary sources that state Mach 2+ from 28-55,000ft http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Feurofighter.airpower.at%2Ftechnik-daten.htm&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 and this MiG-29 speed graph of unknown providence showing that it's entirely possible for that to correlate to Mach 2.3+ at optimum altitude http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4430/l6mh.png.
- Hello, consensus can and does routinely change when new information and new sources come to view so saying that we talked about it before is not an argument. I'd like to also remind you that the value for the Mach speed has been consistent in this article for the past 10 years at Mach 2.0. In addition, what you did in the previous paragraph is clear WP:OR, if you want to know why, "this MiG-29 speed graph of unknown providence showing that it's entirely possible for that to correlate to Mach 2.3+ at optimum altitude" was a dead giveaway. Lastly you misrepresented a couple of sources there, I left a note on your talk page on this.
- So let's re-start. I think we all agree that the value Mach 2.0 do not aligned with 2,495 km/h and we are trying to reconcile them. So far, the premise has been that 2,495 km/h is right therefore Mach 2.0 must be wrong. So what Z07x10 has been trying to do is 1) pretend that the sources stating Mach 2.0 do not exist. 2) Replace those sources by his own calculations based on synthesizing cherry-picked values and "speed graph of unknown providence". 3) Rationalize the value Mach 2+ present in some sources so it really means 2.35, but only if you don't think about it too much.
- Except that none of that is actually quite true. First it is very easy to find good quality sources flatly contradicting the 2,495 km/h value. Here are a few. BBC News (1,320 mph - 2,125 km/h), Daily Mail (1,320 mph - 2,125 km/h), FAS (2125 km/hr), RAF Typhoon Manual (1,320 mph - 2,125 km/h). The RAF Typhoon Manual is a very high quality secondary source as it is a official RAF title and it probably the best source we have here. They are all consistent with Mach 2.0. We also have numerous quality secondary sources stating the Mach speed at Mach 2.0 making any attempt at doing personal calculation a complete waste of time. Among those sources are Jane's All the World's Aircraft (page 278 of the 2004-2005 edition) which is already used throughout the article so is perfectly valid to set the Mach speed, and the official eurofighter.com (Z07x10 falsely claimed that the source said Mach 2+, it actually says Mach 2.0, twice). Lastly about the 2+ value. In fact, most sources do not say Mach 2+, instead, they say Mach 2.0+. The additional 0 is quite significant. Mathematically, it means that the value must be lower than Mach 2.1, completely ruling out Mach 2.35.
- So, given that 1) we have no source whatsoever for Mach 2.35 but many for Mach 2.0 including JANE and eurofighter.com. 2) we have several high quality sources including the BBC and official RAF titles (The RAF Typhoon Manual) giving 2,125 km/h. 3) Mach 2.0+ means at best Mach 2.0999 and 4) 2,495 km/h is the exact conversion of Mach 2.0 at sea level so could be easily explained by someone not familiar with the concept of Mach speed making a mistake, I think a clear picture is starting to emerge here. In the Mach 2.0 - 2,495 km/h pair what is wrong is not the Mach value as initially thought, it is the km/h speed that should be 2,125 km/h. We have numerous high quality secondary sources to confirm it and get a consistent non WP:OR set of values. Any additional thoughts before I change the article with Mach 2.0 and 2,125 km/h ?--McSly (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- This may come as a shock to you but 'Haynes' do not produce official Typhoon manuals or performance specifications. They're produced at BAE SYSTEMS in Warton Aerodrome by people like me and are referred to as ODMs (Operating Data Manuals), AFRCs (Aircrew flight reference Cards) and Performance Specifications. The last two of which are classified and the only true source of data. Just to blow your 'sources apart completely. In the Haynes Manual link you posted (secondary source at best) it states take-off to 40,000ft in 30s in one place and also states brakes-off to 40,000ft in 90s in another. Take-off taking 8s, clearly a contradiction of itself. The Eurofighter tech guide is again a secondary source. This is important to understand because neither Haynes, nor the Eurofighter tech guide, nor Jane's are written by people with access to the official performance specification or official data. This is why on page 18 of the tech guide it shows the Typhoon with 20 different stores, only 9 or 10 of which have actually been qualified if you count the (E)GBU-16 as an EPW II and lump all Eurofighter nations together as one.
- We've gone over this before a few times now. The source specifying 2495kph (1550mph) at 10,975m is a primary source and is very specific. The other primary source quoted is a manufacturer and specifically states 1521mph, which is a very close figure and it only requires a small stretch of logic and subject matter knowledge to know that this is at the edge of troposhere and not at ground level. Furthermore EADS (the other manufacturer) states '2+' http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html. And so does this technical guide http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf. So we have 2 primary sources agreeing with the mph figure, one of which states an altitude enabling a calculation and 2 other primary sources that state '2+'. So that's 4 primary sources that are not in dispute. Furthermore there are other seemingly well informed tertiary sources that state Mach 2+ from 28-55,000ft http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Feurofighter.airpower.at%2Ftechnik-daten.htm&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 and this MiG-29 speed graph of unknown providence showing that it's entirely possible for that to correlate to Mach 2.3+ at optimum altitude http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4430/l6mh.png.
- One says Mach 2, one says Mach 2+ (which contradicts Mach 2 in my opinion) and one says Mach 2.35 (via a basic calculation, which contradicts Mach 2 but not Mach 2+). I can't say which one is closest to reality either, but the most precise value is Mach 2.35. — Julian H.(talk) 09:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This is my response to your subjective interpretation of significant figures that I've also copied to your talk page: I don't accept that Mach 2.0+ excludes figures higher than 2.1 and if there is a page stating this on Misplaced Pages it needs to be adjusted. It means the same as Mach 2+ in this case. Meaning is always specific to context and the fact that some websites write '2.0+' was a choice, because no one has officially ever stated, in person, Mach 2.0+. Let's face it, to give 1dp and then add '+' is kind of nonsense. It's more likely to be an auto-formatter choosing the number of significant figures/dps just like on Misplaced Pages. And in the case of the Typhoon this interpreation is confirmed by the Austrian Airforce primary source stating '2495kph at 10,975m'. and BAE SYSTEMS stating '1521mph'. Furthermore Mach 2.0 at sea level is 2448kph not 2495kph and the Austrian Airforce clearly state an altitude. The consensus reached so far is based on two primary sources stating '2495kph at 10,975m' (Austrian Airforce) (which is very specific and specifies an altitude enabling a simple calculation) and another primary source (BAE SYSTEMS) stating '1521mph', which again is not Mach 2 at sea level, which would be 1530mph and is clearly not at sea level. The other primary sources state Mach 2+ or Mach 2.0+ depending on their formatting preferences. The decision to add or not a dp is aesthetic not mathematical in this context and, in the face of the aforementioned sources, the best interpretation is that it simply means 'more than Mach 2'. The inclusion of a digit doesn't always have significance even on Misplaced Pages, e.g. does 11,000 lb mean less that 11,050 lb, or less than 11,500lb? And your maths is also wrong, if something is rounded to 2.0, that means less than 2.05 not less than 2.1, so mathematically you aren't even correct assuming your reasoning was correct. You're also wrong that speed has ever been generally accepted as Mach 2.0. It has always been Mach 2+, ever since I was working as an undergrad at BAe Brough in 1997. So in summary: Austrian Airforce (Primary Source in possession of actual performance specification) - 2495kph @ 10,975m = Mach 2.35 at ISA conditions. BAE SYSTEMS (Primary Source manufacturer in possession of actual performance specification) - 1521mph = Mach 2.3+ at or above troposhere. EADS (Primary Source manufacturer in possession of actual performance specification) - Mach 2.0+ which in context means 'over Mach 2'. The only sources that state otherwise are secondary or tertiary sources not in receipt of the performance specification or possibly some instances where a kid on work experience has been given a task of web page design. Instead of grasping at straws and wasting people's time, try and find something specific from primary sources before coming back and wasting my time in having to type a response on my weekend. The Austrian Airforce is a primary source and has given very specific details with speed and altitude, so I can't grasp the reasoning of some people. Are the Austrian Airforce liars? Is that the case being put forward?Z07x10 (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, I actually thought we were at an impasse here but fortunately you last edit made me realise what the disconnect was. And this is my fault as I should have mentioned that before since you are relatively new to Misplaced Pages. On WP, we really only want secondary sources. From the policy page: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Please read that page carefully as well as this one. We use primary sources only when secondary sources are not available which is not the case here. This is why JANE's, the Eurofighter tech guide and the RAF Typhoon Manual are actually very, very good sources for this article and that's why JANE's is widely used across WP because they are the kind of sources that we want. They will also trump any primary source. So, that said, I'll give you some time to familiarize yourself with those WP policies and if there are no additional objection, I'll update the article with what those high quality secondary sources say (Mach 2.0 and 2,125 km/h). --McSly (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- The policy can't possibly say that. That's basically the equivalent of accepting the word from the guy down the road instead of the people who build and fly the plane and are in receipt of the full facts. What I would hazard a guess to as regards your misunderstanding of the rules is that secondary sources are used when primary sources could be tainted, or have heavy agendas, e.g. court cases and political incidents. Then it would be appropriate to use secondary sources or other unbiased primary sources. In a matter like this, secondary sources are not really 'sources' at all, in that they are not the actual 'source' of any information they provide. In this case here we are dealing with a specific fact 'speed' which can only be reliably taken from those who have tested it, measured it and recorded it in a document. Neither Haynes nor Jane's have done this. You'll also appreciate wrt the policy, primary and secondary sources are somewhat entwined. Is the Austrian Airforce reading from the Performance Spec a primary or a secondary source? They are clearly one step removed from manufacture as a customer and the people writing websites at BAE and EADS are also not the ones doing the actual testing. From this perspective the aforementioned sources are secondary sources providing a reliable commentary having viewed the primary sources. Haynes and Jane's are now tertiary sources who have not had access to the primary sources and only have restricted access to the information via people who have, or sales executives from those companies speaking from bullet points, or pilots who typically fly the aircraft with 3 drop tanks and have strict guidelines about peacetime operating limits. Supercruise with just AAMs is Mach 1.5 but with 3 drop tanks and 4 EPW IIs it's Mach 1.2 or less. Hopefully you can see the problems associated with taking figures from journalists and trying to categorise primary and secondary sources too rigidly. I think the article as it stands uses the best sources available as regards those who have access to the actual indisputable genesis of the information.
- As an aside I can't understand where all the dispute comes from. Nobody ever questions the maximum speed of a Tornado being Mach 2.27 with 15% less thrust and 30% more weight but OMG, add Mach 0.08 for the Typhoon and Arrrrgh WWIII.Z07x10 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, First as I already explained to you, on WP " articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Please see the policy pages here and here. Those policies are the same for everybody and they are non negotiable. If you don't believe me, I invite you to go to the Village pump so you can ask other editors to confirm. Air force sites are primary sources, JANE's and the RAF Typhoon Manual are quite evidently secondary sources (and very high quality). We don't have any tertiary source here as tertiary sources are encyclopedias. Please read their definitions carefully as they were already pointed out to you. Again, if you don't believe me, you need to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask.
- Now, let's move this along. Your core argument here is that (and I quote): "In this case here we are dealing with a specific fact 'speed' which can only be reliably taken from those who have tested it, measured it and recorded it in a document" and you use the Austrian Air force official website as a source. Well, as it turns out, Austria is not the only country with an official air force website, Germany, the UK and Italy have one too. For your argument to be valid, all values must agree, because same aircraft, same tests, same measures must give the same results. So, this is exciting, let's check if that the case. Italian airforce "maximum speed Mach 2.0" (different value). German air force "Höchstgeschwindigkeit Mach 2,00" (also different value). RAF Max speed: 1.8Mach (new different value). So we have 4 websites of equal importance with 4 different values for the maximum speed and absolutely no way to know which one is right (and at least 2 of them are wrong). Z07x10, I sorry to inform you that your argument is therefore demonstratively false. Incidentally, this is why we rely on secondary sources such as JANE's because primary sources contradict themselves all the time.
- The bottom line here is that 1) not only the Austrian Air force site cannot be used for the maximum speed, but all 4 sites are not reliable sources as they contradict each other, if the article uses any of them, we will have to find other sources. 2) since primary sources are in conflict, we must rely on secondary sources (and that what we should do anyway) to set the top speed. I will now update the article with the 2 reliable secondary sources we have for this value. Any attempt to change those with a primary source will be reverted. --McSly (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are now participating in an edit war by deliberately making disputed changes against that agreed by consensus. Haynes is not a reliable source for anything other than car maintenance instructions. The logical conclusion is that most air forces have chosen not to be specific as regards top speed. The RAF figure has already been ruled out as unreliable by consensus in the large discussion before you joined in that you've conveniently chosen to ignore, it also quotes 2.0 elsewhere on the same site. You'll also note that the german airforce quote the dry engine thrust as 70kN then 60kN on the same page http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP3I5EyrpHK9nHK98sS0NL2s1JJivdTSony9ktTkjDz9gmxHRQCVxGXO/#par3. The wing area has also been approximated to 50.00m^2 (51.2m^2 - wiki). Clearly not reliable. The original official release was Mach 2+, so many people just quoted Mach 2. However, we now have more recent information from 2 reliable sources that contradict this, one of which specifies an altitude, which cannot be ignored. 2495kph at 10,975m is extremely specific and the German Misplaced Pages page has reached the same conclusion entirely independent from my input https://de.wikipedia.org/Eurofighter_Typhoon.
- With respect to contradictions, you've quoted a Haynes article that contradicts itself in the space of 1 page. As regards 'magazines' in general (e.g. Janes, Air Forces Monthly), I grew reading car magazines, like many teens, and if I had a pound for every time they disagreed or got something wrong, I'd be very rich and the hardbacks published were even worse. 'Secondary sources' are in conflict too, especially as regards supercruise, and the sources you describe as secondary are arguably tertiary as they have never laid eyes on the primary source. A true secondary source needs to have access to the primary source. The level of a source (primary, secondary or tertiary) is debatable and we should focus on a commonsense approach rather than rigid categorisation of sources. As an example, if I produce datasheets like these http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Tow.pdf http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Coyote_Fact.pdf, as I have done for the relevant wiki pages, are you seriously suggesting that a magazine article or a page from Haynes on line should be able to take precedence over such sources. May as well close Misplaced Pages if that's the case. Z07x10 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, wait, just realized something. You didn't pick 2495kph and 10,975m over all the other higher quality sources just because they are precise right? Please tell me that's not the what you did?--McSly (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- No I ignored the other lower quality sources for the reasons already mentioned. The legacy figure was stated as 'Mach 2+', which was stated in many places as either 'Mach 2+', 'Mach 2.0+', 'Mach 2' or 'Mach 2.0'. All those figures derive from the legacy release of information. 2,495kph (1550mph) at 10,975m is a new figure that states a specific altitude as well as a speed and it comes from an airforce. The figure is backed up by '1521mph' quoted by the plane's manufacturer and the German wiki has drawn the same conclusions http://de.wikipedia.org/Eurofighter_Typhoon this serves as a neutral 'third opinion' within the wiki community - see dispute resolution '3O'.
- Explain to me why you are adamant that a plane with a 5% higher thrust-to-weight ratio than an F-16 and ramped intakes vs an F-16's pitot intakes, is somehow slower than it. Now replace the F-16 with a Tornado with no supercruise ability whatsoever but ramped intakes that allow Mach 2.27 with reheat despite weighing 30% more than a Typhoon and having older engines with a 15% lower thrust rating. There's no logical rationale to your insistence that the speed is Mach 2.0. Here's what Airpower Austria says: http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm Mach 2.0+ from 28,000-55,000ft.
- Following the last change, I'm now reporting you for edit warring.Z07x10 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- And making the same change under an alias won't help you either.Z07x10 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Z07x10 you're the one edit-warring and you have 3R'ed. I agree with McSly, but we will see what the outcome of the DRN is. Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- So if someone changes something 3 times in a day without using revert it isn't edit-warring, but if they do then it is? Good policy. Go see German and Spanish wiki, they quote the same source (Austrian Airforce). See last posts by Julian H and Bushranger above. Now tell me who is edit warring.Z07x10 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Z07x10 you're the one edit-warring and you have 3R'ed. I agree with McSly, but we will see what the outcome of the DRN is. Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
German Eurofighter Typhoon controversy
David Cenciotti has indicated that F-22 Raptor kill markings have appeared on German Eurofighter Typhoons making the claim that "the F-22 is not invincible". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC). Posted by
Who cares? Is it relevant? What does it prove? Does it really mean they are kill markers for F-22s. This is nothing more than irrelevant nonsense. The stuff that makes Misplaced Pages nothing more than a source of superficial and questionable information. !. No one ever said Raptors are invincible and 2. The appearance of "kill" markings on a plane from an exercise does nothing to disprove the point. Lastly this is about Eurofighter performance, not Raptor invincibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.207.218 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, it is a reference to the capability of the Eurofighter, and backed up by verifiable reference sources. You will need a consensus to alter what is a contentious issue, that has been removed and placed back into the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC).
- Doesn't this belong in the German unit's page as an indication that the Germans think the Raptor is cool? Hcobb (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- We have no idea what the circumstances of the exercise were, the "kill" marks are trivia and should be removed.Mztourist (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- They are what they are, and appear in a number of reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC).
- They are what they are is not an argument, these are unverified claims from an exercise we know nothing about. What are the reference sources and what do they say other than that the Typhoon pilots have painted Raptor kills on their planes? Writers should wait until Typhoon scores a real air-to-air kill before crediting it with as yet unproven abilities Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The NATO exercise, 2012 Alaska Red Flag pitted dissimilar types and showed that the Eurofighter, despite criticisms about its capability, could be pitted against contemporary types and be successful in combat exercises. The eight Luftwaffe Eurofighter Typhoons were involved in a two-week deployment to Eielson AFB where U.S, Polish, Japanese and Australian air forces were participants in simulated combat threat environments from both surface and air foes. It is typical of these exercises that successful engagements are noted even in an unofficial manner. I have no "horses in the race" as this was not my submission but I did see that the statement was clearly referenced. As a compromise, following an earlier suggestion, the sentence can be moved into the German operational history with a clarifying statement as to the nature of Alaska Red Flag and the "kill markings" statement be made into a "note to reader". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC).
- I agree Mztourist (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The NATO exercise, 2012 Alaska Red Flag pitted dissimilar types and showed that the Eurofighter, despite criticisms about its capability, could be pitted against contemporary types and be successful in combat exercises. The eight Luftwaffe Eurofighter Typhoons were involved in a two-week deployment to Eielson AFB where U.S, Polish, Japanese and Australian air forces were participants in simulated combat threat environments from both surface and air foes. It is typical of these exercises that successful engagements are noted even in an unofficial manner. I have no "horses in the race" as this was not my submission but I did see that the statement was clearly referenced. As a compromise, following an earlier suggestion, the sentence can be moved into the German operational history with a clarifying statement as to the nature of Alaska Red Flag and the "kill markings" statement be made into a "note to reader". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC).
- They are what they are is not an argument, these are unverified claims from an exercise we know nothing about. What are the reference sources and what do they say other than that the Typhoon pilots have painted Raptor kills on their planes? Writers should wait until Typhoon scores a real air-to-air kill before crediting it with as yet unproven abilities Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- They are what they are, and appear in a number of reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC).
- We have no idea what the circumstances of the exercise were, the "kill" marks are trivia and should be removed.Mztourist (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't this belong in the German unit's page as an indication that the Germans think the Raptor is cool? Hcobb (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Typhoon's ability to 'shoot down' the F-22 in the merge, which was known to the RAF for several years before the Luftwaffe found out, belongs in the Typhoon article. It does not want shunting off to a German-language page devoted solely and obscurely to that Luftwaffe unit -- unless you happen to be a publicist working for Lockheed Martin. This article bears obvious signs of sabotage, including notably the pretence that Typhoons flew only one mission in Operation Ellamy -- the RAF's part in supporting the Libyan revolution -- and that this mission only hit an 'abandoned tank park', and that Tornados had to 'spike' (designate) for the Typhoons because Typhoon pilots don't know what they're doing. All a complete and typically Misplaced Pages lie, of course. Typhoon flew hundreds of missions over Libya and dropped hundreds of munitions. Typical loadout was four 1,000lb Enhanced Paveway IIs and a couple of AMRAAMs. Typhoons often spiked for themselves, and they often spiked for Tornados to save the Tornados carrying a Litening pod. The RAF actually preferred a Typhoon-Tornado pair, making use of Tornado's air-to-ground radar and Typhoon's datalink and Defensive Aids Sub-System (in case of SAMs). See The Official Royal Air Force Annual Review 2012, pp.8-14 and 16-21. -Hugo Barnacle 46.208.40.201 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a fan page, it is an encyclopedia. The claim of F-22 kills in an exercise is unverified trivia. If you believe that the Typhoon's performance record over Libya is incorrect then please feel free to correct it using reliable references. Mztourist (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia, it's Misplaced Pages, which is a worldwide byword for useless junk information (usually manipulated by idiot Americans -- see, for instance, the Murder of Meredith Kercher page, which is simply an Amanda Knox fansite offically approved and locked down by Jimbo Wales). I am not a fan and you are a disingenuous idiot for addressing me in that way. The F-22 kills, mentioned by the Luftwaffe pilots themselves in several sources, are not unverified trivia; that counterclaim is a Lockheed Martin PR astroturf 'talking point'. And I just gave the references for the Typhoon's record over Libya. Those references are from an official publication sponsored by the air force in question. No doubt you'd consider that 'unverified trivia' because it's not American and because it shows that the Misplaced Pages article is lying. Hugo Barnacle 146.90.126.244 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- As opposed to British idiots. Would you please observe the TP rules and keep uncivil crap down? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't call anyone idiots please. Well, we don't know enough of the information to know exactly what happened and there will always be controversy surrounding the claims so it is best to not mention it and stick to the facts. This would be my suggestion.Languid Scientist (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Supercruise
This is verifiable at Mach 1.5 by several sources.
http://www.allmilitaryweapons.com/2009/07/eurofighter-typhoon-fighter-aircraft.html
http://www.fighter-aircraft.com/eurofighter-typhoon.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread266386/pg1
Could the editing user please stop being a Kopp and leave as is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Have you tried opening the current single source to the Swiss EADS site? It does not open for me. But this does. Perhaps one or more of the other sources ought to be used instead? p.s. as Dr Carlo Kopp asks, what's the point of quoting a speed without a duration? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, forum sites are not WP:RS and neither are other Misplaced Pages articles. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- And what happened to this source , currently used to support the figure of 1.1 Mach in the text? Presumably that September 2008 editionAir Forces Monthly still exists? Shouldn't the article at least be internally consistent? 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Specification blocks are not the space for specifications?
So just put a note in which section that it has have the Angle of Attack limit of the F-35? Hcobb (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- We cannot put every single piece of data, plucked from random sources into the specification section. Angle of attack data is not available for 99% of the aircraft articles out there, and by plucking a figure from an article which does not necessarily use the same base assumptions like weights, etc as the sources for the rest of the specifications means that it may be misleading and not placed in the correct context. The article's specification section already uses far too many sources already, many of which may not be consistant - the last we should do is add additional random pieces of snippets of data of questionable relevance.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
there should be more comparisons in performance with Russian fighters
These would be the adversaries that "count" in a major war, not all this sand dune stuff in the Middle East which, while tragic, is not the same thing as what NATO's real mission is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- We dont normally do comparisons in aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- We don't normally fight the Russians, either. We do, on the other hand, regularly have operations in or near the Middle East. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- However we don't provide comparisons in the articles, as that starts to fall into the area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- We don't normally fight the Russians, either. We do, on the other hand, regularly have operations in or near the Middle East. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a multirole aircraft
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/uk/uk-130410-ukmod01.htm 'The successful delivery of Paveway II from a Tranche 2 Typhoon is another step forward in the development of the platform's multi-role combat capability.'
- So if that's not notable, can we simply delete off all mention of "multi-role" until it actually has some capability? Hcobb (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, because it's designed as a multi-role aircraft and is being developed with the software upgrades needed, and, as noted in the other part of the edit summary you decided not to address, Typhoon has already been used in air-to-ground missions. You don't need to make WP:POINTy suggestions because somebody reverted an edit of yours. Also, GlobalSecurity is a source that should generally be avoided. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The aircraft has yet to self-designate. A point that the current article has been censored free of. Why cover up the steps being taken to give it even a modest capability?
BTW, there are plenty of other sources for this lack of capability.
Hcobb (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure the ability to self-designate is a key factor in being multi-role, lots of aircraft use other aircraft and ground assets to designate, multi-role just means it does more than one job. Not sure of Hcobb's latest reference to the telegraph has been pointed as a reference to lack of ability when the article clearly says it has the ability to ground-attack, perhaps the wrong article has been used. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Air Vice Marshal Phil Osborn rejected reports that the RAF had insufficient Typhoon pilots trained in the ground attack role to mount operations in Libya although the National Audit Office reported last month there were just eight. AVM Osborn acknowledged that the full Typhoon ground attack capability would not be available until 2015, but said that they had enough for the current mission in Libya. A defence industry source claimed that the RAF had rapidly cleared "overzealous" red tape to allow pilots to drop their bombs.
So everything about that operation was contrary to standard procedures, and all the aircraft did was fly a bomb to a general GPS coordinate as part of a PR stunt. And we're going to help the RAF cover this up. Hcobb (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- The aircraft has yet to self-designate can you supply a source? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- A quick search provides an example A typical sortie would see Typhoons penetrate hostile airspace and attack ground targets designated by Litening pods carried aboard. The RAF aircraft then swung into the air-air role, taking up station above an enemy airfield to engage enemy aircraft. date 18 March 2013 during Red Flag Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- This may also be of interest BAE doing wind tunnel testing of Harpoon on Typhoon Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am the one who did the initial revert. Hcobb, what you posted amounted to just saying "they did some training one day." That is not notable. As it is previously established in our article that the aircraft have been used to drop bombs operationally, publicity stunt or not, that one day in April 2013 they happened to train dropping bombs is not, on its own, notable. It smacks strongly of the type of "list of events" type cruft we have been trying to remove from these articles. We need notable information that is not constantly added in the form of "on X day, something else happened." Simply the act of dropping bombs in training does not seem to be hugely notable as this had already occurred operationally. What would be notable is if this training was the first dropping of bombs using self-designation, such as with LITENING. That is quasi-implied in the Globalsecurity article as it says these were Tranche 2 aircraft, which can carry LITENING, but it never actually says that as the milestone (or, indeed, whether this test involved either LITENING or self-designation). Both since we want to avoid Globalsecurity and because of the current lack of notability, I removed it. If you or someone else can find a source saying that something new happened, like the additional capability of dropping laser-guided bombs with self-designation, I would definitely support adding that to our article. I am going to ignore your POINTy remarks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- This may also be of interest BAE doing wind tunnel testing of Harpoon on Typhoon Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- A quick search provides an example A typical sortie would see Typhoons penetrate hostile airspace and attack ground targets designated by Litening pods carried aboard. The RAF aircraft then swung into the air-air role, taking up station above an enemy airfield to engage enemy aircraft. date 18 March 2013 during Red Flag Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- The aircraft has yet to self-designate can you supply a source? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Taiwan will acquire Eurofighter Typhoon?
??? Maybe Rafale?219.151.149.91 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, when Europe signs up to defend their freedom. Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder could your response here have any underlying political motive? (I thought Rafale was French, not European, lol). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Is Der Spiegel a RS for EF cost overruns?
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/eurofighter-droht-finanzieller-kollaps-a-909770.html
Notable? Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- nope, Der Spiegel has agendas, so you can not trust their articles. Right now they want to write the German Minister of Defence Thomas de Maizière out the office, so they are digging up all kind of things and blowing them out of proportion to damage him. --noclador (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's the same from Reuters for the German impaired. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/us-eurofighter-germany-idUSBRE9660CD20130707 Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Reuters source is Spiegel! --HDP (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Flag fest
Can we do something about the flag waving that is the armament section or do we nominate it for ugly table of the week? MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Be constructive and come up with a better table to replace the current one; as the flags are truly a bit on the too abundant side. --noclador (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any better? might need to be checked I moved the data correctly. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- much better! and all is correct; only one thing: with each update of the software new weapons options become available... so we need to keep and eye on this and update it again and again. --noclador (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the check. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- much better! and all is correct; only one thing: with each update of the software new weapons options become available... so we need to keep and eye on this and update it again and again. --noclador (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any better? might need to be checked I moved the data correctly. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
AACMI Pod
It seems as long ago as 2010 Typoon was using the German-Israeli Flight Profile Recorder (FPR) Pod: But no mention of it in the article? 31.53.217.173 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It appears to be a specialised range pod and not particularly notable to the Typhoon so I am not sure it is worth a mention on this or all the other types than can use it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's actually "rangeless". 31.53.217.173 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Tranche 3A
I'm not sure how to reconcile this report: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/germany-eurofighter-idUSB4N0EP00A20130708 with what's currently in the article, which indicates that Germany has contracted for the full 143 Eurofighters Mztourist (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
has been eliminated from the bidding
That is the exact wording from http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/600033.html by Kim Kyu-won on the basis of interviews with EADS and DAPA. So what part of that is unclear? Hcobb (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Does your comment relate to the failed bid for Korean Airforce? When you say "Usual EF mistakes means they can't even give them away", what do you mean? I'm sure they would welcome any sound advice. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hcobb says "What part is unclear ?" - Well it was probably the mind reading bit as that was not the reference you used in your recent edit. MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- ... um, my recent edit?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry it relates to Hcobb original comment. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Do I detect the merest touch of irony there? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry it relates to Hcobb original comment. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- ... um, my recent edit?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If nobody loves Korean sources, then how about BizLeak?
Hcobb (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- This says EADS are still fighting? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Which is to be expected, but we don't. Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And yet another non-Korean source to better suit the biases of Wikistan...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-19/eads-fights-to-keep-typhoon-in-south-korean-combat-jet-contest.html South Korea’s DAPA defense armaments agency requested a draft contract over the weekend as EADS sought to clarify its proposal that had “confused” the customer, said Christian Scherer, the sales chief of EADS’s Cassidian defense unit.
Oh, those silly poor confused Asians. Whenever will they get it right? Eh? :-( Hcobb (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's all quite straightforward - the Korean sources tell the truth, and the non-Korean sources are full of confusing Western lies, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I find your lack of good faith disturbing. Hcobb, the majority of our problem with your stuff isn't your sources, it's your editorialising in your edits; "the Eurofighter team repeated their usual dumb mistakes" is something that has no place in a Misplaced Pages article. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well you will never find it in this article, but EADS had to redo their bid before for very similar reasons. So it's not the first time (other than as reported here), that the Koreans slapped EADS down for failure to follow the bidding rules and localize their bid. How many lost sales does European cultural arrogance take in order to rise to the level of "dumb"? Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it "European cultural arrogance", exactly? Which WP:RS describes it thus? It sounds just like poor business practice to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Over nine thousand, because "dumb" is WP:POV. Also, Hcobb, you've been around here long enough to know how to indent your comments, please do so.- The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/hell-hath-no-fury-like-britain-scorned/article2867071.ece "cultural arrogance" in reference to yet another failed EF bid. Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, that's describing the reaction, by some Britons, especially on the Right, to India's decision. What has this got to do with EADS' business incompetence, in another country? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The systematic bias in this article is the assumption that EADS is competent to sell 1980s tech in the 2010s, in spite of many examples to the contrary. How many examples of bad business practices do I have to pull up (from RS that have been omitted from this article of course), in order to show this? Hcobb (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- And "1980s tech in the 2010s" is different from Rafale, F-22 or Gripen how? If you provide sources that actually back up your claims, and then add them to the article without editorial comments, then nobody will have a problem with them. Hcobb, I'm going to be blunt: there are a lot of editors (of the ones I have seen, all of them) who find your editing on aircraft articles, particularly the POVish tone and sometimes blatantly POV edit summaries, problematic, and some editors have stopped editing certain articles rather than to have to continue to deal with you at them. Eventually you need to stop and ask yourself if the problem is you, not them, and if everyone else sees one bias and you see another, maybe the bias is yours. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- As always, everybody should remember that (a) this is not a forum and (b) this is not a newspaper. Discussion of the results of the Korean competition can wait until the results are formally announced.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- And "1980s tech in the 2010s" is different from Rafale, F-22 or Gripen how? If you provide sources that actually back up your claims, and then add them to the article without editorial comments, then nobody will have a problem with them. Hcobb, I'm going to be blunt: there are a lot of editors (of the ones I have seen, all of them) who find your editing on aircraft articles, particularly the POVish tone and sometimes blatantly POV edit summaries, problematic, and some editors have stopped editing certain articles rather than to have to continue to deal with you at them. Eventually you need to stop and ask yourself if the problem is you, not them, and if everyone else sees one bias and you see another, maybe the bias is yours. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The systematic bias in this article is the assumption that EADS is competent to sell 1980s tech in the 2010s, in spite of many examples to the contrary. How many examples of bad business practices do I have to pull up (from RS that have been omitted from this article of course), in order to show this? Hcobb (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, that's describing the reaction, by some Britons, especially on the Right, to India's decision. What has this got to do with EADS' business incompetence, in another country? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/hell-hath-no-fury-like-britain-scorned/article2867071.ece "cultural arrogance" in reference to yet another failed EF bid. Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well you will never find it in this article, but EADS had to redo their bid before for very similar reasons. So it's not the first time (other than as reported here), that the Koreans slapped EADS down for failure to follow the bidding rules and localize their bid. How many lost sales does European cultural arrogance take in order to rise to the level of "dumb"? Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- From the peanut gallery, I think I speak for more than 1 other regular editor(s) when I say that its really a pity that Hccob hasn't take up investigative journalism, yet... given his distinguished and long list of accolades here. BTW, my recommendation to any sensible SysOp would be to read up on User:Antandrus/observations on Misplaced Pages behavior#46 and make that change for the contentious one. For when the deed is done, I shall sing "So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night~!" --Dave 06:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
No mention of Gutierrez?
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/eurofighter-chief-aims-jet-cheaper-084901705.html The new chief of the Eurofighter Typhoon will lay out plans by the end of this year to make the fighter jet cheaper and decision-making quicker, as the aircraft gears up to vie for more business in an increasingly crowded and competitive market.
- There is an admission from the top that EF is too expensive and the management too cumbersome for the current market, but of course this man gets zero mentions in this article. Hcobb (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly the source makes no mention of being expensive or management too cumbersone, you just made that up. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hcobb, please read WP:SYNTH. "A" does not equal "B" unless the source says A=B. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why not start a new vibrant article on Why Typhoon is an 80s dinosaur? I'm sure all your sources could be used there. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Simply mentioning the current EF boss and his agenda would add a great deal of balance to the article. Hcobb (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure it would, the Eurofighter GmbH article makes no mention of any other "boss" but would be more relevant at that article than here. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- He specifically talks about the kinds of changes he is trying to make in order to sell his product. That speaks (in a slightly indirect way) about the mistakes that have been made to date. Hcobb (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- And speaking "in a slightly indirect way" is still WP:SYNTH. Unless the source says changes X are being made because of mistakes Y, you can not put in the article "mistakes Y have been made". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- He specifically talks about the kinds of changes he is trying to make in order to sell his product. That speaks (in a slightly indirect way) about the mistakes that have been made to date. Hcobb (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure it would, the Eurofighter GmbH article makes no mention of any other "boss" but would be more relevant at that article than here. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Simply mentioning the current EF boss and his agenda would add a great deal of balance to the article. Hcobb (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Density issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=prev&oldid=571378388
It looked to me as if the new editor had been reading 5000 liters as 5000 kg. Which of course does not apply to jet fuel. Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- No the new editor was referring to page 9 of reference 256 http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_3-2010web.pdf. This says 5t, which is 5000kg or 11,000lb. With the assumption that interceptor configuration (see ref. 257 https://en.wikipedia.org/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-263) is air superiority configuration minus the drop tank http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf.Z07x10 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was the writer of the article in the magazine who assumed that the EF's tanks were filled with water. Hcobb (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you say that?Z07x10 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because our other references say 5000 liters of fuel, not 5000 kg. Hcobb (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I looked about and couldn't find any other reliable secondary sources let alone primary sources. Most of them were just copy and pastes of the previous wiki figures. I agree that this isn't the ideal situation because various weights and fuel loads are bandied about with nothing concrete but at least we're using the best available sources. This does leave a disparity with the empty weight but there doesn't appear to be a reliable source for that either. The only reliable secondary source says 16,000kg (35,200lb) for interceptor configuration which should theoretically include internal fuel and air-to-air missiles (6 BVRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs). This would weigh about 14,000lb combined (11,000 + + + 170lb), which is why I had adjusted the empty weight earlier (to 21,000lb) so that it at least mathematically matched the information from the available secondary sources.
I also make the Thrust-to-weight based on interceptor configuration 1.15. 90kN / = 20,215lbf. 2*20,215 / 35200 = 1.15. Z07x10 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Airpower.at writes tank capacity : Tankinhalt: 4.996 kg / 6.215 Liter http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm http://eurofighter.airpower.at/vergleich.htm That make two refrence with ~5t one the producer and one from a Janes editor. --HDP (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class aviation articles
- B-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- B-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- B-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- Unknown-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press