![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someguy, here is my dilemma, I know what book it came from, but I can not find the part of the book where it is found. The index is rather poor in terms of coverage. I also have some anecdotal sources, but can't use those as refences. LWF 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we please create redirects from weapon station and weapon store(s) to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.243.16 ( talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The caption to one of the images claims there are 6 JDAMs on the shown ejector rack. I only see 4. Are there more that aren't visible? Seems like this should be clearer for an example image. DudeFromWork ( talk) 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
"The pylon is designed to position the rack and its stores to keep them clear of control surfaces and position them close to the aircraft's center of gravity."
Garbage, or they wouldn't be on the wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.47.180 ( talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
For an example of the confusion in this article, under which heading would the LAU-142/A be covered? Hcobb ( talk) 15:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is biased and laymanish, I'm willing to rewrite it and give more accurate explanations and set things right. But references are hard to come by as the terms and information are generally viewed as common knowledge coming from their regular uses in technical manuals and literature. This mostly applies to the nomenclature being used. While digging for examples is a problem of going through a large amount of literature for a small number of references that are not that important. In any case I will have to rearrange and rewrite everything while trying to keep the good parts. If you feel there is no need or want to veto, speak up, please. Otherwise there will be a need for everyone to check and approve the rewriting. Mightyname ( talk) 10:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
( ←) I just don't see some of the technical definitions as adding anything of value to the article (e.g. "There are many different forms, sizes and designs of pylons distinctly termed accordingly like a wedge adaptor or stub wing pylon.") You aren't keeping it simple right now; providing multiple unnecessary synonyms for terms you don't really need to define gets confusing; phrases such as "Ambiguously and for simplicity, the term rack is also being used to refer to some support structures" make the article much more confusing. Again, I think you're too caught up in definitions, but I'm hoping we can get input from a third party. Some guy ( talk) 04:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is currently illustrated with a diagram of the engine pylon whose failure caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 191. That's better than nothing. A point on the picture is labeled "failed wing clevis". No explanation is given. It would be great to have an illustration of working hardpoints. TypoBoy ( talk) 02:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someguy, here is my dilemma, I know what book it came from, but I can not find the part of the book where it is found. The index is rather poor in terms of coverage. I also have some anecdotal sources, but can't use those as refences. LWF 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we please create redirects from weapon station and weapon store(s) to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.243.16 ( talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The caption to one of the images claims there are 6 JDAMs on the shown ejector rack. I only see 4. Are there more that aren't visible? Seems like this should be clearer for an example image. DudeFromWork ( talk) 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
"The pylon is designed to position the rack and its stores to keep them clear of control surfaces and position them close to the aircraft's center of gravity."
Garbage, or they wouldn't be on the wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.47.180 ( talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
For an example of the confusion in this article, under which heading would the LAU-142/A be covered? Hcobb ( talk) 15:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is biased and laymanish, I'm willing to rewrite it and give more accurate explanations and set things right. But references are hard to come by as the terms and information are generally viewed as common knowledge coming from their regular uses in technical manuals and literature. This mostly applies to the nomenclature being used. While digging for examples is a problem of going through a large amount of literature for a small number of references that are not that important. In any case I will have to rearrange and rewrite everything while trying to keep the good parts. If you feel there is no need or want to veto, speak up, please. Otherwise there will be a need for everyone to check and approve the rewriting. Mightyname ( talk) 10:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
( ←) I just don't see some of the technical definitions as adding anything of value to the article (e.g. "There are many different forms, sizes and designs of pylons distinctly termed accordingly like a wedge adaptor or stub wing pylon.") You aren't keeping it simple right now; providing multiple unnecessary synonyms for terms you don't really need to define gets confusing; phrases such as "Ambiguously and for simplicity, the term rack is also being used to refer to some support structures" make the article much more confusing. Again, I think you're too caught up in definitions, but I'm hoping we can get input from a third party. Some guy ( talk) 04:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is currently illustrated with a diagram of the engine pylon whose failure caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 191. That's better than nothing. A point on the picture is labeled "failed wing clevis". No explanation is given. It would be great to have an illustration of working hardpoints. TypoBoy ( talk) 02:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)