Talk:Beechcraft T-6 Texan II/Archive 1

Archive 1

ENJJPT

ENJJPT is already listed as an operator under the 80th Flying Training Wing in the Operators section. Inclusion in the lead is unnecessary. If there is not consensus on the matter, please feel free to discuss here and we'll see what we can come up with to satisfy your concerns. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion in the lead is unnecessary.

No, I don`t agree. So why is it not appropriate to read this (ENJJPT) at first place (lead).

Greek Air Force has it´s own point in Operators section, too. Do ya think, it is only interesting enough (for the readers), when 'user' bought the aircraft? Is that your aim? And if, why? 83.135.10.38 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My motivations are irrelevant. I used to be in ENJJPT. I have no problem with noting that certain nations have this aircraft, but the 80th FTW is run by the U.S. Air Force and the majority of its graduates are Air Force (which is already mentioned in the info box and lead). In short, the information that ENJJPT uses the T-6 is redundant and not necessary. As for containing it in the lead, the information in the lead is designed to be a summary of the information contained in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD). Since ENJJPT is not discussed anywhere else, it is inappropriate to include it in the lead as well.

If you believe that ENJJPT is more notable than currently stated on Wikipedia, perhaps you could write a page on it? The link is now blue because I created a redirect to the 80th FTW, but I have no problem with someone expanding it and expanding it into an article. IMHO, the difference between the 80 FTW and ENJJPT is the difference between the United States Air Force and the Department of the Air Force: a difference with no significant distinction.

Lastly, I am sorry that myself and others do not believe this should be included in such a manner, but please do not blank the page in retaliation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: User 83.135.10.38 has been warned about blanking the page. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see that's the generic warning. I thought at first it was just for "removing content" rather than blanking the page. My bad and the above comment is indeed a duplicate warning. Given that it is late in Germany right now, I don't think we'll hear an answer from him/her until tomorrow. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all - you mentioned it here and I left them a note on their talk page - blanking a page is a serious issue, so the double warnings are entirely justified it. I am hoping they will work on gaining consensus for changes instead of that sort of behavior. - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivery of Israeli and Iraqi T-6s

Hi, BilCat removed my comments about actual deliveries of T-6s to Israel and Iraq, because I quoted the source being a forum. Actually I saw some of the Israeli and all four Iraqi myself while on transit through Belgium. Not sure whether an personal observation does count as "reliable" to Wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antheii (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually under WP:OR personal observations can't be used at all. The main reason for that is the guy standing beside you will swear that were from Botswana and then who is right? We need WP:RS - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Check. But maybe some pictures will be more convincing, although they were published on the same forum as I previously mentioned? The first two Iraqi, the first four Israeli and some more Israeli --Antheii (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos have been used as refs in the past for that sort of thing, but in looking at those all I am seeing is serial numbered but otherwise unmarked aircraft. Two have partial US civil registrations visible, but not complete enough to even look up to see who owns them. They are probably temporary manufacturer registrations anyway. They could belong to anyone, so I am not clear they are very useful as refs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawker requests GAO review of Air Force deal

WICHITA — Hawker Beechcraft said Tuesday that it is requesting the Government Accountability Office review the Air Force’s move to exclude it from the bidding process for a Light Air Support aircraft.

“(Monday) we received notification that the United States Air Force formally denied our second request for a debriefing,” the company said in a statement. “As a result, we still have no information on why the Beechcraft AT-6 was excluded from the Light Air Support competition.” Read the full article http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/23/2112778/hawker-requests-gao-review-of.html Bizzybody (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

More on this contract:

• Florida Lobby Celebrates Embraer Contract, AVweb
• Mystery Surrounds Air Force Decision, But It's Happened Before, AVweb

- Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The section of the article about this currently displays a very overt partisan POV and needs to be changed. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A-10C mission computer

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012-07-08/t-6c-chases-trainer-deals-light-attack-6-awaits-us-air-force-rethink

This seems to be a little too detailed for the current article, but might be considered for an AT-6 article, should anybody bother to place an order for it. Hcobb (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t6b/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

National origin: US only?

The Texan II is basically a US-assembled Pilatus PC-9 with some localised content (22 per cent alledgely according to the current article text). Each one that is sold involves a royalty fee being paid to Pilatus, who are still involved in the program, albeit at arms length. I'd dare saw that the safest and most sensible attribution bought be to list it as being both a US and a Swiss aircraft, as had been the case for quite a while; this would be inline with articles such as the AgustaWestland Apache which deals with a very similar issue of a US-originating design being heavily customised and built by Westland, and is listed as being both US and British (attempts to turn this purely to British have been rejected in the past, justly so in my own opinion). It seems strange that the same principle isn't being applied here? Kyteto (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Where are you getting the 22% localized content? The only place I found 22% in the article is "and a completely new aircraft that is 22% or 1,100 lbs heavier than the Pilatus." Note the "completely new aircraft" claim, which if accurate justifies not including Switzerland in the Origin field. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You're correct, I've made a mistake there. It still doesn't sit quite right with me to give no mention of its original designing nation, akin to insisting the above Westland Apache is entirely British since it was so heavily redesigned and localised as well. It comes across like the IAIO Toufan, which is often claimed by some to be an indigenous helicopter of Iran - made by taking an existing Bell Cobra, swapping a few parts and replacing some of the fuselage sections with lighter weight composite counterparts, then stating that the design and manufacturing of it is all-Iranian; in my opinion, credit for the original design should still be attributed to the US in that example, and commonly is. I don't see the harm in crediting the original designers of the aircraft, to which this is an acknowledged relatively straightforward baseline derivative - in the article's own words "a commercial off-the-shelf Pilatus PC-9, with minor modifications". Kyteto (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's referring to the original design submitted in the JPATS competition, but it ended up as a "completely new aircraft". To my knowledge, Pilatus doesn't have anything to do with production of the T-6 beyond receiving royalties. With the Westland Apache, I believe the basic airframe was the still the same, and just differed in avionics and the engines and their nacelles. There was still a possibility of upgrading the WAH64s to AH-64E standard, so that implies a high degree of commonality. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Westland assembled the Appache from Boeing supplied kits and added new engines and British avionics as far as I know the T-6 has no Swiss content. MilborneOne (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusion between this and the Pilatus PC-9 entry as noted below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-9 says: "in order to compete in the United States JPATS competition, Pilatus and Beechcraft developed an extensively modified version of the PC-9, initially called the Beech Pilatus PC-9 Mk. II "

where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-6_Texan_II says "The JPATS competition-winning design was based on a commercial off-the-shelf Pilatus PC-9, with minor modifications. Additional requirements and conflicts between the Air Force and the Navy resulted in delays, cost increases (from initial estimates of $3.9 to roughly $6 million per aircraft) and an aircraft that is 22% or 1,100 pounds (500 kg) heavier than the Pilatus.[citation needed]"

The confusion is that the design that won was minimally modified, the production version is heavily modified. Uncleharpoon (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)