Template talk:Infobox airport

I'm not familiar with templates enough to figure out what's going on in this one. What I sometimes find is a simple(ish) solution is to just grab a working template and modify it. For example, take a look at at this and its code"

Infobox airport {{{nativename}}}
{{{image_caption}}}

Just ignore the top section, and grab the repeating block near the bottom (from one comment to the next) and duplicate it as needed to get a basic template list. Just change every place the variable is mentioned and update the label. We can stylalize it later, and break it into sections if wanted also. I can't do it now, but if you want to start playing with this, feel free. In any case, keep the documentation on the main page--we'll need that later.--David B ^(TALK) 22:49, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Fixed it! :) Is it good enough? Just made Template:Infobox aircraft and used it for Airbus A320 and Sukhoi Superjet 100. Thanks! BTW, you hear about the launch of the COMAC C919? It is so obvious that COMAC copied from Airbus lol (the exit doors are identical to the A320). Funny that the Chinese and Russian government think they can produce civil aircraft that could ever compete with Boeing or Airbus. Me, I'm scared of Russian-made planes, that my opinion. Remember the Tupolev Tu-104? 4 crashes b/c artificial horizon failure and it was never fixed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Then again, at least the COMAC C919 has enough emergency exits. I can't imagine how the Superjet was approved in the EU, they have stricter (even silly) regulations than the US, with only 4 exit doors I can't see how the plane could be evacuated in 90 seconds as per US law (The direct Embraer competitor has 6 exits for safety, same average capacity). Armavia experienced technical issues with the Superjet to the point they sent it back to the manufacturer. Anyway, thanks for all the help. :)--IluvAviation (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

That looks good to me--Nice job!

I honestly don't know a lot about aircraft, but I'm not surprised about the COMAC C919. It seems a lot of US aircraft has been copied by other countries. Of course, sometimes we save them the trouble and just give it to them...

Call me biased if you want, but I'll trust free market driven American engineering any day over whatever is produced under communism, Marxism, and other oppressive systems. It's too bad we are outsourcing so much though. Not only does it put quality at risk, but it also gives the specs to those who may steal them. --David B ^(TALK) 02:51, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Free market beats communism (and faux-capitalism like in Turkmenistan, where the president's family has a monopoly on everything) any day. While there have been a few aviation accidents involving Western aircraft due to design flaws, most notably Turkish Airlines Flight 981 with the DC-10, as well as ValuJet 592 where some people were actually stupid enough to put oxygen generators in a Class-D cargo hold, all of those safety issues were corrected after the accident with regulation (Unlike Soviet Aviation. The Tu-104 crashed four times due to artificial horizon failure and nobody fixed it) Boeing learned the hard way that outsourcing causes problems with the delays of the Boeing 787 battery-fryer. Think there should be a separate category for commercial aircraft? Maybe even "Dangerous Soviet Airliners" or "Ugly Soviet Airliners" category? (Just google "soviet airliner" and you'll see what I mean) And should I do an infobox for airlines and aviation accidents?--IluvAviation (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

We could break it down into something like military, commercial, and private if you think that would be helpful. I'm inclined not to make a subjective category like "Ugly Soviet Airliners" (though that did give me a chuckle) or an accusatory category like "Dangerous Soviet Airliners" (although it may be appropriate). Perhaps a category like "Controversial Airliners," "Controversial Aircraft," or even "Misdesigned aircraft" would be better?

If does seem that the soviets really liked to go large. Whether it's aircraft or submarines, they always seemed to think size was more important than quality. Also, when they first thought of putting missiles on submarines, they realized the missiles were too tall for anything but the conning tower, so they made larger subs. We decided it was a great idea, but instead made smaller missiles. I suppose size offers a certain fear value, but functionally can be prohibitive. --David B ^(TALK) 16:25, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I was just kidding about the "Ugly Soviet Airliners" category. Just a joke. But gosh old Soviet airliners were ugly, and uneconomical. Costly to operate b/c they weren't that efficient. Aviation has changed a lot though. These days, an A380 in all-economy configuration uses less fuel per passenger than a Toyota Prius. Frankly, I wish there would be some start-up airline that operates a few all-economy configuration A380s for long haul flights, tickets would be really cheap. Given the current market, if an A380neo (new engine option) Norwegian long-haul, the first low-cost long-haul airline, might go for it. Several years in a row they've won "most environmentally friendly transatlantic airline" Not that I'm an environmentalist or anything, but the data collected by International Council on Clean Transportation shows strong correlation between efficiency and ticket price. Amazing that British Airways hasn't gone bankrupt, the tickets are expensive and seats are tight according to the data. Speaking of competition, flag carrier airlines cheat (either owned or heavily subsidized by their respective governments) really bug me, taking US jobs in unfair competition. And you can't be a US citizen to work as a pilot for another nation's flag carrier (like Aeroflot or Qantas). Then those flag carriers put US airlines out of business, then contract out most maintenance to companies in places like Taiwan. I would take slow United Airlines over a flag carrier any day.--IluvAviation (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2017 (EDT)