Talk:Airbus Beluga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Importance[edit]

The importance of this aircraft is presently rated as high - no offence intended, but I wonder whether this is actually a fair assessment - comparisons of types in the high rating can be seen by clicking on the catergory link at the bottom of this page. Winstonwolfe 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

Regarding the link to Dragon Models {http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodsearch.asp?txtSearch=a300&btnSearch=Search&tbn=1/} , is it acceptable to link directly to a commercial site like this? The link goes to a search page with several results, many only marginally relevant. 70.27.59.200 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This aircraft bears a disturbing resemblance to Beavis. Are they by any chance related? Nevilley 01:47 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)


Nice article. The details of the cargo -- space station components, etc. -- are illuminating. It would be interesting to know what large artworks, exactly, are being referenced in the article.

Could use a paragraph about why this aircraft isn't used for ordinary cargo freight while it's not chartered for something special.

They don't "stand around" all 5 are in heavy rotation ferrying parts between the various Airbus Works in Europe. Other transports are squeezed into the normal scedule.

Also interesting would be a direct comparison with the Super Guppy on things like volume and maximum load. Tempshill 18:21, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From looking at the article and comparing its MTOW to the plane its based on its designed to carry big/awkward cargo not heavy cargo. SO if you tried to carry normal cargo in it you'd probablly end up with something that had lots of emtpty space inside and was bloody expensive to run. Plugwash 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The components it carries aren't particularly heavy, such as what you'd get with some of those big Russian aircraft and the Galaxy. They are mainly airplane components, such as wings and fuselage sections, which are mostly empty space surrounded by light alloys. --Jumbo 06:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which is why i would expect it to be shit for normal cargo. I presume that normal cargo planes are designed so that they will be physically full and filled to something approaching thier MTOW at the same time. This plane on the other hand is obviously designed for moving stuff thats large and awkward but not particularlly heavy. Plugwash 18:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

I'm making the photograph bigger, because it looks so ridiculously tiny. A pity that there is an obstruction near the nose, hiding most of the cockpit. Otherwise a good example of a unique colour scheme. --Jumbo 06:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

clarification[edit]

it says in the article "The starting point was a standard wide-body twin-engined Airbus A300:". Does it mean they started with an existing A300 and modified it or did they build the belugas from scratch just copying most of the design of the A300? Plugwash 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They used the A300 as development base to have at least basic structures, just as they did with A350 and A330. --Denniss 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondhand A300s were bought secondhand and modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.69.106.196 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

I would like to suggest that this be moved to A300-600ST. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? It may not be the correct name but this plane is commonly known as the Beluga. It's enough to mention the original model name in the article. --Denniss 14:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

I think we need an aircraft infobox - JJ

Done --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The need-to-be-updated tag[edit]

I have reviewed this article and do not quite see what piece of information is out-of-date ? Does someone on this discussion know ? It looks to me that this tag should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.64.44.43 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No cant see anything wrong (apart from the statement that talks about the image above -there does not appear to be a related image !) - Unless somebody comes along and says otherwise I would support removing the tag.MilborneOne 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

The articlecontradict itself by saying that the diameter of the cargo bay is 7.7m but the height of the cargo bay door is 17m. The latter is clearly untrue, as the height of the whole plane is only 17.24m but the pictures make it clear that the cargo bay doors are much less tall than the whole plane. Dricherby (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the offending statement. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft registration numbers[edit]

The 5 300-600s have registration nos F-GSTA, F-GSTB, F-GSTC, F-GSTD and F-GSTF, does anyone know why there is no F-GSTE instead of the F?--PremKudvaTalk 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant to the article but when they came to register the fifth aircraft in 2001 (a few years after the first four) F-GSTE had been issued to a Hot Air Balloon so they took the next available which was F-GSTF. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Milborne.--PremKudvaTalk 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had added the reg nos since the Boeing Dreamlifter page had the reg nos of the aircraft.--PremKudvaTalk 10:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use plane registration numbers to track their flights on various plane tracker websites which gives an indication of their regular flight patterns. Therefore it is interesting to have the registrations to refer to if you're interested in the planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.11.229 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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.aerospace-technology.com/projects/stbeluga/
    Triggered by \baerospace-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 NotifyOnline 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus Beluga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking the lead[edit]

I think the lead needs to be heavily reworked - right now it mentions the entry to service date of its successor aircraft, but not even the entry to service date of itself! My attempt at this has been flushed out entirely without discussion (on the apparent basis that it covers material mentioned in the article aka what a lead is supposed to?), so I guess it's up to somebody else to try to reform it to decently cover its subject. Kyteto (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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


This review is transcluded from Talk:Airbus Beluga/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    There is a major copyright violation in the lead - the entire first paragraph, 1st sentence of second para and first 2 sentences of the third paragraph were directly copied from https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/airbus-beluga-29ae25e32aac4dcd9d3effa44332240d, which isn't even reffed in this article
    It has been determined that the website copied from wikipedia Cherrell410(t · c) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Suggestions for improvement below:

  • Could you put a template in the source to specify which type of english you're using
  • Lead, Last Paragraph: There are a few time related things that need updating every month, which should either be removed or replaced with {{Currentmonth}} {{Currentyear}}
  • Background: the entire first paragraph could be removed, because it has nothing to do with the beluga itself, but rather the history of the company
  • Background: first half of second paragraph is unsourced
  • "Over time, the Beluga has been used to carry a variety of special loads, including space station components, large and delicate artwork, industrial machinery, and intact helicopters. The A300-600ST's freight compartment is 7.4 m (24 ft) in diameter and 37.7 m (124 ft) long; maximum payload is 47 tonnes." is unsourced
  • Design: (see operational history) should be removed
  • References: many of the refs aren't formatted correctly (see ref 5)

Responses

  • Regarding the 2D copyright violation detection, it is particularly useful that I am the nominating editor as I also am the author of that lead; here is the link to the edit where I submitted it: History edit link There was also a talk page entry by me on the same topic: [Talk:Airbus_Beluga#Reworking_the_lead link]. It's bold of me to say, but the violation is the other way around e.g. Wikipedia had this writing first. I devised it word by word myself, and did not copy any other source. I'm certain that if any other site currently has this, that it was copy-pasted from here, not the other way around. I am not sure if that assurance and time stamping is satisfactory, please advise.
  • If you suggesting that I add '|language = en-gb' to most/all of the citations, I am happy to do so. Is this correct?
  • Sorry that this was unclear, I meant add the {{Use British English}} at the start just so that its clear
  • Lead last para now updated with the auto-update date code.
  • I did feel it was good context as to the situation as to why they turned to the Beluga, decades ahead of the far older Boeing, but I take the point. I have cut it from the start, and recontextualise some of it in the operational history.
  • Placed supporting citation for content in the first half of what was the second paragraph of the background as requested.
  • The quoted unsourced "special load" sentence now has been cross-cited from operational history.
  • Removed as requested.
  • I've gone over cite formatting in background section, is this now formatted in the desired style?
Thank you for going over this, once the the british english thing has been addressed, then I will be happy to pass this article. Cherrell410(t · c) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, I've added the British English tag to the top as clarified. Please let me know if there is anything else, either that I've not addressed (at all or to the desired extent), or something new that is noticed for improvement. Kyteto (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.