669:(some of it being useful for non-RC powered models as well), so I thought I would move it over. The great thing is that the information is very good information, but doesn't seem to all fit within model aircraft..... it just seemed too broad since "model aircraft" doesn't explicitly mean "powered" or "RC". I believe people looking for "model aircraft" will often have an interest in in powered and RC models, but the hobbies are quite different. Perhaps a mention of "powered" and "RC" should be in this article, but then link to the information where it would be more appropriate??? For example, the section about "Model Aerodynamics" is great information, and although it can be quite different from full scale aerodynamics, it is common to all model-size aircraft, so I made it into it's own article. I figured, that after making changes, this article wouldn't be in the best condition, because I am not an expert in "model aircraft", however, I also know that people that are more knowledgeable will come along and fill the gaps and add info as needed. I was hoping however, that the article would be refined by someone after me.... not reverted back. I tried to leave information about "powered" craft that was not RC specific in this article, seeing how many people make rubber powered planes and gliders without RC controls. I will hold myself back from making any more massive changes to this article, but I'd like to propose that the article be "slimmed" to adequately cover "static" model aircraft and do it well. All of the valuable RC information could then be moved over to "Radio Controlled Airplane". Then any information that is specific to "powered" model aircraft be put in it's own article, with links to relevant information at "model aircraft" and "Radio Controlled Airplane". The "Radio Controlled Airplane" article is also growing quickly and covering many potentially diverse aspects and will probably have to go through this same process soon. Opinions welcome...... --Brian Grayless :1 Sept 2005
681:
section on plastic/static modelling and flying models is the first starting point, since in the main these hobbies are quite different, or at least have a very different primary aim. To my mind that alone would probably cut the article down to a manageable size. The changes you propose have merit, but the problem as I see it is that there is no clear separation between RC and "the rest" because there is so much overlap - in fact RC can be considered as an extension of free flight. While there is probably no such thing as RC rubber-band power, almost any other type of powered or unpowered design could be RC, so you can't lump the power stuff in with RC, since it pertains to all types of models. So either the RC article will contain a great deal of duplication of this article, or else should be designed as a much smaller auxiliary article which only discusses the differences that are found ONLY with RC models. I guess the section on model aircraft power could be a separate article, but at this stage I think it's better left as part of this one.
526:
emphasize aerobatics (loops, rolls, turns, speed), which implies they are less "self-stabilizing" than trainers. "Scale" model, in the above classification, refers to model aircraft which are facsimiles (reduced size) of full-size aircraft. Since scale-models emphasize the replication of an actual aicraft's appearance (and form), scales handle very different from trainers and sports. Quite simply, aerodynamic behavior does NOT scale, and scale-models often suffer from control and stability challenges not apparent with sport models. (And it has to be said, a 1/8 scale-model won't fly anything like the full-size example!)
644:
general nature. To my mind this change has seriously ruined the article as it stands. While it was definitely becoming too long, any break-up should have been done in a much more thoughtful way than this. I will revert it back to the previous version until some CONSENSUS is arrived at - I know the idea is to be bold but the reason that this question was asked here and has stood for a while unresolved is that the best way to proceed wasn't obvious - otherwise it would have been done already. This attempt was probably one of the worst possible ways to have butchered the article.
249:
31:
1244:
differs, and the
British forms were much more common, so that is where it should stay, regardless of your personal preferences (being Canadian I use a mixture of both and find some word from both grating). The rule is to leave it in the language it is already in unless the topic is specific to a country that uses a different spelling. Also, please sign your comment with four tildas (~~~~) which adds a link to your talk page and a time/date stamp so people coming later know when you made your comment without digging.
64:
298:
277:
154:
1093:
88:
22:
98:
226:
215:
204:
923:(newbie editor), what is most obvious to me, is that we must observe that radio controlled and static models are two distinctly different things ~ the articles could be much more concise. One model is built for viewing only, the other model is intended for actual flight. Usually with power. I consider that to be a substantial difference, as do the model car, and R/C car buffs.
193:
182:
1237:
across the internet. However, there is a question that remains between the use of modeling and modelling by itself in this work. I opted to use modeling as that is the more common spelling, but it could be argued that we should use modelling in order to stay consistent with the spelling of aeromodelling through the rest of the page. --TheZooenator
557:
I must admit when I read the steam mention my eyebrows went up a notch - I never heard of a practical steam-powered aircraft, and I doubt that it could work. Steam engines are at their very best, just 10% efficient, and they require water, which is very heavy, as well as the fuel... However I left it
1042:
Pretty sure I have heard "static" in this sense, as well as "static display" both together. May not be said every day, but either one is understandable, which is the point of written (or spoken) communication. I favor ] for this purpose. Even though hardly anyone says "parenthetical disambiguation,"
668:
Perhaps I should have posed some discussion before making changes. I apologize for the confusion. I was finding all kinds of varying information in
Knowledge in regards to Radio Controlled craft. There had been discussion about splitting the article and much of the info was very specific to RC craft
525:
Trainers emphasize durability and stability (with the idea that a beginner will crash more often than not), sacrificing top-speed and manueverability. The structure of trainers often accomodate low-speed, low-angle crashes (rubber-band attached wings, rear-mounted propeller, etc.) "Sport" aircraft
835:
This description of rubber power seems to be based on an over-simplified physical model of the model. Looking at a wound rubber motor, one sees knots and sometimes knots of knots, so things are more complicated than for a bent spring. I am willing to agree that it becomes exponential near the end
643:
Hrrrmmm... I think a little more consultation and thought would have been appreciated. Where has all the stuff about powering models gone? This pertains to all sorts of models, not just radio-controlled ones. Most of the material here didn't really belong in radio-controlled model, since it is of a
362:
I belive there is a missing scope for model aircraft: it left the pure hobby long ago, as the discussion below indicates. For the german entry the scope was extended to scientific and military use, e.g. military drones, and simulation models. Those historic model aircrafts referenced below would be
1243:
Their respective frequency online is irrelevant - what is relevant is which form of
English has been used so far in the article (since it isn't obviously more relevant to one over the other) - and that is what will determine which spelling is appropriate. I checked several words where the spelling
868:
I came across this article by accident. It seems at times like a enthusiasts' convention and so is in need of a clean up. As a generalised article on model aircraft, it has too much detail on specific areas. For example there is a whole paragraph on the Jaguar
Wakefield aircraft without saying why
521:
The article could probably go into more detail about model-types and classification. Model aircraft can be classified in many different ways. Control-type is one way -- that's already in the article! Then we also have "application" oriented classifications: "sport", "scale", "trainer" (there're
1236:
The
American English spelling of modeling uses only one L. The British spelling uses two L's. As neither aeromodelling nor aeromodeling, are defined in the dictionary, I believe that we should use aeromodelling over aeromodeling. This is due to the frequency of aeromodelling use over aeromodeling
792:
Does anyone have any thoughts on splitting the page into two down the lines of Flying/non-flying? It seems the page has become unwieldy and flying model heavy. I suggest splitting into two, "Static Model
Aircraft" and "Flying Model Aircraft". The latter may need a bit of integration, with this
568:
Yes there were important pioneer flights powered by steam and some were before
Alphonse Penaud invented rubber powered airplanes in April 1870. (Penaud sold some, which makes him the founder of the aviation industry.) John Stringfellow (mid 19th century) and Samuel Pierpont Langley (turn of the
803:
I agree that they should be split. The two hobbies are vastly different. Static models usually focus on accuracy (historical and manufactured appearance) and attention to detail. Flying models are more of an engineering/designing hobby. For instance most, if not all, static models are models of
1273:
used
American English. I just reverted a mass-change of the spelling "airplane" to "aeroplane" made due to the "use British English" tag, which seems to have been placed there based on analysis of more recent revisions rather than the earlier revisions. I have replaced that tag to recommend US
680:
I think the main problem was that so much information simply vanished altogether, or appeared to. Maybe it got moved, but the trail of where it went was non-obvious. I do think a split would be worthwhile, but we need a consensus among several contributors, not just you and me. I feel that the
404:"The Hobby is not the most popular among pilots, former pilots, or aviation afficianados. Absolutely not! However, the hobby is also available to those groups of people, and it has been widely popular among babies since its beginning. It is also becoming increasingly popular among sexy women.
461:
It should be noted that fuel for model glow engines is methanol-based. Nitromethane is added as a performance enhancer. Also, nitromethane is really not very volatile, being much less so than methanol. These days, synthetic oils are the lubricants of choice for most users.
745:
However, that is not to say that such items have no place here. It could do with a part like the "Construction" section for flying models. Most of the techniques used are very different so it would not be redundant. As it is, the article is very flying model heavy.
373:
First line of first page is not true model aircraft have been around since the
Phaeroes of ancient Egypt. Even in 1902 Langley flew a steam powered aerodrome across the Patomac river, aeromodelling has been around a long time and it is man who cannot fly. Carlo Godel
949:
I'm agreeable, it has seemed a little forced to have the two different hobbies in a single article. I don't know how best to title the articles, the terms used overlap considerably. In honor of my local shop, disambiguate with "(left side)" and "(right side)". :-)
579:
It can work, like rubber power, because of the scaling laws. It is easier to get speed and range from a piloted aircraft, but it doesn't take much to keep a small, light model in the air. The main problem must have been to get such a light engine to run at all.
1338:
as " a vehicle that is able to fly by gaining support from the air." Many aircraft models do not fly (and are not intended for flying). I have therefore amended the introduction as follows. If anyone objects, please discuss it here, not simply revert, please:
638:
page. That way the hobbies have a level of separation, but still show commonalities. I also moved the model aerodynamics to a separate page altogether since it is necessary for both topics and it is really a topic by itself. --Brian
Grayless :30 Aug 2005
869:
this one aircraft requires such a detailed description in a general article. The most popular entry level models are described like a consumer guide and rules of team racing are also are discussed in great detail. Ducted fans get mentioned twice.
1365:. Many are replicas of real aircraft, and are built often for display, research, or amusement. Model aircraft are divided into two basic groups: flying and non-flying. Non-flying models are also termed static, display, or shelf models. The term
422:
The section on static models states that the company Ertl is no longer in business. This is incorrect. Ertl is still very much alive, and producing all sorts of models. You can find new Ertl models at Texaco Collectibles and you can visit
978:
It's better than nothing - "static" I'm not fond of because no actual human says "static". Magazines and such tend to say "scale modelling" for the non-flying types, notwithstanding that there are flying models that are also to scale.
1281:
article, which started out as US English but gradually evolved to British English. That's fine, because cider has closer national ties to the UK (which produces and consumes the most). Such isn't the case in this article, however.
517:
You're right. I think choice of powerplant only makes a difference to the ambitious and advanced modeller -- the most-authentic scale-models of jet-powereed military jets (F-14, F-15, F-16, , etc.) use ducted-fans or turbines.
558:
in because it would only take one example to prove me wrong, and I can't say with absolute certainty that nobody ever made it work. I daresay there were plenty of plans and proposals, but did anyone make it really work?
883:
I have removed it. It was completely unnecessary. I agree with the first two observations, and fixed the third. The team racing is much to site specific. A model aircraft competition link, perhaps may be best.
35:
340:
804:
real-life aircraft. Many flying models do replicate actual aircraft, but it seems that a lot of them are designed just for flying (that is that they don't resemble any real-world aircraft). -
615:
Is there a case for splitting this article into separate static and flying model articles? It's now getting quite long and in reality the two hobbies have very little to do with each other.
1329:
1442:
330:
1083:
1231:
1437:
1146:
1100:
486:...Out of curiosity, what about gasoline (and diesel) powered engines? I thought I read about large (1/4 scale) models sometimes using these engines (instead of glow.)
1407:
1163:
1073:
1016:
489:...I think I also read something about experimenters installing turbochargers/superchargers on internal-combustion engines, though that's far away from mainstream.
1344:
1008:
853:
818:
1225:
1012:
1348:
1019:, and simply have a note at the top of the scale article mentioning that some flying models are to scale, but that this article focuses on static models.
1196:
378:
367:
624:
Maybe if it is too long, but scale flying models do connect them. They often don't fly much like their prototypes do. I have one that barely flies. --
1397:
768:
1253:
1412:
1204:
1309:
167:
153:
1028:
1002:
988:
973:
808:
781:
750:
719:
562:
736:
959:
857:
1392:
830:
724:
Nice article. I think there is much more to be said about static models, especially with regard to techniques for brush painting,
685:
659:
1402:
1221:
1200:
437:
822:
594:
551:
1432:
1427:
544:
I am the one who said it was steam, but I am not so sure now. Perhaps Sir George Cayley used bent wood or stretched leather?
655:
Incidentally the more obvious break-up I had in mind was between static and flying models, which this change did not address.
481:
530:
The flight behavior does not scale, because of the Reynolds and mach numbers. Maybe I'll try to add something aout that. --
1172:
1052:
1293:
1069:
767:-clockwise" at least in America we say counter-clockwise. Unless it is different elsewhere I think it should be changed.
569:
20th century) are among those who have flown steam machines. The question is whether something else was before steam. (
943:
628:
1422:
1417:
1340:
849:
814:
1062:
ARF models ready to fly in under four hours? Certainly not true currently, takes considerably more time investment.
920:
711:
441:
128:
771:
492:
Actually, the air compresses a considerable amount, thus the power source is mixed.... both air AND rubber powered.
1159:
115:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
1387:
648:
619:
539:
258:
110:
74:
69:
534:
1217:
887:
As for ===Entry Level=== i am just learning to edit, but should there not be a Piper Cub instead od a P-51.
797:
902:
456:
44:
1145:
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant
1135:
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
1077:
1155:
449:
1321:
878:
309:. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
907:
1121:
before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
1048:
998:
969:
704:
695:
583:
In 1894, Sir Hiram Maxim did actually get off the ground under steam power in a "piloted" biplane. (
116:
1312:. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked
495:
1334:
The lead currently states that an aircraft model is an "aircraft". However, Knowledge defines an
758:
610:
305:
282:
1269:
says we should use the variety of English that was established earliest in the article, and the
1212:
1177:
890:
I would much rather a young man start with a Piper because he saw it pictured as "Entry Level"
635:
1317:
1288:
445:
50:
732:
No, WP is an encyclopedia, not an instructional site. Such material would soon be removed -
1065:
1044:
1024:
994:
984:
965:
955:
939:
916:
898:
845:
625:
605:
591:
548:
531:
478:
503:
anonymous -- DOH! You're right, my brain wasn't working when i put that in there, thanks!
8:
1270:
21:
1371:
794:
778:
747:
395:
813:
Quite right, I have adjusted the definition accordingly. Thank you for your patience.
522:
probably more -- should park-flyers and '3D-flyers' count as separate categories?)
511:
I don't think whether they are scale has much to do with which power source they use.
363:(scientific) simulation models for study of airodynamics or planned manned aircrafts.
874:
1313:
1303:
1283:
1249:
805:
733:
248:
1192:" here, but since I don't know anything about model aircraft that's just a guess.
1020:
980:
951:
935:
912:
894:
863:
708:
122:
103:
1126:
787:
700:
1178:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Model_aircraft#Flying_models_for_sport_(Aeromodeling)
1381:
1139:
1130:
1118:
682:
656:
645:
616:
559:
506:
470:
411:
1358:
1152:
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image
870:
417:
893:
A styro P-51 might be ok, but it's still a low wing. I'll do what I can.
599:
377:
Thanks Carlo. I am working on including a link that will pre-date Langly.
1245:
1057:
1266:
1189:
1117:; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review
1043:
you can still get the meaning from it, especially in this context. __
1007:
Does anybody say that in real life either? :-) It would work to have
87:
63:
430:
1362:
1335:
1103:, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason:
725:
500:
No, that is a form of rubber power, the air doesn't compress much.
407:
Aircraft catwalk models come in a wide array of types and sizes.
392:
as a whole are to be included, I guess the chane needs to be done.
297:
276:
1092:
842:
how old is the glider when was it build who build it who helped
728:, construction, applying decals, weathering and super-detailing.
634:
I went ahead and transferred most of the RC material over to the
396:
Antonio Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Martin
306:
related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject
926:
777:
It's Anti-clockwise in proper (i.e. not American) English ;-).
1278:
1184:
There are also models of birds, bats and flying dinosaurs ...
793:
current page retained as a link to both of them. Opinions?
763:
In the control line section tit says the planes are flown "
1138:
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try
424:
357:
1443:
Low-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
836:
of the run, but it appears more like constant early on.
573:, edited by Ben Mackworth-Praed, Chartwell Books, Inc.)
1084:
File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion
964:
How about ] and ], with ] disambiguating the two? __
707:. Maybe we should use one term to avoid confusion? --
1188:
Presumably "flying dinosaurs" should be changed to "
165:
This article has been checked against the following
93:
929:
1438:C-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
1408:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Everyday life
1105:All Knowledge files with unknown copyright status
1379:
1330:Definitions of "aircraft" and "model aircraft"
477:The nitro has a lot to do with timing, too. --
576:I'll try to add some of this to the article.
993:How about "display" instead of "static"? __
927:http://en.wikipedia.org/Radio-controlled_car
321:Pritzker Military Library-related articles
1398:Knowledge vital articles in Everyday life
587:, by Michael Taylor, MetroBooks, 2001)
109:This article is within the scope of the
1413:C-Class vital articles in Everyday life
384:Well, the article was first written as
19:
1380:
1147:image page (File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG)
604:The old Cox TD I have turns 25,000. --
127:. To use this banner, please see the
720:More on static modelling techniques?
15:
49:It is of interest to the following
13:
1232:"aeromodelling" v.s "aeromodeling"
318:Template:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAM
247:
152:
14:
1454:
930:http://en.wikipedia.org/Model_car
1393:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
1277:A similar thing happened in the
1091:
296:
275:
224:
213:
202:
191:
180:
96:
86:
62:
29:
20:
1129:then you may need to provide a
1099:An image used in this article,
469:So fix the article aready! ;-)
335:This article has been rated as
1403:C-Class level-5 vital articles
585:The world's Strangest Aircraft
137:Knowledge:WikiProject Aviation
1:
1433:WikiProject Aviation articles
1428:WikiProject Aircraft articles
1197:2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000
1164:21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
1053:14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
1029:13:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
712:15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
686:23:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
256:This article is supported by
140:Template:WikiProject Aviation
1369:should not be confused with
1349:16:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
1322:20:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
1003:14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
989:14:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
974:17:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
960:15:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
944:08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
921:08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
903:08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
823:13:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
7:
1361:of an existing or imagined
1294:01:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
1078:17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
660:23:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
649:23:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
571:Aviation, the Pioneer Years
10:
1459:
1254:17:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
879:21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
737:20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
595:20:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
563:12:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
450:18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
185:Referencing and citation:
1423:C-Class aircraft articles
1418:C-Class aviation articles
1101:File:Brewster Buffalo.JPG
809:17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
798:23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
782:23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
751:23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
705:Radio controlled airplane
629:17:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
620:00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
552:01:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
535:18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
482:01:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
414:10:37, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
381:01:06 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
334:
312:Pritzker Military Library
291:
283:Pritzker Military Library
255:
164:
81:
57:
858:22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
772:15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
473:23:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
431:fast brite lens restorer
1226:19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1205:17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1017:model aircraft (flying)
831:"exponential reduction"
540:earliest airplane power
315:Knowledge:GLAM/Pritzker
196:Coverage and accuracy:
1388:C-Class vital articles
1156:CommonsNotificationBot
1009:model aircraft (scale)
636:Radio controlled plane
252:
229:Supporting materials:
157:
440:comment was added by
251:
156:
36:level-5 vital article
1013:scale model aircraft
934:I'll do what I can.
457:Technical correction
259:the aircraft project
112:Aviation WikiProject
1308:we have a red link
1119:deletion guidelines
218:Grammar and style:
171:for B-class status:
1173:"flying dinosaurs"
1131:fair use rationale
908:Split the hobbies!
496:"filling a baloon"
253:
158:
45:content assessment
1292:
1213:Lythronaxargestes
1170:
1169:
1110:What should I do?
1068:comment added by
860:
848:comment added by
696:Aircraft/airplane
453:
355:
354:
351:
350:
347:
346:
270:
269:
266:
265:
242:
241:
198:criterion not met
187:criterion not met
143:aviation articles
129:full instructions
1450:
1286:
1125:If the image is
1095:
1088:
1087:
1080:
843:
734:Adrian Pingstone
600:6,000-20,000 rpm
435:
341:importance scale
323:
322:
319:
316:
313:
303:This article is
300:
293:
292:
287:
279:
272:
271:
232:
228:
227:
221:
217:
216:
210:
206:
205:
199:
195:
194:
188:
184:
183:
162:
161:
145:
144:
141:
138:
135:
106:
101:
100:
99:
90:
83:
82:
77:
66:
59:
58:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1332:
1306:
1271:very first edit
1234:
1175:
1140:Deletion Review
1086:
1063:
1060:
1045:Just plain Bill
995:Just plain Bill
966:Just plain Bill
932:
910:
891:
866:
833:
790:
761:
759:Anti-Clockwise?
722:
698:
626:David R. Ingham
613:
611:Possible split?
606:David R. Ingham
602:
592:David R. Ingham
549:David R. Ingham
542:
532:David R. Ingham
509:
498:
479:David R. Ingham
459:
436:—The preceding
420:
360:
320:
317:
314:
311:
310:
285:
230:
225:
219:
214:
208:
203:
197:
192:
186:
181:
142:
139:
136:
133:
132:
104:Aviation portal
102:
97:
95:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1456:
1446:
1445:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1390:
1372:aircraft model
1367:model aircraft
1359:physical model
1355:model aircraft
1352:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1275:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1186:
1185:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1143:
1142:
1136:
1133:
1112:
1111:
1096:
1085:
1082:
1059:
1056:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
925:
909:
906:
889:
865:
862:
832:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
789:
786:
785:
784:
760:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
740:
739:
721:
718:
716:
701:Model aircraft
697:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
673:
672:
671:
670:
663:
662:
652:
651:
633:
612:
609:
601:
598:
566:
565:
541:
538:
529:
508:
505:
497:
494:
475:
474:
458:
455:
419:
416:
399:
386:Model Airplane
371:
359:
356:
353:
352:
349:
348:
345:
344:
337:Low-importance
333:
327:
326:
324:
301:
289:
288:
286:Low‑importance
280:
268:
267:
264:
263:
254:
244:
243:
240:
239:
237:
235:
234:
233:
222:
211:
200:
189:
175:
174:
172:
159:
149:
148:
146:
108:
107:
91:
79:
78:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1455:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1421:
1419:
1416:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1383:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1304:Flight model?
1295:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1191:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1179:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1081:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:69.134.162.36
1067:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
931:
928:
924:
922:
918:
914:
905:
904:
900:
896:
888:
885:
881:
880:
876:
872:
861:
859:
855:
851:
847:
841:
837:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
807:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
795:AviatonIsLife
783:
780:
779:AviatonIsLife
776:
775:
774:
773:
770:
766:
752:
749:
748:AviatonIsLife
744:
743:
742:
741:
738:
735:
731:
730:
729:
727:
717:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
687:
684:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
667:
666:
665:
664:
661:
658:
654:
653:
650:
647:
642:
641:
640:
637:
631:
630:
627:
622:
621:
618:
608:
607:
597:
596:
593:
588:
586:
581:
577:
574:
572:
564:
561:
556:
555:
554:
553:
550:
545:
537:
536:
533:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
504:
501:
493:
490:
487:
484:
483:
480:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:HTH, Steve S
463:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
433:
432:
428:
427:to find Ertl
426:
415:
413:
408:
405:
402:
398:
397:
393:
391:
387:
382:
380:
375:
370:
369:
364:
342:
338:
332:
329:
328:
325:
308:
307:
302:
299:
295:
294:
290:
284:
281:
278:
274:
273:
261:
260:
250:
246:
245:
238:
236:
231:criterion met
223:
220:criterion met
212:
209:criterion met
201:
190:
179:
178:
177:
176:
173:
170:
169:
163:
160:
155:
151:
150:
147:
130:
126:
125:
120:
119:
114:
113:
105:
94:
92:
89:
85:
84:
80:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1370:
1366:
1354:
1341:31.4.242.212
1333:
1325:
1310:Flight model
1307:
1235:
1211:
1194:
1187:
1176:
1151:
1150:
1144:
1114:
1113:
1104:
1098:
1064:— Preceding
1061:
1041:
933:
911:
892:
886:
882:
867:
850:64.53.150.76
839:
838:
834:
815:31.4.242.189
791:
764:
762:
723:
715:
699:
632:
623:
614:
603:
589:
584:
582:
578:
575:
570:
567:
546:
543:
528:
524:
520:
516:
513:
510:
502:
499:
491:
488:
485:
476:
464:
460:
434:
429:
425:cricut cards
421:
409:
406:
403:
400:
394:
389:
385:
383:
379:Chendrickson
376:
372:
365:
361:
336:
304:
257:
166:
123:
117:
111:
51:WikiProjects
34:
1314:Estopedist1
1284:Anachronist
1115:Don't panic
844:—Preceding
806:NatureBoyMD
769:Foil Fencer
442:12.96.65.14
401:I deleted:
207:Structure:
124:task forces
1382:Categories
1267:MOS:RETAIN
1190:pterosaurs
936:Maxchillin
913:Maxchillin
895:Maxchillin
709:Phatmonkey
118:open tasks
1210:Changed.
840:Bold text
388:. But if
39:is rated
1363:aircraft
1336:aircraft
1274:English.
1246:- NiD.29
1222:contribs
1127:non-free
1066:unsigned
846:unsigned
726:Airbrush
438:unsigned
412:GRAHAMUK
390:aircraft
366:regards
358:Untitled
168:criteria
134:Aviation
75:Aircraft
70:Aviation
864:Cleanup
339:on the
41:C-class
1180:says:
788:Split?
683:Graham
657:Graham
646:Graham
617:Graham
560:Graham
471:Graham
368:PeterD
47:scale.
1357:is a
1279:cider
507:scale
28:This
1345:talk
1318:talk
1289:talk
1250:talk
1218:talk
1201:talk
1160:talk
1074:talk
1049:talk
1025:talk
1021:Stan
1015:and
999:talk
985:talk
981:Stan
970:talk
956:talk
952:Stan
940:talk
917:talk
899:talk
875:talk
871:JMcC
854:talk
819:talk
765:anti
703:and
446:talk
418:Ertl
121:and
1195:-
1058:ARF
1011:or
514:--
331:Low
1384::
1375:.
1353:A
1347:)
1320:)
1252:)
1224:)
1220:|
1203:)
1162:)
1154:--
1076:)
1051:)
1027:)
1001:)
987:)
972:)
958:)
942:)
919:)
901:)
877:)
856:)
821:)
590:--
547:--
448:)
410:"
73::
1343:(
1316:(
1291:)
1287:(
1282:~
1248:(
1216:(
1199:(
1158:(
1072:(
1047:(
1023:(
997:(
983:(
968:(
954:(
938:(
915:(
897:(
873:(
852:(
817:(
452:.
444:(
343:.
262:.
131:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
