Members, Bots, Administrators
25,470
edits
Talk:Rustler: Difference between revisions
m
Robot: Fixing wiki syntax
No edit summary |
m (Robot: Fixing wiki syntax) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Case closed. I'll be accepting your apology now, Jager. | Case closed. I'll be accepting your apology now, Jager. | ||
:Oh really? Yes, it does look more like the Mustang - particularly the wings, cockpit, horizontal stabilisers, nose/bonnet/hood. However, some things look more like a combination of the two. The vertical stabiliser (tailfin) looks like the Tempest, and the air intake looks halfway between the two. The main body of the aircraft, with the split-height fuselage fore and aft of the cockpit, and the squared-off wings, probably confirm that it is the Mustang.<br><br>However, I'd very much like you to change your attitude towards your fellow editors - sure he made a mistake, because it looks slightly more like the Mustang than the Tempest (only to the trained eye), but his purpose here is the same as yours - to improve our encyclopaedic content. I'd hope this isn't a British vs American thing either. [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | :Oh really? Yes, it does look more like the Mustang - particularly the wings, cockpit, horizontal stabilisers, nose/bonnet/hood. However, some things look more like a combination of the two. The vertical stabiliser (tailfin) looks like the Tempest, and the air intake looks halfway between the two. The main body of the aircraft, with the split-height fuselage fore and aft of the cockpit, and the squared-off wings, probably confirm that it is the Mustang.<br /><br />However, I'd very much like you to change your attitude towards your fellow editors - sure he made a mistake, because it looks slightly more like the Mustang than the Tempest (only to the trained eye), but his purpose here is the same as yours - to improve our encyclopaedic content. I'd hope this isn't a British vs American thing either. [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
The vertical stabilizer, I'll give you, but the horizontal stabilizers are mustang. The air intake below the nose resembles the Mustangs, as the Tempest I has a Typhoon-type intake while the Tempest II has no intake...being that it is powered by a radial engine. My exasperation comes from having to repeatedly edit the post to ensure it authenticy. When it comes to aviation...I don't make mistakes. Ever. It is not a case of UK versus US, as both aircraft are British in origin. The Mustang was designed at the request of the British Government. The British replaced the Allison engine with the Rolls Royce Merlon, famous for being the 'Spitfire Engine,' and the Mustang was born. Allison engined airframes were modified for use as dive-bombers and carried the designation A-36 Apache. | The vertical stabilizer, I'll give you, but the horizontal stabilizers are mustang. The air intake below the nose resembles the Mustangs, as the Tempest I has a Typhoon-type intake while the Tempest II has no intake...being that it is powered by a radial engine. My exasperation comes from having to repeatedly edit the post to ensure it authenticy. When it comes to aviation...I don't make mistakes. Ever. It is not a case of UK versus US, as both aircraft are British in origin. The Mustang was designed at the request of the British Government. The British replaced the Allison engine with the Rolls Royce Merlon, famous for being the 'Spitfire Engine,' and the Mustang was born. Allison engined airframes were modified for use as dive-bombers and carried the designation A-36 Apache. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Protection == | == Protection == | ||
This article has been protected to prevent continued edit warring. | This article has been protected to prevent continued edit warring. Editors ''must'' discuss changes before seeking to make edits, as many aspects of the plane's design seem to be highly debatable, and a major source of contention. Please post your comments on this talk page regarding why you think particular design influences are more accurate than others, rather than reverting each other's edits. Discussion is a key aspect of making this wiki run smoothly. It benefits no one to argue and incessantly revert edits. The expiry on the protection is 3 days. If after this time, editors continue to war without discussing things on the talk page, the article will be protected indefinitely, and all edits will require [[administrator]] approval. '''[[User:Eganio|Eganio]]<sup>''[[User talk:Eganio|Talk]]''</sup>''' 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
:I even added more important info about the Rustler. Unfourtunately, somebody had to remove it because it is "irrelevant". I don't see nothing irrelevant here. Just someone removing all of my important edits I've made for no apparent reason at all. Geez. Talk about someone that does'nt own GTA games in order to know more like me and everyone else. [[User:MetaCracken|MetaCracken]] 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | :I even added more important info about the Rustler. Unfourtunately, somebody had to remove it because it is "irrelevant". I don't see nothing irrelevant here. Just someone removing all of my important edits I've made for no apparent reason at all. Geez. Talk about someone that does'nt own GTA games in order to know more like me and everyone else. [[User:MetaCracken|MetaCracken]] 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
They are removed because you post stupid things like "the rustler is the oldest...) NO! If you look at the plane it is based on, the P-51/P-40, both flew AFTER the Douglas DC-3, which is the Nevada's template. This is an example of why your stuff gets deleted. You just...don't know. | They are removed because you post stupid things like "the rustler is the oldest...) NO! If you look at the plane it is based on, the P-51/P-40, both flew AFTER the Douglas DC-3, which is the Nevada's template. This is an example of why your stuff gets deleted. You just...don't know. | ||
:'''''Shakes Head''''' This is what I would call an "Edit War" and although amusing to read, is annoying and clogs up the talk page. And don't forget to sign your comments guys! --[[User:Chimpso|Chimpso]] 07:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Also looking at this [http://gta.wikia.com/index.php?title=Rustler&diff=54499&oldid=54135 this edit] it is clear that you removed a lot of usefull info from the page Sukhoi-35BM. Please have respect for your fellow editors and remember that you '''DO NOT''' own the aircraft section and that other people edit it as well. Thanks! --[[User:Chimpso|Chimpso]] 07:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Holy crap == | == Holy crap == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 45: | ||
It can't be considered "great typing" if you can't even spell words properly because of the typing.....[[User:Optimist33gta|<badge user="Optimist33gta"/>]] 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | It can't be considered "great typing" if you can't even spell words properly because of the typing.....[[User:Optimist33gta|<badge user="Optimist33gta"/>]] 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Uhh... Did you realize you replied to a year-old post?--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|Spaceeinstein]]''' 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Actually...it IS a P-40== | |||
The plane is a variant of the P-40 called the XP-40Q. | |||
*http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/curtiss_p-40q.php | |||
3-view drawing | |||
*http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/curtiss_p-40q.gif | |||
Picture of the Rustler for comparison | |||
*http://www.gta.cz/data/eng-sanandreas/clanky/doprava/letadla/Rustler.jpg | |||
The XP-40Q was an experimental plane, ane was never brought past the prototype stage; It was an attempt at modernization of the aging P-40 design. It worked quite well, but the P-51 still worked better. and so the design was scrapped.<br />The only noticable differences between this and the Rustler are as follows: | |||
*The lower scoop is a little wider up-and-down | |||
*There are no wheel covers on the XP-40Q (likely because it was an experimental plane. They would probably have been put on in production versions.) | |||
*There are 4 props on the XP-40Q rather than 3 on the Rustler | |||
*The Rustler uses a "Razorback" canopy rather than a bubble canopy (though it still retains the bracing structure of a bubble canopy). | |||
The Rustler has the tail of the XP-40Q, and in general the XP-40Q looks more like the Rustler than the P-51 ever did.<br />Not trolling or trying to start an argument or something, just putting forth my research on this. | |||
[[User:Tommygun045|Tommygun045]] 04:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC) | |||