Talk:Aero Commander 500 family

Crash information needed

We need more information about crashes. I added a recent crash, from Melbourne Australia[1], but someone deleted it because apparently the source is non-notable. There are a lot of lines in this article that sound like advertising, heaping praise on the Aero Commander. If you are going to include all that praise, you need to include crashes to balance it. 203.217.41.202 09:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT Sorry, I misunderstood. The crash information is still there and wasn't deleted at all. (I read the History section which said it had been deleted). Cheers.203.217.41.202 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened in the edit, but I've removed the incident, and the unsourced bit about the Shrike's acrobatic use by Bob Hoover.

If I may say so, it seems to me that Bob Hoover's use of the Aero Commander is relevant and interesting enough to add a short reference and a link to the Wikipedia article on Hoover himself. Chuanist (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)(contribs) 04:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding info about every crash is NOT the way to write an article, or to "balance" the supposed praise. Crashes and incidents are only included if the crash is notable. You misunderstood my edit summary, but space is limited, so I didn't explain in detail. It wasn't the source that is non-notable, but the crash itself. The source did not give any factors that would prove the incident is notable. In addition, simply listing crashes does nothing to prove or disprove praise of an aircraft, as almost all aircraft have had accidents of some sort.

This item was in the "Safety Record" section:

• One proof of the strength of the Shrike's design is that Bob Hoover flew an aerobatic act for nearly three decades in the Shrike, with his only accident being as a result of his plane accidentally being loaded with jet fuel, leading to engine failure on take-off.

This item was the ONLY thing I could find in the article that even resembled praise. In fact, it follows two paragraphs of criticism, and appears to have been added to "balance" the section. So, with 2 paragraphs of criticism, and one of "praise", where did you get the idea that There are a lot of lines in this article that sound like advertising, heaping praise on the Aero Commander? If there are others, please point them out. But remember, this is an encyclopedia, not an aviation review site - we're not here to sell OR criticize aircraft, just to give a summary iew of them. - BillCJ 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. When does a crash become notable? A relatively small aircraft probably won't result in large numbers of fatalities. Is it only when a celebrity is on board that a crash becomes notable? It would be interesting to follow up the Melbourne incident with a brief sentence about the investigation conclusion, once it is finished, considering CASA (the Australian authority) is already eying the Aero Commander for possible problems. 203.217.41.202 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While the guidleines on what constitutes a notable accident or incident are still being debated, there is a list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Notability guidelines?.

• On general aviation aircraft:Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved, or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability.

As of right now, the crash does not meet that criterion. Because it's not even an guideline yet, I'm not going to "beat you over the head with it"! But it does give us a general idea of what to look for in such incidents. If the accident were notable in most respects, it would probably warrant an article on the crash itself. However, some minor incidents are still noted in the aircraft article if the incident deserves some mention, especially in regard to that type of aircraft.

IF the accident does result in restrictions of or changes to the use of the Aero Commander, or at brings attention to groups desiring such restrictions, then it might be notable. As you said, we'll have to see what the investigation concludes. I hope this helps. - BillCJ 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the reports of the accidents could benefit from a single sentence defining the cause. (In the case of the Kennedy crash, it was pilot error.) Valetude (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

More dates needed

Hi. One thing I would like to see in this article is more dates. We see that the Aero Commander was built from 1948. But when did it finish? Is it still in production? The 'Variants' section lists one or two dates, but it would be good to have dates next to all those models, that is, between what years were those models built? It's just a suggestion that I think would improve the article, though I realise it would take a lot of work to do. Cheers 203.217.41.202 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good observation. I have a couple of printed references with this type in them, and I'll try to find some dates, and include the sources. - BillCJ 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The line has been out-of-production since the mid-1980s, though TCAC -- which now holds the type certificate -- is "remanufacturing" (radically overhauling and rebuilding) used Twin Commanders, to "as new" specifications, and officially certifying them as "zero-time" aircraft (as if brand new). But truly new Aero Commander twins are a thing of the past. Will try to incorporate some model dates later.

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Terrible Article

This article really needs a lot of work, including the Turbine Powered Commanders under an article called aero commander 500 is amateurish and wrong. There is also no mention of Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation and the current usage of the birds. -76.7.32.231 (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All WP articles are works in progress. Yes, perhaps the page needs expansion, but please beware of painting with a broad brush. Also, if you have access to relibale sources with the information you mentioned, you are welcome to begin adding it to the article. If you're not sure how, just ask for help. Just don't shoot the helpers first next time. As to the title, it is common practice in aircraft reference works to include related aircraft under one heading, even piston and turboprop variants. On Wikipedia, we have a bit more leeway as we are WP:NOT:not a paper encyclopedia, but there are other reasons variants are covered together. In time, as the article expands, the turbine variants will probably be split off. For the time being, it probably better to have one good article of a fair length than to have two short ones. That can be discussed tho, hopfully without further insults. - BillCJ (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry BillCJ, but I cannot agree, absolutely. We are exactly in the same environment of Navajo / Cheyenne (good) articles, which are separate because they are different aircrafts, even considering their common origins and certifications. Other thing: instead of being offended and scrub WP rules at newcomers faces, I prefer only to say where/what are the rules or even better: stay quiet. I believe user 76.7.32.231 wasn`t throwing insults, he/she was only pointing the truth: it is a bad article, indeed. I would say it is better to have NO article instead of a big bad one. In time: I still didn`t edit the article because I have no aircraft or pilot manuals (absolutely reliable sources) available for all that different "variants" descriptions. PS.: WP:NOT:not a paper encyclopedia, it`s a BETTER encyclopedia. Depends only on the "marketing" or publicity to attract new editors, not to repel them. RobertoRMola (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That was written SEVEN years ago! Hopefully I've matured a little since then, but thanks for the lecture anyway. I have seen so many good editors leave WP just because of attitudes like yours. It's always better to run off the experienced rather than the newbies, huh? - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm very knowledgeable about the Aero Commander line (and about most major makes and models of general aviation aircraft), and agree, strongly, with both of the other critics, here, that this is an exceptionally sub-standard article, (in the version that appears currently -- early May 2017) -- when compared to most other Wikipedia articles on major-model general aviation aircraft.

It is fraught with numerous very serious errors of fact, some quite fundamental, with some completely absurd statements, labels, "facts," etc. Though I've seem some poor and reckless Wikipedia articles in the past, on general aviation, this is certainly one of the least accurate and least useful. In fact, it's so very misleading -- on so many important points -- that it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that it be removed from Wikipedia altogether (and I've never suggested that about any such article before).

This article describes many different models of aircraft, several of which are not at all a part of this model of aircraft (Aero Commander 500-series), but rather are radically different evolutions from that original family. It's quite literally like lumping the Beech Queen Air and Beech King Air lines in with the Beech Twin Bonanza -- or the Cessna 421 and Cessna 441 in with the Cessna 310 -- simply absurd.

As my workload permits, I'll overhaul it, with suitable references, and move the extraneous remarks about other models to appropriate Wikipedia articles, -- and while I encourage other knowledgeable editors to participate, I beg editors unfamiliar with this subject to refrain from further involvement with this article. Aero Commanders are seldom cataloged correctly by professional aviation writers, let alone amateurs. Please, know when to back away, and leave it to others to get it right.

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aero Commander 500 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100217014625/http://www.baha.be:80/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/aerocommander_560f.htm to http://www.baha.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/aerocommander_560f.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aero Commander 500 family. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818002029/http://www.marchfield.org/u9.htm to http://www.marchfield.org/u9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Article Name

The article has a name that misrepresents its content: "Aero Commander 500 family" In fact, many (perhaps most) of the discussion here is about aircraft that are not really part of that model family (the 500-series certified under FAA Type Certificate 6A1), but rather are the 600-series family -- significantly different aircraft certified under Type Certificate 2A4.

The range of aircraft here vary from:

- 5,500 pounds, 44-foot wingspan, twin 260-horsepower, piston engines, yielding 220-mph TAS, in a 7-seat, UNpressurized cabin, with up to a 12,000-ft max altitude,

...to...

- 11,700 pounds, 52-foot wingspan, twin 717-horsepower turboprop engines, yielding 330-mph TAS, in an 11-seat, pressurized cabin, with up to a 35,000-ft max altitude,

It's simply absurd to class them all as the "500 family," just as it would be to class the Beech King Air and Beech Queen Air "families" with the Beech Twin Bonanza family from which they both evolved.

In fact, the FAA was rather charitable in grouping as many different models of "twin Commanders" under the original TC as they did, when, in reality, the various "500 family" models were very different from one another -- in engine configurations (geared vs. direct-drive; carbureted vs. injected vs. turbocharged), horsepower, fuel requirements, nacelles (round vs. flat), landing gear (straight-retract vs. rotating), max cruise speeds and altitudes, and physical weights and dimensions.

If this article is to remain basically intact, as is -- without massive editing, and relocation of most of its text to other articles (many of them new) for appropriate model numbers, and other changes -- then a change of name is really called for (IMHO).

These planes have had countless "official" manufacturer brand names: Aero Design, Aero Commander, Rockwell Commander, Rockwell, Gulfstream -- and are currently remanufactured (rebuilt to "as new") by the "Twin Commander Aircraft Corp." -- but are all commonly referred to, in normal aviation-pro conversations, as "Aero Commanders" or "twin Commanders")

(The only other twin produced in the "Commander" line was the short-lived, radically different and completely unrelated Fuji/Rockwell Commander 700, almost never referred to as a "Commander" of any kind; the 700 can simply be redirected in a redirect notice at the start of the article)

I propose one of these three names for this article, in order from what I think is most relevant to what is least relevant:

• Aero Commander twins (This is the way they are best known, though it implies that "Aero Commander" was the manufacturer, when many were built under other brand names; nevertheless, this is the way they are most commonly referred to, in aviation-community conversation, even by the owners and operators of twin-Commander models built under other brand names.)
• Twin Commander line (This is the other of the two "umbrella" names commonly used in aviation to identify these planes. It is basically manufacturer-name "neutral" -- and model-name neutral. (None of the OEM's ever used it as a model name, as near as I can find -- despite the very erroneous model-history info on website of the remanufacturer, "Twin Commander Aircraft Corp."). AND, it clearly conveys which "Commander" aircraft are being discussed -- differentiating them from the wild assortment of single-engine "Commanders" that were gathered, or originated, under the Aero Commander name.)
• Aero Commander 500/600 family (this is a very poor, inadequate, and arguably misleading substitute, but much closer to the truth, and valid for most of the aircraft in the article, since most have official model numbers between "500" and "699")

I don't want to take this drastic step without support. What say you?

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your thoughts here. I don't think the article is in all that bad shape, but it certainly can use some expansion and corrections, more refs and such. Thanks for looking at taking that job on.

As far as the name goes, on WikiProject Aircraft we generally tend to name an article that covers a range of similar designs after the most common model or the generic name for the type and then ensure that all the model numbers used all redirect to the main article. That allows the possibility of starting individual type articles for each model at the redirect titles, if anyone decides that is required later on. I would suggest just moving the article to Aero Commander 500, since that already redirects here. Given the different TCs and weights, it may make more sense to have two artciles: Aero Commander 500 and Aero Commander 600. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That gets a bit dicey, because -- although there were various models designated Aero Commander 500 -- there were none designated Aero Commander 600... and the 600-series Type Certificate also includes a 500-series model (the 560F, progenitor of that family) and the the "720" (a pressurized 680). There's also the confusion created by the fact that several 6xx turboprop models were given very different marketing model number designations, outside the 600-series (for instance, the model 695B, as it was officially certified, was marketed as the "1000").

Further, it seems that the 600-series really ought to be separated between the turboprop and piston models, because of their radically different performance and technical characteristics, and safety records.

While the long-term goal should perhaps be a separate page for each key model (as with Cessna Aircraft, for instance), keeping them altogether under one umbrella article, for now, is probably more practical, and will create less confusion, misdirection, and dead-end searches for twin-Commander info on Wikipedia than a partial segregation into poorly-defined groups (made more confusing, of course, by the Commander manufacturer's goofy dual model-numbers and wildly inconsistent profusion of frequently-changed model names).

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (revised)

How about creating two articles cleaved based strictly on the TC, since the FAA considers them two different types? - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But how would you give a meaningful title to that? And it still lumps turboprops with piston aircraft. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How about splitting the pistons from the turboprops, then? Just need to think of the right name for each. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess you could go with Aero Commander piston twins and Aero Commander turboprop twins, but separating this article into two would be a HUGE chore. There's so much entertwining of types... and my availble editing time is painfully limited. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If time is an issue then perhaps it just makes sense to leave it as one article for now and work on improving that, leaving a possible split for later. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where I'm at, too. So, back to the original question: Which of the three names above? ("Aero Commander twins" is likely the least confusing, most recognizable and expected, I think. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd just opt for Aero Commander 500 and have it include the 600 as well, then. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to eliminate the use of the term "family" in the title. This is the way we normally do it on WikiProject Aircraft, to either use a general title for many models, as in Mignet Pou-du-Ciel or one representative model as the title to cover other models as in North American Rotorwerks Pitbull Ultralight. But if you have a better suggestion at this point then do suggest. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I refer you back to my original post on this topic. The title is misleading, and not an even remotely accurate representation of the content of the article. It should be more generalized, or the non-500 aircraft should be removed entirely -- consistent with nearly other such Wikipedia articles on major-brand general aviation aircraft, (For instance, the

• Beech Bonanza family (models 35, 33, 36, and variants thereof) is not labled Beech 35 Bonanza (the progenitor model);
• Beech King Air (models 90, 100, 200, 300, 350, 250, and variants) is not labled Beech King Air 90;
• Beech Queen Air family, ditto;
• Aeronca Chief famliy, ditto;
• Bellanca Cruisair and
• Bellanca Viking families (the later with 7 model numbers, including the original Bellanca 17-30 Viking 300),
• American Champion Citabria family,

not even the narrow-variation:

• Mitsubishi MU-2 turboprop family, none of which was designated "MU-2", but rather all designated with an appended letter (MU-2A was first of line).

and the closest example to this Aero Commander article,

• Cessna Citation family article, is very sensibly not labeled Cessna Citation I family.

Let's simply rename it according to the way most in the aviation industry refer to these aircraft, in total: Aero Commander twins. ~ ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That is the same approach as I cited above in Mignet Pou-du-Ciel. The only difference is the use of the word "twins", which is not exactly WP:COMMONNAME, but if nothing better can be found we can go with that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Good, let's go with Aero Commander twins. It's consistent with MOS:PRECISION section of WP:COMMONNAME, which says: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."

Unless there is a real need to rush this, I would suggest waiting a few days before moving the page to allow other editors to comment. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly dont take to Aero Commander twins, if it was me I would suggest:

• Aero Commander 500 family leave this article to cover the Type Certificate 6A1 series 500 aircraft
• Rockwell Commander 600 family split out for the 2A4 aircraft, then consider a further split as
• Gulfstream Jetprop for the later Jetprop aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, an answer with no reason given.

That suggestion might make sense if the majority of 600-family (Type certificate 2A4) production had happened under Rockwell. However, if the current FAA aircraft registry is a clue, Aero Commander produced slightly more 600-series aircraft than Rockwell, and more than double the number produced by Gulfstream.

And that is from data on U.S. aircraft currently registered. Older aircraft eventually drop off the registry (they get wrecked, retired, or exported). A check of registries worldwide would almost certainly skew the numbers towards the older manufacturers even more. And I encourage anyone to check Aerofiles.com for the "POP" (production quantity) numbers for each of the models of each of the manufacturers. That will inevitably skew things even more towards the oldest manufacturer (Aero Commander), not only for 500-series, but 600-series as well.

Of all Commander twins currently registered in the U.S. (approx. 669), the overwhelming majority, 85% (approx. 417) were manufactured by Aero Commander -- dwarfing to relative insignificance the combined numbers of Rockwell and Gulfstream twin-Commanders.

And... of all Commander twins, virutally ALL are built on one of the two Type Certificates developed by, and awarded to, Aero Commander (the FAA thereby implying, officially, that Rockwell and Gulfstream models are really just "tweaked" variants of Aero Commander models, rather than substantively different aircraft).

And, in any case, this dodges the original question: What do we title this article while it contains ALL Commander twins?

Until such time as someone (else) has time to parse out the various models and variants into separate articles, or correctly distribute them throughout multiple "group articles" (an obviously huge, multi-hour / multi-day chore, judging from the current content), this article will remain with all the Commander twin models in it, together -- and the current name is obviously not correct for that, and (IMHO) should be brought into substantial compliance with MOS:PRECISION, as noted above.

And, even after the breakout is done, it still leaves the audience without a proper "all-encompassing" article to summarize the distinctive line of closely-related Commander twins in a meaningful way. That will still be needed, and with an umbrella name.

I come back to Aero Commander twins, and I'm not alone. The FAA and ICAO both use a system of (typically) four-character aircraft identification designator codes, for just about every common make and model aircraft. These are used by the world's air traffic controllers. The codes start with a one- two- or three-letter designator signifying the principal manufacturer ("BE"-Beech, "C"=Cessna, etc.).

The FAA/ICAO codes for all Commander twins -- by all manufacturers -- start with the abbreviation "AC" (as in "Aero Commander.")

The only light twin designated with the Rockwell "RC" abbreviation is the Fuji/Rockwell 700-series that isn't usually thought of as a true Commander twin. The "G" and "GLF" designations for Gulfstream aircraft are used on many models -- but not on any of the Commander twins, not even the twin-Commander "models" developed by Gulfstream; they are all designated "AC...".)

If the world's air traffic controllers can lump them all together as "Aero Commanders," that's a pretty good clue as to how the rest of the aviation world views them.

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

My suggestions are based on common names, for example most people would relate the 690 to Rockwell, I not sure the ATC designators are really relevant as a discriminator. Also note that breaking out the models as I suggested would not take that long so not really a huge task. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Any consensus?

@Ahunt, MilborneOne, and Zxtxtxz: The discussion has been stalled here for several weeks. The best proposal I see is the following by Milb1:

• Aero Commander 500 family leave this article to cover the Type Certificate 6A1 series 500 aircraft
• Rockwell Commander 600 family split out for the 2A4 aircraft, then consider a further split as
• Gulfstream Jetprop for the later Jetprop aircraft.

Can we move forward on these splits, bearing in mind that consensus isn't unanimity? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Note there is also an article at Rockwell 685, which was just created last week. Should that be incorporated into one of the above options, perhaps by a move to one of those titles for expansion? - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I am okay with proceeding that way, including incorporating Rockwell 685 into the larger article for the type. It needs a bunch of work anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Single engine safety numbers - words vs numerals

In the "Single engine safety" subsection, I put the "100,000 hours" numbers in words ("hundred-thousand hours"), rather than numerals, so those plentiful digits (which would otherwise have been repeated throughout the section) did not distract from the numbers for which they provided context (the various crash rates). Normally I'd use numerals, but in this case they would have undermined the clarity and readability of the essential data, undermining the whole point of the paragraph (see: "But adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats" in WP:NUMNOTES). ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

main picture

I took some time to curate an illustrative gallery at Commons:Aero Commander 500 family. The current main picture is OK but points away from the text and is a little bland, here are three possible alternates:

• 
  current 690A
• 
  690B, points towards the text
• 
  Jetprop 1000 air-to-air
• 
  NOAA N45RF inflight

I think the Jetprop 1000 picture is interesting, a little from above, it better depict the aircraft configuration, but it points away from the text. Any other thoughts?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I never get too worried about the lede photo pointing away from the text. I think the Jetprop 1000 photo is the best, much better lighting shows the shape best. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I also found a nice air-to-air picture of NOAA's 695B, but perhaps the background is too busy.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes the background is a bit too distracting, makes the aircraft hard to see clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)