text:
Talk:Battle of the Aegates

Something wrong here...
The text in this page contains many words and letters that should not be there. Is there something wrong with it?

 * Not so much wrong with the article no, as the mental reject who got their "jollies" out of defacing the page. It is called vandalism, and it is popular among those of low intelligence, stunted maturity, or those who are bored and lack any sense of imagination. Fortunatly, the work of such genetic backwashes is easy fixed, and has been reversed.

It’s back again. I’m not sure how to fix it, as I’m seeing it on the main page description of the article in my app. Beautyandterror (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone request the page be locked? Beautyandterror (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to this it has been removed. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 01:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, excellent. I think I still had an old version of the page loaded. Glad it’s taken care of, thanks. Beautyandterror (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm seeing next to the top line of the first paragraph "Italic text" in bold italics with an empty footnote. I've looked at the page source, & the source for the infobox, but I'm finding no clue where these words come from. A clue is that I've looked back a several revisions & still see these words; I figure someone vandalized one of the templates used in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And there is an invisible footnote in this page: you can see the error message in the section at the bottom. Someone figured out a nasty way to vandalize this page. -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was in Template:Campaignbox First Punic War, which I've now corrected - the work of an anonymous IP. Furius (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Carthaginian fleet discrepancy
The battlebox lists the numbers of Carthaginian ships launched and lost as different than what the Favignan(sp.) island page does (i.e. 400 ships with 120 sunk). Which is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.150.229.189 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

== When were rams attached? From the section on Marine Archaeology: "It is believed that the rams were each attached to a sunken warship when they were deposited on the seabed." I wonder if this could be phrased better? There's an ambiguity in the "were ... attached ... when" formulation that implies that the rams could have been attached to the ships after they were sunk, which is either absurd, or serious archaeological fraud. One assumes the rams were attached to their respective ships before the battle. Bog (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move unopposed. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 21:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Egadi Islands → Battle of the Aegates – This article concerns an important event in Roman history, and so most scholarly literature uses the Roman name, not a modern one. The article was originally created at "Battle of the Aegates Islands", and remained there for several years, until another editor moved it without discussion, claiming that this name was "far more common". This Google Ngram appears to demonstrate otherwise: there are no book hits at all under the present title. A regular Google search shows hits, but many fewer than at the original name or the proposed name. "Battle of the Aegates" should be preferable to "Battle of the Aegates Islands", since there are no other Aegates; the name is derived from the island of Aegusa (now Favignana), which is one of them. "Aegates Islands" is also unidiomatic in English, since Aegates is plural: we say "Bahamas" or "Bahama Islands", not "Bahamas Islands"; "Caymans" or "Cayman Islands", not "Caymans Islands"; so with the Balearics, Canaries, etc. The current page at this title is a simple redirect to this article, and it shouldn't be too hard to fix the other links here, as there are only a few dozen. P Aculeius (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. —  AjaxSmack   01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of the Aegates. 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/20131001150839/http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/130405.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/130405.html/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica
Hi, these edits have caused cite 90 to not link to any source, and introduced two new sources which are not used in the article. Perhaps you could rejig things so that cite 90 does point to an appropriate source again, and move any sources not used in the text to "Further reading"? Thanks Also, Encyclopædia Britannica should only be linked at first mention. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gog; Ta for your note; I've put things right (I think). I'm a bit new in this area of editing. ArbieP (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 * ArbieP No worries. Looks good now.
 * PS A mixed bag of weather in Derby today. I assume similar where you are? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Volatile! ArbieP (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Seventh section: Battle of the Aegates
The last sentence in the text quoted below seems to conflate the number and origin of recovered rams with the number and origin of recovered helmets. Without reading the sources I can not correct the problem.}}

Since 2010 eleven bronze warship rams have been found by archaeologists in the sea within a 1 km2 area off Phorbantia, along with ten bronze helmets and hundreds of amphorae. The rams, seven of the helmets, and six intact amphorae, along with a number of fragments, have since been recovered. Inscriptions allowed four of the rams to be identified as coming from Roman-built ships, one from a Carthaginian vessel, with the origins of the remaining two being unknown.
 * — Neonorange (Phil) 22:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Eleven rams have been found to-date, of which ten had been recovered as of 2014. Tusa & Royal (the source that provides the breakdown of their provenances) was published when only seven had been recovered, hence the disparity. Subsequently Jonathan Prag published a piece which you can read here. Seven have Latin inscriptions, one has a Punic inscription, two have lost their inscriptions, and one was still at the bottom of the sea as of 2014. The rams probably merit their own article, which could go into more detail about them and the debates around them (the date and provenance of the first one to be discovered is problematic and some of the "Roman-built ships" seem to have been captured and put into use in the Carthaginian navy). Furius (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Decisive
WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX - Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat. This is very clear. WP:FAOWN does not fossilize an article, especially on something as straightforward as this.Pipsally (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a guideline, not a rule... and it doesn't become a rule until it gets consensus. 49.205.115.179 (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And as a guideline is best to follow it until there's a consensus not to
 * Needn't be pushed pointlessly though. When there's uncertainty over if a battle was really decisive, this is fine to use. (That concern was what prompted this rule). But when there's no consensus to establish it unilaterally as a rule (as discussions so far have ended in stalemates), then it can't be zealously enforced as a rule. 49.205.115.179 (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FAC is one of the strongest consensuses an article can reach. Yes, that doesn't "fossilise" an article. If new information or a new source becomes available then the article will be revisited. It does mean that there is a consensus for the adherence or non-adherence to any non-binding guidelines unless and until a new, at least as strong, consensus is reached for a change. If you wish to challenge the consensus reached at FAC then a useful first step would be to explain why and to ping the editors who formally signed off on the current wording at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the current phrasing. The infobox guidance is essentially there to prevent original research, which is not present here.  It passed FAC with this wording, so a consensus needs to be formed to remove this here.  You are currently WP:Edit warring here, which will likely end with a WP:AN/EW trip you will not enjoy if this continues.  Please drop the stick and get a consensus through an rfc here on the talk page or other means and stop edit warring over this without consensus. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Perhaps you could put "Decisive" back in the infobox? I don't want to fall foul of 3R. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the guidance at WP:MILMOS does deprecate the use of qualifying terms, including "decisive". is only partially correct when they say that it is there to prevent original research. It is also that there is significant nuance to such terms that cannot be captured in isolation. "Decisive victory" can have various meanings. It could mean: defeated in detail, concluding a campaign or a meaning that is particular to the disciplines of military history or military science. It represents an opinion and conclusion of the author(s) and, in a scholarly work, they will detail their rationale for reaching such a conclusion. As a scholarly concept it is evolving (see decisive victory an this search); hence, any assertion would depend on the framework of reference as it existed at the time the view was formed. General perceptions of a "decisive victory" are that it is an exceptional outcome. Consequently, any conclusion in Wiki's voice should be based upon a consensus in the sources (plural). The place to elaborate how the outcome is viewed in the sources is the aftermath section, where different views and the rationales in the sources can be explained. An overall summary is best made in prose in the lead, since prose can capture nuance. At Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Agincourt, there are some interesting discussions regarding "decisive victory" in the infobox.

I have looked at the article and the result in the infobox is a legacy of the earliest iterations of the article when "decisive" was considered acceptable. In the aftermath it states (the only reference to it being a decisive victory): After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet, Catulus continued the land operations in Sicily against Lilybaeum, Eryx and Drepana; which continued to be defended by Hamilcar Barca and his army.[91 - Goldsworthy (2006) pp 125-126]. I have limited access to this source but I believe you are referring to: The battle of the Aegates Islands decided the war. In the circumstances, I don't think it is being too pedantic to say that he isn't specifically calling it a "decisive victory". At the FAC, you elected to describe the victory in the lead: "It was the final and deciding battle of the 23-year-long First Punic War. It was [IMO] a very appropriate choice.

I would therefore suggest that it is appropriate to report the result in the infobox as "Roman victory". The guidance also restrict additional comments in this field (ie Treaty of Lutatius)) but I won't stand on this - though it is problematic when such information becomes overwhelming and leads to bloat). I would also suggest modifying the sentence (above) which cites Goldsworthy such that it does not invoke by inference the theoretical concept of "decisive victory" - which Goldsworthy does not appear to be actually doing. Given the fuller context of the paragraph in which the sentence appears, it may be perfectly reasonable to just drop the word "decisive" or substitute "conclusive" - though in either case, fighting continued on land. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a certain bit of WP:IAR that needs to occur sometimes. I don't know what the sources exactly say here, but if the sources refer to this as a decisive battle, going with the sources is more significant than a minor point of some suggested project MOS. Hog Farm Talk 12:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What the sources say:
 * Bagnall, p. 96 "the Carthaginian defeat was decisive".
 * Goldsworthy, p. 125 "the battle of the Aegates Islands decided the war".
 * Lazenby, p. 156 "it was one of the decisive moments in history" p. xvii "wins decisive battle off Aegates Islands on 10 March".
 * Miles, p. 196 "The disaster broke the Carthaginians' resolve, and they sued for peace."
 * Hoyos p. 106 "the decisive battle off the Aegates Islands".
 * Need I go on? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So this battle is clearly stated to be decisive by the sources, and to frequently be considered decisive. While the MOS has value, it shouldn't be followed so pedantically to make it overrule the consensus of high-quality RS, so I think the descriptor of "decisive" should be included. Hog Farm Talk 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * True. The root of the problem is the wording at MOS and the template guideline, which seems to imply an innuendo against decisive. We need some sort of definitive RfC at some formal place related to them, the wording of those guidelines need to be corrected (all discussions are stalemates till now though). Till then, the problem of overzealous editors going on crusades against any mention of decisive in infoboxes will persist. 49.205.115.179 (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Setting aside the guideline for the moment, "Decisive victory|decisive battle" has a particular scholarly meaning and is an exceptional claim. It may indeed be the case that there exists a consensus in scholarly sources that it was a decisive victory.  The problem is that this is not supported by what has been written in the body of the article. I wouldn't have joined this conversation if it were otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Looking more closely at the second paragraph of the aftermath section ... It commences: After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet, Catulus continued the land operations in Sicily against Lilybaeum, Eryx and Drepana; which continued to be defended by Hamilcar Barca and his army. That the war on land continued after the "decisive victory over the Cathaginian fleet" seems a contradiction.  Most of the rest of the paragraph then elaborates the reasons (though not the criteria) by which scholars might have argued and conclude that the battle "decided the war|was decisive".  The victory|battle was not decisive at the time it occurred. It did not end the war there and then. It came to be viewed (in sources) as such because of what subsequently happened.  Consequently, I think that this paragraph (IMHO) puts the cart before the horse but could be easily (and minimally) be rearranged to explain and why there is a consensus in the sources that it was a decisive battle.  That Hamilcar delegated negotiations to Gisco (because he didn't want to get nailed up) and the terms of the treaty are secondary to why the battle was decisive. Overall, any change making clear why the victory  decided the war would be minimal.  Further, the article would benefit by doing so. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Cinderella157, I can see what you mean. Would you feel it was clearer if the start of opening sentence of the Aftermath was changed from "After achieving this decisive victory over the Carthaginian fleet" to 'After the battle'; and a sentence was added to the start of the next paragraph along the lines of 'The battle is considered by modern historians to be the decisive battle of the First Punic War and by some to be a decisive point in the rise of Rome', referencing this to the sources given above?

 * Hi Gog, in general terms, that sounds about right. Historians have formed the opinion that the battle was a decisive battle because of the events that followed, leading to and including the treaty.  I presume that this is consistently the argument being made.  It would be good if the article could somehow make explicit the basis of their reasoning - eg something like: "Consequently the battle is considered...".  Yes, I would use the five sources to support the claim of "modern historians [plural]" and all of those sources that are part of the "by some" (ie separate citations for each claim). If you haven't done this before, you can use  eg  (see Template:Sfnm).  I tend to use sfnm if there are more than two citations being made. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

2021
https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/09/ancient-warship-rams-discovered-at-the-site-of-the-battle-of-the-egadi-islands/141290
 * Interesting. Anyone got this in a HQ RS? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Marine archaeology
The article needs clarification in the following terms. It currently says "eleven bronze warship rams have been found... Inscriptions allowed four of the rams to be identified as coming from Roman-built ships, one from a Carthaginian vessel, with the origins of the remaining two being unknown". If five have their origins identified, then there are 11-5=4, that is four, unidentified, not two. What is the truth of the matter? Deipnosophista (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They keep finding more rams. Updated with the latest information I have - 2020. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of the Aegates


text:
Wildspitze

Wildspitze is the highest mountain in the Ötztal Alps and in North Tyrol, as well as the second highest mountain in Austria after the Großglockner and in terms of prominence (2261 m) is the fourth summit of the Alps and the fifteenth of Europe.

Location
The Wildspitze is on a ridge called Weißkamm ("white ridge") that joins the main chain of the Alps at the Weißkugel. Its north and west flanks form the end of the Pitz valley, while the south and east flanks rise above the upper ends of the Ötztal. The mountain has twin peaks, with a rocky south summit (3768 m or by most other sources 3770 m ) and a firn-covered north summit at about 3760 m. The mountain is surrounded by glaciers on three sides, of which the Taschachferner (at 8 km2) is the largest. The 50° north face is popular with ice climbers.

The view from the peak is only limited by the curvature of the Earth. To the east one can see as far as the Großglockner and to the west as far as the Finsteraarhorn.

The nearest higher mountain is the Ortler, 48.5 km away in South Tyrol.

Early ascents
The first recorded attempt at the Wildspitze was made in 1847 by Hermann and Adolf Schlagintweit, who probably reached a point at 3,552 m on the north east ridge. The first successful ascent was in 1848 by Leander Klotz, a guide and farmer in the at the foot of the mountain (now part of Sölden), and another, unnamed local farmer. In August 1857, the brothers Nikodem, Leander and Hans Klotz guided, a merchant from Vienna, to the summit for the second ascent. The northern summit was somewhat higher, at the time measured to be 11,947 Viennese feet or 3,776 m, but the south summit was a better viewpoint and the first two parties had climbed it instead. On August 29, 1861, Nikodem and Leander Klotz guided Anthon von Ruthner and Friedrich R. von Enderes, both from Vienna, to the south summit again. During their hour-long stay on top, Leander traversed to the north peak, which subsequently was considered the first ascent of the main summit of the Wildspitze. However, by the end of the 20th century, snow melt had lowered the northern summit to about 3,765 m, rendering the south summit the highest point and 1848 the year of first ascent.

Routes
The most common route to the top is from the Breslauer Hut, which is approached from the village Vent (1900 m a.s.l.). Most climbers sleep at the hut or in a tent and continue to the summit the next day (about 4 hours from the Breslauerhütte).

An alternative route goes from the Braunschweiger Hut in the Pitztaler glacier area. From the hut the route crosses the glaciers to the Mittelbergjoch (see right image, close to the lower left corner), and then traverses a crevasse-filled area of the Taschachferner glacier to the summit of the Wildspitze. The average time used for this tour is 6.5 hours.

Climate
Wildspitze has a tundra climate (Köppen ET).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wildspitze


text:
Tupolev Tu-204

The Tupolev Tu-204 (Туполев Ту-204) is a twin-engined medium-range narrow-body jet airliner capable of carrying 210 passengers, designed by Tupolev and produced by Aviastar-SP and Kazan Aircraft Production Association. First introduced in 1989, it was intended to be broadly equivalent to the Boeing 757, with slightly lower range and payload, and had competitive performance and fuel efficiency in its class. It was developed for Aeroflot as a replacement for the medium-range Tupolev Tu-154 trijet. The latest version, with significant upgrades and improvements, is the Tu-204SM, which made its maiden flight on 29 December 2010. In April 2022, United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) announced plans to assemble 70 Tu-214s by 2030.

Design and development
The Tu-204 was designed as a family of aircraft incorporating passenger, cargo, combi and quick-change variants. It is powered by either two Aviadvigatel PS-90 or Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The Tu-204 is produced at two of the largest Russian aircraft manufacturing plants in Ulyanovsk (Tu-204 series) and Kazan (Tu-214).

The Tu-204 cabin is available in several layouts, including the baseline single-class layout seating for 210 passengers and a two- or three-class layout designed for 164–193 passengers. A cargo version of the Tu-204 is being successfully operated by several airlines in Europe and Egypt.

Seating configuration is 3–3 in economy and 2–2 in Business class. The business class cabin has a seat pitch of 810 mm. The passenger cabin can be divided into compartments according to class with removable bulkheads and curtains. Compartments are illuminated by reflected light. Overhead bins for passenger baggage and coats are of the closed type. The volume of baggage per passenger is 0.052 m3.

In 1994, the first certificate for Tu-204 aircraft (with PS-90A engines) was issued. Subsequently, issued certificates have extended estimated operational conditions. The Tu-204-120 variant, certified with Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 engines, complies with noise regulations described in Chapter 3 of Supplement 16 to ICAO, hence meeting all current European and ICAO requirements. The Tu-204-100 variant, certified with PS-90A engines, complies with noise regulations described in Chapter 4 of Supplement 16 to ICAO which means it is quieter. The aircraft was certified to Russian standards AP-25 (harmonized with FAR-25 and JAR-25).

Technology
The Tu-204 is part of the same generation of Russian aircraft as the Ilyushin Il-96. The Tu-204 features technologies such as fly-by-wire control systems, a glass cockpit, supercritical wings with winglets, and is available with Russian or foreign avionics. The wings and tails are relatively resistant to ice build-up, and as such anti-icing systems are not equipped. Among today's airliners the Tu-204 is the only one which does not require wing anti-icing systems. During the test flight safety has been confirmed without the anti-icing system on the bearing surfaces and the aircraft obtained Russian and European certificates.

Tu-204/204C
The Tu-204 is the basic passenger airline model, and the Tu-204C is the basic freight or cargo model. The most-used models are the -100C and the -120C.

Tu-204-100/200

Certified in January 1995, this initial version is powered by Soloviev (now Aviadvigatel) PS90 turbofans with 157 kN (35,300 lbf) of thrust, and uses Russian avionics in addition to its Russian engines. The Tu-204-200 is a heavier version with extra fuel for more range. Only one was built by Aviastar-SP in Ulyanovsk but has not yet been delivered (RA-64036). Now this version is only produced by KAPO in Kazan, marketed under the designation Tu-214. The Tu-204-100C and Tu-204-200C are cargo versions of the −100 and −200 respectively, fitted with a forward main deck freight door. Currently, the Tu-204-100/200 is offered with the option of an up-rated Aviadvigatel PS90A2 turbofan, which promises 40% more service between overhauls.

The Tu-204-100's maximum take-off weight (MTOW) is 107.5 tonnes, and its range with 196 passengers in a two-class configuration is 6000 km.

Tu-204-120/220/120C/220C
To broaden product appeal, the Tu-204-120/220 offers non-Russian avionics and engines. It is powered by two Rolls-Royce RB211-535 engines, each with thrust of 192 kN (43,100 lbf). Egypt's Cairo Aviation became the debut operator in November 1998 when it took delivery of a Tu-204-120 and its cargo version the Tu-204-120C. The Tu-204-220 and Tu-204-220C cargo version, are a higher gross weight variants of the basic Tu-204-120.

The Tu-204-120 has a maximum takeoff weight of 103 metric tons and a range of 4600 km with 196 passengers in a two-class seating configuration.

Tu-204-300
A shortened, longer-range and more efficient derivative of the Tu-204, the Tu-204-300 is also known as Tu-234. About six meters (20 ft) shorter than the basic Tu-204, this variant is available in two versions: the longer-ranged, heavier version, powered by Aviadvigatel PS 90-A2 turbofans, has a maximum take-off weight of 107.5 metric tons and range (with 166 passengers) increased to 9300 km; and the lighter, shorter-ranged version, with a maximum take-off weight of 89 metric tons and range of 3500 km with 166 passengers. The former Russian airline Vladivostok Air was the debut customer. This airline's aircraft are in a two-class seating configuration, with a 142-passenger capacity. Average numbers of flight hours during each 24-hour period is 9.35 hours, for year 2009. It is also operated by Air Koryo which currently operates one Tu-204-100B and one Tu-204-300. The Тu-204s operate on the Pyongyang-Beijing, Bangkok, Vladivostok, Shenyang and Kuala Lumpur routes.

Tu-204-500
This is a version of the Tu-204-300 optimized for shorter routes, featuring smaller wings and an increased cruising speed (to Mach 0.84), which makes it a competitor to the Next Generation Boeing 737. It is ETOPS rated, and fitted with a Honeywell 331-200ER APU.

Tu-206
The Tu-206 is a company-funded concept aircraft that, if built, would be used as a testbed for alternative fuels, specifically liquefied natural gas.

Tu-204SM

The Tu-204SM, alternatively Tu-204CM, a medium-range airliner, is an upgraded version of the Tu-204-100/300. While the Tu-204SM will retain key design and aerodynamic features of the Tu-204-100/100E/100V series, there are numerous upgrades, largely aimed at meeting the current and near-future Russian and international standards, including those of ICAO and Eurocontrol.

The new cockpit features allow the Tu-204SM to be flown by a two-pilot crew (as compared with the three-pilot arrangement of the original Tu-204 series). These features include a new computer (VSUPT-85-2040), a new flight management system (ASO-204/FMS), wide LCD displays (KSEIS-204E), head-up displays (HUD), and an automated board system maintenance and diagnostic system. The electronic flight bag concept will be implemented and all controls and displays will be in English.

The Tu-204SM will be powered by two PS-90A2 engines. The latter is significantly improved over the original PS-90A power plants. and features a unified twin-spool turbofan with a high bypass ratio. The PS-90A2 is expected a life cycle cost saving of 35% over the original engine with a simultaneous increase in reliability in the 50 to 100% range. The PS-90A2 is designed to meet the Russian AP-33 aviation standard, which is harmonized with the US FAR Part 33 and the European JAR33.

There will also be a new APU (TA-18 APU-200) and upgraded fuel management, hydraulic and fire safety systems.

The updated passenger cabin accommodates a maximum of 210 passengers or 174 in a typical two-class layout. The upgrades include new larger storage bins, multicolored LED lighting, sound-absorbing structures and a modern in-flight entertainment system (IFE).

The price for one Tu-204SM is estimated at USD 40–47 million.

The first test flight of Tu-204SM was successfully carried out on 29 December 2010. First deliveries of Tu-204SM were originally planned for 2011. As of December 2019, no Tu-204SM aircraft have been delivered and the project likely will never see fruition.

Tu-204SM orders
Red Wings Airlines was the first airline to order the Tu-204SM. Ilyushin Finance Co. (IFC) said it would complete negotiations with Red Wings for 44 Tu-204SM aircraft in February, to sign a firm order in March 2011. Red Wings already operates a fleet of Tu-204-100 and Tu-204-100V jetliners, to which it added one airframe in 2010. Russia's largest aircraft lessor, Ilyushin Finance, has previously placed Tu-204-100 aircraft with Cubana, Air Koryo and Red Wings, and Tu-204-300s with Vladivostok Avia and Air Koryo. Faced with low production rates for the Tu-204 models, Tupolev asked component providers to lower their prices in order to cut the plane's overall price by 27–30%. These suppliers agreed, on condition that 44 more firm orders be secured for the Tu-204SM through 2016.

By January 2012 a firm order from Red Wings had not been signed, the stumbling blocks being requests for guarantees of the residual value of the airframes and after-sales support at a cost the same as an equivalent Airbus or Boeing model. It was subsequently announced that Red Wings had cut back its initial commitment from 44 to 15 Tu-204SMs due to delays to the flight-test programme and after the lessor Ilyushin Finance reportedly "lost interest".

A large order by Iran Air Tours is under threat because of sanctions against the Iranian economy, as the American company Pratt & Whitney has been involved in the development of the engine with the Perm Engine Company. Completing the sale by re-equipping the Tu-204SMs with the Tu-204's Russian-made PS-90A engines has been proposed.

At the Singapore Air Show in 2016 the Vice President of the Russian United Aircraft Corporation stated that every company that has ordered the Tu-204 has gone bankrupt so there were no outstanding orders for the Tu-204SM, and Tupolev has frozen development work on the aircraft and UAC would withdraw it from their list of aircraft prices as soon as the Irkut MC-21 comes to the market.

Tu-214
The Tu-214 is also a variation of the Tu-204 first flown on 21 March 1996. It is technically a Tu-204-200, one of the differences being that it is built by a different factory. Planes designated Tu-204 are produced in Ulyanovsk by Aviastar-SP; Tu-214 in Kazan by the Kazan Aircraft Production Association (KAPO). Both factories are independent from the Tupolev design bureau and have some control over the design of the variant they produce.

The main difference is a full-size main door at the left side of the fuselage just before the wing. The Tu-204 has two main doors and two emergency doors; the Tu-214 has three doors and one emergency door.

The Tu-214 is essentially a higher gross weight variant of the Tu-204, being fitted with extra fuel tanks and structural adjustments to deal with the heavier gross weight. For this reason, the Russian government prefers to use it as the platform upon which all further modifications for the 'Special Mission' variants will be based. Some of the special mission variants are claimed to be capable of a non-stop 10,000-kilometre flight range.

As of July 2018, a total of three Tupolev Tu-214 aircraft were in airline service with Rossiya.

In March 2022, CEO of Rostec Sergey Chemezov declared a possibility to relaunch big production of Tu-214 due to International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War. On 6 April 2022, Yuri Slusar announced the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) had already started production of 20 Tu-214s to replace Russia's fleet of Boeing and Airbus passenger aircraft.

On 16 August 2022, United Aircraft Corporation announced plans to increase Tupolev Tu-214 production to at least 10 to 12 aircraft per year, with the aim to produce 70 Tupolev Tu-214 by 2030. The first Tu-214 for commercial flights will appear in 2024.

Tu-214ON
The Tu-214ON is an observation version of the Tu-204-200, equipped for Treaty on Open Skies missions and built by Kazan Aircraft Production Association. Vega Radio Engineering Corporation was contracted for the development of airborne surveillance system, ground-based complex and other mission equipment for the aircraft. It is equipped with one A-84ON panoramic camera, one AK-111 topographic camera and two perspective AK-112 digital aerial cameras to capture high-resolution aerial photography. Two video cameras, a Raduga infrared thermographic camera and Ronsard Side looking airborne radar are also fitted.

The first Tu-214ON (RA-64519) was demonstrated at the MAKS-2011 international air show in Moscow. It performed its first test flight on 1 June 2011, which was followed by a series of 24 flights by December 2011. The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation conducted state tests to verify the air and ground equipment of the Tu-214ON aircraft in April 2013. The jet was delivered to the Russian Defence Ministry on 22 August 2013. The second airliner (RA-64525) made its first flight on 18 December 2013 and was delivered on 4 July 2014. The Tu-214ON is set to replace the Tupolev Tu-154 and Antonov An-30 aircraft in the role.

After Russia withdrew from the Treaty on Open Skies in 2021, the two Tu-214ON used for treaty observation missions have been used for military observation flights in Crimea.

Tu-214PU
Airborne command post version. Six operated for the Russian President.

Tu-214SR
Communications relay version. Five operated by Special Flight Unit Rossiya for the Russian government.

Tu-214SUS
Communications relay version for the Russian President. Two delivered.

Tu-214R
Special-mission versions of the Tu-214 commercial transport aircraft, developed under the codename 'Project 141', to replace the Il-20 Coot ELINT platform. The aircraft are configured to carry the MRC-411 multi-intelligence payload, to include electronic intelligence (ELINT) sensors, side-looking Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and other Signals Intelligence (SIGINT). In addition, the aircraft will carry multi-spectral electro-optical systems. The aircraft has conducted test flights over the Sea of Japan but the programme experienced problems in January 2013. (Jane's Defence Weekly 16 January 2013)

The Tu-214R made its public debut in August 2013 at Moscow Air Show MAKS and was heralded as a platform for conducting surveillance of the U.S., in accordance with the Treaty on Open Skies, to monitor compliance with the relevant treaties.

As of January 2015, two were conducting test flights with the Russian Air Force.

In February 2016, Russia was reported to have deployed one Tu-214R to its base in Latakia, Syria.

In July 2016, two flights have been reported to have been conducted near the Latvian, Estonian and Finnish borders, with the plane (registry reported as RA-64514) conducting close approaches a few dozen kilometers of the Finnish border on 5 and 7 July.

After Syria operation, the aircraft was declared combat-ready. One plane was reportedly used against Ukraine in 2022.

Tu-214PU-SBUS
Special-purpose aircraft-control point equipped with a special onboard communication unit SBUS-214 intended for the Ministry of Defence of Russia. The aircraft is built with Russian-made components only, meeting the requirements of the state customers, and has a range of at least 7200 km. The main purpose of the aircraft is to provide additional communication capabilities to the user. The Russian MoD placed an order for two aircraft in November 2015. The first aircraft was delivered in March 2018, the second in June the same year.

Tu-214LMK
A flying laboratory based on a serial Tu-214 passenger plane (registration number RA-64507) equipped with a multifunctional flight complex LMK-214. The aircraft is intended for in-flight testing of a new radar complex and other on-board aviation equipment for the modernized Tupolev Tu-160M2 and the future Tupolev PAK DA strategic bombers. It began flight testing on 29 December 2018.

Operators
As of July 2018, there are 14 aircraft in commercial service. Total users as of August 2019 include:

As is common with post-Soviet Russian aircraft, the Tupolev is a relatively rare aircraft, with only 86 examples being built as of December 2019. However, because of the 2022 sanctions, Russia aims to build at least 10 jets per year to replace its fleets.

Production by year
Sources: russianplanes.net, planespotters.net

Accidents and incidents

 * On 14 January 2002, Sibir Airlines Flight 852, a Tupolev Tu-204-100 (RA-64011), experienced a flameout of both engines, glided and overran the runway at Omsk Airport and sustained minor damage, but was repaired and returned to service.
 * On 22 March 2010, Aviastar-TU Flight 1906, the same aircraft involved in the Sibir Airlines Flight 852 incident, crash-landed short of the runway near Moscow Domodedovo Airport while attempting to land at night in fog and poor visibility. There were no fatalities, but four of the eight crew members were seriously injured. It was a repositioning flight with no passengers on board. In September 2010, the МАК released their final report into the accident. The cause of the accident was attributed to pilot error, with a number of factors contributing to the accident including inadequate crew training and lack of cockpit resource management, failure of autoflight systems and serious regulatory violations by Aviastar-TU. This accident was the first hull-loss of the Tu-204.
 * On 29 December 2012 at 16:35 local time (12:35 GMT), Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268, a Tupolev Tu-204-100В (RA-64047, c/n 1450743164047, s/n 047, built 2008) crashed on landing after overrunning runway 19 at Moscow Vnukovo International Airport (VKO) following a non-revenue repositioning flight originating from Pardubice Airport, Czech Republic. The aircraft broke up and came to a stop on elevated highway M3 about 400 m past the runway's end. There were eight crew members on board of whom five were killed and the other three seriously injured. Apart from those, one man driving his car on M3 highway was seriously injured when the detached Tu-204's nosewheel crashed into the side of the car; the driver behind him recorded the impact on camera. The fatal Vnukovo accident was the second runway overrun incident involving a Red Wings operated Tu-204-100B in nine days following a Moscow Vnukovo to Novosibirsk flight on 20 December 2012 that overran runway 25 at Tolmachevo Airport by 1150 ft into an open field. Flight data recorder readouts indicate that brake failure as well as engine thrust reverser issues were major contributing causes in both overruns resulting in the issuance of additional airworthiness directives.    This accident remains the sole fatal accident involving the Tu-204.
 * On 24 August 2016, Aviastar-TU Flight 9625, a Tu-204S (RA-64021), was written off after landing hard at Norilsk Airport when it bounced on landing; when the aircraft taxied to its parking position, severe damage was found on the rear spar of the wing.
 * On 22 August 2018, one of the Aviadvigatel PS-90 engines on Red Wings Flight 808, a Tu-204-100 (RA-64050), from Ufa to Sochi experienced an engine surge during takeoff from Ufa International Airport and subsequently caught fire. The crew did not receive any fire indications, the automatic fire suppression system did not work, and the manual fire suppression failed to fully extinguish the flames. Emergency services put out the fire after landing while the passengers were evacuated through the right hand (emergency) doors via slides. There were no injuries. A Rosaviatsia (Russia's Civil Aviation Authority) commission was set up to investigate the occurrence.
 * On 8 January 2022, Aviastar-TU Flight 6534, a Tu-204-100C (RA-64032) operating for Cainiao, burned out following a cargo fire during pushback at Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport. The aircraft was due to begin a cargo service from Hangzhou to Novosibirsk.

title: Tupolev Tu-204


text:
Garden sunbird

The garden sunbird (Cinnyris jugularis), previously known as the olive-backed sunbird, is a species of passerine bird in the family Nectariniidae that is found in the Philippines except on the Palawan island group. It was formerly considered to be conspecific with seven other species: the ornate sunbird, Palawan sunbird, Sahul sunbird, Tukangbesi sunbird, Flores Sea sunbird, South Moluccan sunbird and the Mamberamo sunbird. It is a small, brightly coloured bird with olive-green plumage on the wings and back with a bright yellow chest. It has a long downward-curved bill it uses for taking nectar and capturing insects. It is primarily nectarivorous, but will take insects and spiders, particularly when feeding chicks.

Taxonomy
In 1760 the French zoologist Mathurin Jacques Brisson included a description of the olive-backed sunbird in his Ornithologie based on a specimen collected in the Philippines. He used the French name Le petit grimpereau des Philippines and the Latin Certhia Philippensis Minor. Although Brisson coined Latin names, these do not conform to the binomial system and are not recognised by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. When in 1766 the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus updated his Systema Naturae for the twelfth edition, he added 240 species that had been previously described by Brisson. One of these was the olive-backed sunbird. Linnaeus included a brief description, coined the binomial name Certhia jugularis and cited Brisson's work. The specific name jugularis is Medieval Latin for 'of the throat'. This species is now placed in the genus Cinnyris that was introduced by the French naturalist Georges Cuvier in 1816.

The garden sunbird (under the name olive-backed sunbird) formerly included 21 subspecies and had a range that extended from Southeast Asia to Australia. Based on the difference in the male plumage and a genetic study comparing mitochondrial DNA sequences of some of the subspecies, the olive-backed sunbird was split into eight species. The seven new species are: ornate sunbird (Cinnyris ornatus), Palawan sunbird (Cinnyris aurora), Sahul sunbird (Cinnyris frenatus), Tukangbesi sunbird (Cinnyris infrenatus), Flores Sea sunbird (Cinnyris teysmanni), South Moluccan sunbird (Cinnyris clementiae) and Mamberamo sunbird (Cinnyris idenburgi).

Three subspecies are now recognised:
 * C. j. obscurior Ogilvie-Grant, 1894 – north Luzon and Babuyan Islands (north Philippines)
 * C. j. jugularis (Linnaeus, 1766) – central, south Luzon group, Mindoro, Visayas and Mindanao group (north to south Philippines)
 * C. j. woodi (Mearns, 1909) – Sulu Archipelago (south Philippines)

Description
They are small songbirds, 10 –; male 6.7 –, female 6 –. The male in its nominate (jugularis) form displays an olive hue on its upper body, featuring black wing feathers with green edges and a black tail adorned with white tips. The areas around its eyes (lores), neck, chin, throat, and breast are dark and iridescent, accompanied by yellow pectoral tufts. The lower portion of the bird is dark yellow, sometimes with a brown band encircling the gorget area. The iris is dark brown, while its bill and legs are black. Non-breeding males often have the glossy black coloration limited to the central throat stripe, which may represent juvenile birds transitioning to their adult plumage.

In contrast, the female exhibits an upper body of greenish olive, featuring a pale-yellowish stripe above the eyes, yellowish borders on its wing feathers, a tail with black and white markings, and a deep yellow color on the lower portion of its body, slightly lighter on the undertail feathers. Juvenile birds resemble the female but tend to be paler and browner in appearance.

Distribution and habitat
The olive-backed sunbird is endemic to the Philippines where it is found throughout the country except Palawan. Subspecies obscurior is found in Northern Philippines (northern Luzon) while woodi is found in Sulu Archipelago, Southern Philippines. The nominate subspecies is found in the rest of the range of the bird. Originally from mangrove habitat, the olive-backed sunbird has adapted well to humans, and is now common even in fairly densely populated areas, even forming their nests in human dwellings.

Breeding
Documented laying in May and June. Nest is built entirely by the female. The nest takes the form of a hanging oval pouch with a sheltered side opening, often featuring a dangling "beard." It is skillfully crafted using materials such as grass, cotton, moss, lichens, leaf fragments, vegetable fibers, and spider webs, lined with bark or feathers.

Feeding
The sunbirds are a group of very small Old World passerine birds which feed largely on nectar, although they will also take insects, especially when feeding young. Their flight is fast and direct on their short wings. Most species can take nectar by hovering, but usually perch to feed most of the time.

title: Garden sunbird