Talk:Jump Jet

This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleTech technology and equipment. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Technology team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

Cleanup and merge[edit]

I just noticed this page is in dire need of cleanup. Most of the page consists of model names provided as fluff in the TROs and their accompanying references. i was wondering if I should just get rid of that list and leave the page as a description of jump jets, possibly with info about the game rules. Additionally, improved jump jets is a stub. I was wondering if it is al right if I add them to this page as a category and turn the old page into a redirect. BirdofPrey 00:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave the model list. You'll see that on every weapon and for plenty of equipment. I would also not merge IJJ here because that is a separate piece of equipment. I think these two articles treat JJs and IJJs as equipment mounted on 'Mechs, but this article fails to adequately address the concept of a jump jet; that is, a technology that enables 'Mechs to jump. Am I on the right track? --Scaletail 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
At the very least the references list needs to be condensed. There's only a few books, but they are listed dozens of times. I may need help on that front, since I am not that familiar with references. I'll drop another note if I can't figure it out. I was going to rewrite this with the mechanics behind jumps jets followed by an equipment section talking about jump jets as a piece of equipment (tonnage based on mech weight, 30 meter jump capacity per jet) for mechs as well as details of protomech and battle armor jets then a mention of the Kanga jump tank and vehicular jump jets. I figured if I were including standard jump jets in an equipment section, I might as well include improved jump jets. If they need their own page I can just write that improved jump jets allow a mech to jump further at the cost of using more mass and space and then link IJJs.BirdofPrey 01:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference list is broken down by page number so no way to really condense that as each page number is a separate reference, however I'm of the opinion that while we need to model list, we do not need the used by list below it. Its been added haphazardly at best, has multiple instances of the same model getting separate entires and doesn't even link out to the units in question. Cyc 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be a case where sub-pages would be warranted? Jump Jet/Types or something like? Alternatively is there any way to put a table in a scrollbox?-- LRichardson 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just finished a rewrite of the page. I am going to keep the lists of manufacturers and models till a cleanup can be finished. I think LRichardson's idea of giving each brand of jump jet is a good way to go. once all the pages are made and filled out we can stick them all in a category and link to it from here. I would like someone to proofread the page since I probably missed something. BirdofPrey 07:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced sub-pages are the right way to go. I don't have a cogent argument against it (yet), but I'm of the mind that we don't want to re-invent the wheel. Wikipedia doesn't use sub-pages and while I'm not sure why (I'll look into it), I imagine naming structures are harder to herd into conformity and it takes the articles off the mainspaces (which affects searches, right?). As for scrollbox, I'll look into that, as well. My first concern would be if the width parameters would be affected, but for this article, it seems not likely to be a problem.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's properly linked to, I don't see why it would matter if a page is a sub page or not. I think LRichardson's idea is pretty good: Condense the list on the main page down to just the brand names (chilton, rawlings, pitban, etc) and make separate pages for each of those brands that list each model and move the specific details to there. Most of the items in the list are repeats of one item for a different planet, or unit that fits it. If the Chilton page is anything to go by, that format looks much cleaner, and reducing the size of the list to a couple dozen items would certainly also make the main page cleaner. It makes sense to me for the equipment brands to be sub pages for organizational purposes, but I don't mind either way if the manufacturer pages are sub pages or separate entities as long as they help clean things up. Whatever we decide upon here, we should also look at doing to the other pages with the same problem such as the fusion engine pages. On a side note, if you want to check how sub pages affect things, you might want to note that the pages for the standard autocannons (eg. Autocannon/5) seem to be sub pages of Autocannon.--BirdofPrey 14:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Autocannon/5 doesn't show on the pre-search dropdown, but the others do. It does show in a general search and is found just fine, when types into the search box as titled. Still withholding judgment, just yet. I'll research sub-pages more, but I'm still doing my Recent Changes patrolling, at the moment.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a section for brands. In order to facilitate cleanup, I recommend a link is added to the brands section when a brand page is started and all the listings in the manufacturing sections of that brand are removed when the brand page is finished. Hopefully by the end of this, the only models listed here are one-offs.--BirdofPrey 15:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
BirdofPrey, I've decided I just don't see what sub-pages bring to mainspace articles. Instead, there are a lot of downsides to their use. I've written an essay, to save research on this in the future, but feel free to respond here, if this is something you want to pursue in order to get consensus.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see other weigh in on this subject. We can't be the only people with opinions. Anyways. Normally I would agree with you about sub pages for notable things, going by your example, Thomas Marik would be it's own page rather than a sub page of House Marik, but keep in mind what we are doing here. The reason we are splitting off jump jet brands is because the current article format isn't conducive to the data, and because it isn't conducive to the data, we have a section on the Jump Jet page that is way too large. The information hasn't changed, and nothing has been added; it's merely been shuffled around so everything looks cleaner and is more usable. I just don't see a bunch of tables and lists as something very notable on its own, rather it exists as a subset of the information about jump jets. What I am suggesting is sub pages as substitute for large subsections. Basically we use Jump Jet/Chilton in order to keep relevant data together but don't have the page length end up padded out by Jump Jet#Chilton. To use the Marik example, the Marik family tree would likely work better as a sub page of House Marik than as a page of its own. I don't see categorization as a problem because right now the pages for jump jet brands have the same categories (though I am not convinced each brand of jump jet needs a listing in the technology category; I'd rather have a separate "equipment brands" category; if a page does end up with enough information to warrant being included in a bunch of categories in addition to those on the main page then it shouldn't be a sub page. As for pages of the same name, I was originally going to make a list of all the brands on the jump jets page so people can fill out the redlinks, but ran into the problem of a couple of them not being red because they share a name with something else, so they'd need a different name anyways making the no 2 pages with the same name a moot point. Jump jet/Luxor and Luxor (Jump Jets) are functionally similar. There's also the small matter of if we do a cleanup like this on other pages how do we treat them? There's a bunch of motors branded GM; GM is a redirect page; do we ant to alter that to be a brand page like Chilton that lists what models are made where and fitted to what, do we want to put that data on the General Motors page which already has extensive listings of its own or would it make more sense to give it its own page (in which case we come back to the previous point)? I do concede that sub pages can have an effort on naming structure, but I would put forth that having jump jets in the name of the page for a brand of jump jets can be n important piece of information; as for how it relates to linking, I don't buy the 'it makes it harder or more time consuming' argument, if the data were on the jump jets page, it would be better to link to the section from other pages (eg. Jump Jet#Chilton) anyways for benefit of the reader so using a slash instead of a hash doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Once again I have to point out the flaw of making your example be something notable; As with Thomas Marik something like medium laser has enough paragraphical information about it to warrant it's own page, Chilton 360 jump jets is a mere side note in the info box of the Stinger for fluff purposes and the Chilton page serves to centralize that information where it was previously centralized on and caused problems in the Jump Jet page.--BirdofPrey 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
BoP: Basically we use Jump Jet/Chilton in order to keep relevant data together but don't have the page length end up padded out by Jump Jet#Chilton.
Okay, I can see this problem you're explaining. Instead of padding the page with all the models Chilton manufactured (i.e., Jump Jet#Chilton), why not have a list of jump jet manufacturers, linked to their pages. On the manufacturer's page, you list all their products, divided into sections based on equipment type (ex: chassis, engines, weaponry, jump jets, etc.) In fact, the Jump Jet article's link to the manufacturers would be best directly to that specific section (i.e. Chilton#Jump Jets).
BoP: I don't see categorization as a problem because right now the pages for jump jet brands have the same categories (though I am not convinced each brand of jump jet needs a listing in the technology category; I'd rather have a separate "equipment brands" category; if a page does end up with enough information to warrant being included in a bunch of categories in addition to those on the main page then it shouldn't be a sub page.
Sure, I agree that each jump jet brand doesn't warrant inclusion into the Technology category. Instead, each manufacturer that produces jump jets would be included in the Jump Jets category (or Jump Jet Manufacturers category, might be better). That category would then be a child category to the Equipment category, which would then be a child to Technology? The 'tech tree' grows, as the reader wants more specifics.
BoP: As for pages of the same name, I was originally going to make a list of all the brands on the jump jets page so people can fill out the redlinks, but ran into the problem of a couple of them not being red because they share a name with something else, so they'd need a different name anyways making the no 2 pages with the same name a moot point. Jump jet/Luxor and Luxor (Jump Jets) are functionally similar.
This is where the manufacturer would be the best recipient of the models of jump jets. That way, you don't need to worry about multiple uses of the same name for different articles.
BoP: There's a bunch of motors branded GM; GM is a redirect page; do we ant to alter that to be a brand page like Chilton that lists what models are made where and fitted to what, do we want to put that data on the General Motors page which already has extensive listings of its own or would it make more sense to give it its own page (in which case we come back to the previous point)?
Not all manufacturer pages have to be handled the same. Small companies like S. L. Lewis Incorporated can easily list all (currently) 6 products listed on their company page. But large companies, such as GM, could very well rate separate articles on just what they produce. For example, on Wikipedia, the article for w:World War II, there are many "main" articles that expand on the subject of WWII, that could not be logically covered by the 'parent' article. However, the w:Invasion of Grenada article is summed up quite nicely on one page. For the GM article, all it would take would be a statement along the lines of "See Also: Products of GM by Type" or something more reasonable.
BoP: as for how it relates to linking, I don't buy the 'it makes it harder or more time consuming' argument, if the data were on the jump jets page, it would be better to link to the section from other pages (eg. Jump Jet#Chilton) anyways for benefit of the reader so using a slash instead of a hash doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Once again I have to point out the flaw of making your example be something notable; As with Thomas Marik something like medium laser has enough paragraphical information about it to warrant it's own page, Chilton 360 jump jets is a mere side note in the info box of the Stinger for fluff purposes and the Chilton page serves to centralize that information where it was previously centralized on and caused problems in the Jump Jet page.
Those examples were just that and brainstormed from the first subject to pop in my head. They were not suggestions or problems actually experienced, and were not meant to represent scale, just procedures. The slash, however, does show up in the title of an article, while the hash does not. I'm not as concerned about the code (except for easy linking), as I am making the naming structure consistent.
As you said, though, this should not be determined just by the two of us. If you prefer, I can start a policy discussion page regarding naming conventions, allowing you to make your case for the use of sub-pages for mainspace articles (vice only for users). Let me know.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
First off, some brands seem to be made by multiple manufacturers and some manufacturers seem to manufacture under multiple brands, so it's probably a better idea to have a separate page than to link to the manufacturer pages. Also manufacturer pages are already separated into sections by factory, further subdivision by what an item is would just add clutter; sorting the tables by that criteria might not be a bad idea though. As for categories, I was thinking to make a new category for technology brands; I'd have to see the category filled out before I can say with certainty if it needs further subdivision, but my initial assessment is 'no' I'm not really sure how sub pages makes the naming structure inconsistent, you'll have to expand on what you mean by that. Also note that what I am describing, sub pages don't exist as entities of their own, rather I am treating them as a piece of the parent page in a similar fashion to sections, the information is in a different spot, but it is still part of the main page's topic.
Really I think it depends on how we are categorizing the data; are we treating these as listings of jump jets as they have been up till now where a sub page would serve to keep it a part of the Jump Jet page, or do we want to make brand pages exist separately that list everything under a brand (ie. do we want a listing of Jump jets under the pitban name and later when the Fusion engine article is cleaned up have a separate listing of engines made under the Pitban name, or do we want the Pitban page to be everything made under that brand with separate sections for each type of equipment manufactured under that name). If the latter is decided we can't use sub pages anyways. I'm leaning toward the latter even if you haven't convinced me why sub pages are bad.--BirdofPrey 21:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll cease trying to convert you to sub-page opposition; we have our opinions on that and at this point, sub-pages aren't used on BTW (when branched off the mainspaces). In order to do so, it needs to be brought up for a consensus decision before they can be employed (such it is a major procedure change for the project).
Procedures for this particular project (in regards to listinign JJs or brand pages) I think needs to be decided amongst your involved corps here, as on the surface it wouldn't warrant a broad 'overflight' by myself, since I'm not directly involved. Actually, my suggestion: LRichardson, Doneve and you should come up with a consensus as to how it should best be done and then float it up past some of the more experienced members, to see if it would work (or if they can spot any issues). Good luck!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Gah! I turn around for a few hours and look what pops up... So, doing brand pages like Chilton is how we are going on this one? -- LRichardson 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep doing what you're doing. I am working on getting a project for equipment and technology set up. If you and Doneve are agreed, I suggest we use what we are doing here (seperating manufacturing data into individual pages for each brand) as the new format for the other pages. I am thinking the brand pages should list everything made under that brand name (for instance both jump jets and fusion engines are manufactured under the Pitban brand, so have both on the pitban page and separate it into engine and jump jet sections). If that is how we want to do things I'll list it on the project page.--BirdofPrey 22:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, the multiple component type occurred to me too. That is why I went ahead and made Chilton its own page rather than simply a sub page of Jump Jets. -- LRichardson 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a naming convention on BTW that articles have a title that is a simple noun. If disambiguation is needed, a parenthesis is used to do so (as in the case of Atlas (BattleMech) and Atlas (planet)). Another example would be the use of History of the Draconis Combine instead of Draconis Combine/History. It is simply a convention that we do not, just like on Wikipedia. --Scaletail 00:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
[sigh] Scrollbox didn't work, and I don't know why.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hy guys, i stard a reference cleanup, and delete the Chilton jump jets from the page, and leave a link in the manufacturer section to the Chilton page, i hope it is ok.--Doneve 15:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
My cleanup is in work, need fluff writers LRichardson know what i mean ;).--Doneve 21:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Vehicular Jump jets[edit]

As a construction option, I was planning on adding Vehicular jump jets to this page in lieu of making a new page since they follow most of the rules of battlemech jump jets. I was wondering if mentioning the new Hephaestus variant in TRO:Prototypes is a moratorium violation (I wasn't planning on editing the Hephaestus page until TRO:Prototypes leaves the moratorium period. I was just thinking of mentioning the new variant along with the Kanga) BirdofPrey 00:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you would need to cite a source that is under moratorium, then it is a violation of that policy, unless it falls under one of the exceptions. --Scaletail 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I Am Jade Falcon Maneuver[edit]

One of the maneuvers you can perform with jump jets is called the "I Am Jade Falcon" Maneuver. I am quite certain this is in reference to an event in a battletech novel, and it certainly sounds familiar, but as I haven't read many BT novels, I have no clue what this is a specific reference. If anyone knows the incident that name refers to, please feel free to note it as the inspiration for the attack name in the appropriate spot. If I am going out of my mind, tell me that as well--BirdofPrey 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Content parked for a while[edit]

| "Highlifter" 44 [1]||RIFLEMAN IIC 3 IS (Mech) |- | 100AFVTA [2]||ASN -23 ASSASSIN (Mech) IS |- | 100AFVTA [3]||STH-1D STEALTH IS (Mech) |- | 4 MicroTan Streaks [4]||Clan Erinyes (ProtoMech) |- | 4 Model KT Boosters [5]||CORVIS Clan (Mech) |- | 5 Standard Jump Jets [6]||SA-OS2 ONSLAUGHT IS (Mech) |- | 6 Luxor Load Lifters [7]||FS9-O FIRESTARTER IS (Mech) |- | 7 Clan Standard 14X Series Standard [8]||GRENDEL Clan (Mech) |- | Allied AVRtech Model A [9]||PHX-HK1 Phoenix Hawk LAM MK I IS (Mech) |- | Allied lifter B-Series [10]||SHD-X2 Shadow Hawk LAM IS (Mech) |- | Andoran Model JJII [11]||CLINT IIC Clan (Mech) |- | Andoran Model JJII [12]||CLNT-2-3T CLINT IS (Mech) |- | Andoran Model JJII [13]||clnt-2-3u Clint (Mech) IS |- | Audi-Fokker Mark IV [14]||LGb-12r Longbow IS (Mech) |- | Audi-Fokker Mark IV [15]||TNS-4S THANATOS IS (Mech) |- | Chevron I [16]||TSG-9H TI TS'ANG IS (Mech) |- | Chevron I [17]||TSG-9C TI TS’ANG IS (Mech) |- | Chevron II [18]||eXt-4d Exterminator (Mech) IS |- | Contraband [19]||IDT-1 BRIGAND IS (Mech) |- | Devil A7 [20]||FLC-8R FALCONER IS (Mech) |- | Foster Ocelot Mrk. VIII [21]||HANKYU Clan (Mech) |- | GE-2200 [22]||IS gld-4r Gladiator (Mech) |- | Gerard Special A [23]||IS pX-3r Phoenix (Mech) |- | GM Ato 100 [24]||STG-a1 Stinger LAM MK I IS (Mech) |- | Guld Mk. Ill [25]||MARAUDER IIC 2 IS (Mech) |- | Hellespont Leapers [26]||WSP-3L WASP IS (Mech) |- | Hellespont leapers [27]||WsP-8t Wasp IS (Mech) |- | Hellespont Leapers [28]||JN-G8A JINGGAU IS (Mech) |- | Hellespont Leapers [29]||Wasp WSP-7MAF IS (Mech) |- | Icarus 81 [30]||IS icr-1s Icarus ii (Mech) |- | Icarus 81 [31]||WTC-4M WATCHMAN IS (Mech) |- | Icarus Standard [32]||BJ2-O BLACKJACK IS (Mech) |- | Icarus Standard [33]||BHKU-O BLACK HAWK-KU IS (Mech) |- | JF Improved Jump Jets [34]||Onager Clan (Mech) |- | JF Standard [35]||Thor (Mech) Clan |- | JF Standard [36]||NIGHT GYR Clan (Mech) |- | Leaper Model L5 Improved [37]||PACK HUNTER 4 Clan (Mech) |- | Leaper Model L6 [38]||Clan Ocelot (Mech) |- | Leaper Model, L5 [39]||PACK HUNTER Clan (Mech) |- | Leaper Model, l5 [40]||Pack Hunter ii clan (Mech) |- | Leaper Model, l5 meters [41]||Ursus ii Clan (Mech) |- | Leviathan Lifters [42]||Ghr-5J Grasshopper (Mech) IS |- | Leviathon Lifters [43]||GHR-5H GRASSHOPPER IS (Mech) |- | Lox Lift Series 1 [44]||ASN-21 ASSASSIN IS (Mech) |- | McCloud Special [45]||enf-5d Enforcer (Mech) IS |- | McCloud Specials [46]||ENF-4R ENFORCER IS (Mech) |- | McCloud Specials [47]||CLN-7V CHAMELEON IS (Mech) |- | McCloud Specials [48]||ENF-6M ENFORCER III IS (Mech) |- | McCloud Specials [49]||ENF-6NAIS ENFORCER III IS (Mech) |- | McCloud Specials (Reinforced) [50]||RFL-8D RIFLEMAN IS (Mech) |- | McCloud Specials (Reinforced) [51]||rfl-7X Rifleman IS (Mech) |- | Mitchell JB Thrust Bottles [52]||Kanga (Vehicle) IS |- | Model 9 Pitban [53]||VL-2T VULCAN IS (Mech) |- | Model Kt Boosters [54]||Parash clan (Mech) |- | Model KT Boosters [55]||CORVIS 2 Clan (Mech) |- | Model KY Boosters [56]||SHADOW CAT Clan (Mech) |- | Nike Doublejet 9s [57]||IS eyk-45a Eyleuka (Mech) |- | Nike Doublejet 9s [58]||Pen-2H Penthesilea IS (Mech) |- | Norse Industries 3S [59]||VLK-QA VALKYRIE IS (Mech) |- | Odin Type II [60]||BEO-12 BEOWULF IS (Mech) |- | Odin Type II [61]||BEO-14 BEOWULF IS (Mech) |- | Odin’s Own Model 34z [62]||STY-3C STARSLAYER IS (Mech) |- | Ostmann Sct-A [63]||OTT-7J OSTSCOUT IS (Mech) |- | Panpour Specials [64]||IS jaw-66b Jabberwocky EngineerMech (IndustrialMech) |- | Phoenix tail Improved Jumpers [65]||Mad-9W2 Marauder IS (Mech) |- | Prentiss-IIIA [66]||HIGHLANDER IIC 2 Clan (Mech) |- | PRS-60 [67]||FLC-4N FALCON IS (Mech) |- | PRS-60 [68]||flc-4p Falcon (Mech) IS |- | Pryzhok jump jets [69]||VIPER 3 Clan (Mech) |- | Pryzhok WM 10 [70]||MATADOR Clan (Mech) |- | Pryzhok WM 10 [71]||MATADOR 2 Clan (Mech) |- | Pryzhok WM 10 [72]||Gladiator (Mech) Clan |- | Pryzhok WM 5 [73]||GOSHAWK 3 Clan (Mech) |- | Pryzhok WM15 [74]||SCYLLA Clan (Mech) |- | Rodan-90 [75]||Y-H11G YU HUANG IS (Mech) |- | Rodan-90s [76]||Y-H9G YU HUANG IS (Mech) |- | Series-15 Improved [77]||CLINT IIC 2 Clan (Mech) |- | SL-150 Mod V [78]||WYVERN IIC 2 IS (Mech) |- | SL-150 Mod. V [79]|| Clan (Mech) |- | Smithson Lifters [80]||JR7-D JENNER IS (Mech) |- | SR Starlifter 45 [81]||Goshawk ii Clan (Mech) |- | Swingline X-100 [82]||DV-6M DERVISH IS (Mech) |- | Swingline X-1000 [83]||dV-7d Dervish (Mech) IS |- | Swingline X-1200 [84]||HEL-3D HELIOS IS (Mech) |- | Swingline X-1200 [85]||HEL-6X HELIOS IS (Mech) |- | trellshire long lifters [86]||Rifleman iic 8 Clan (Mech) |- | Trellshire Long Lifters [87]||Rifleman IIC 5 IS (Mech) |- | Trellshire Long Lifters [88]||Phoenix Hawk IIC 6 IS (Mech) |- | Trellshire long lifters Improved Jump Jets [89]||Phoenix Hawk IIC 7 Clan (Mech) |- | Type C Medium Lifters [90]||MANDRILL Clan (Mech) |- | Uplift 12 [91]||FIRE SCORPION 3 Clan (Mech) |- | Vicore Thrust-Masters Model L [92]||VLK-QD I VALKYRIE IS (Mech) |- | Vicore Thrust-Masters Model L [93]||Valkyrie VLK-QD2 IS (Mech) |- | Waterly Heavy lifters [94]||Glt-7-0 Gallant IS (Mech) |- | Waterly Heavy Lifters [95]||BCN-4W BUCCANEER IS (Mech) |- | Waterly Heavy lifters Improved Jump Jets [96]||WHM-11t Warhammer IS (Mech) |- | Whitworth Jetlift [97]||WTH-1 WHITWORTH IS (Mech) |- | Whitworth Jetlift [98]||BJ-1 BLACKJACK IS (Mech) |- | Whitworth Jetlift [99]||Wht-2 WhitWorth (Mech) IS |-

| Whitworth Jetlift [100]||bJ-2 Blackjack (Mech) IS
  1. TRO Phoenix p. 66
  2. TRO 3050U p. 34
  3. TRO 3055U p. 36
  4. TRO 3075 p. 150
  5. TRO 3060 p. 152
  6. TRO 3055U p. 164
  7. TRO 3058U p. 128
  8. TRO 3058U p. 168
  9. 3085 p. 300
  10. 3085 p. 290
  11. TRO 3060 p. 150
  12. 3039 p. 120
  13. TRO 3050U p. 38
  14. 3085 p. 266
  15. TRO 3067 p. 90
  16. TRO 3060 p. 106
  17. Milspecs
  18. TRO 3050U p. 208
  19. TRO 3067 p. 46
  20. TRO 3055U p. 62
  21. TRO 3058U p. 164
  22. TRO 3075 p. 206
  23. TRO 3075 p. 298
  24. 3085 p. 292
  25. TRO Phoenix p. 72
  26. TRO Phoenix p. 18
  27. 3085 p. 230
  28. TRO 3060 p. 112
  29. Milspecs
  30. TRO 3075 p. 260
  31. TRO 3055U p. 32
  32. TRO 3058U p. 130
  33. TRO 3058U p. 140
  34. 3085 p. 176
  35. TRO 3050U p. 134
  36. TRO 3058U p. 186
  37. Milspecs
  38. TRO 3075 p. 136
  39. TRO 3060 p. 142
  40. 3085 p. 144
  41. 3085 p. 154
  42. TRO 3050U p. 80
  43. 3039 p. 150
  44. 3039 p. 116
  45. TRO 3050U p. 56
  46. 3039 p. 134
  47. TRO 3058U p. 132
  48. TRO 3060 p. 96
  49. Milspecs
  50. TRO Phoenix p. 38
  51. 3085 p. 250
  52. TRO 3050U p. 166
  53. 3039 p. 124
  54. 3085 p. 148
  55. Milspecs
  56. TRO 3058U p. 170
  57. TRO 3075 p. 78
  58. 3085 p. 98
  59. 3039 p. 284
  60. TRO 3060 p. 88
  61. Milspecs
  62. TRO 3058U p. 210
  63. 3039 p. 285
  64. TRO 3075 p. 228
  65. 3085 p. 260
  66. Milspecs
  67. 3039 p. 248
  68. TRO 3050U p. 14
  69. TRO 3055U p. 118
  70. TRO 3060 p. 164
  71. Milspecs
  72. TRO 3050U p. 142
  73. TRO 3055U p. 114
  74. TRO 3067 p. 134
  75. Milspecs
  76. TRO 3060 p. 126
  77. Milspecs
  78. Milspecs
  79. TRO 3060 p. 156
  80. 3039 p. 112
  81. 3085 p. 152
  82. 3039 p. 140
  83. TRO 3050U p. 62
  84. TRO 3060 p. 104
  85. Milspecs
  86. 3085 p. 278
  87. Milspecs
  88. Milspecs
  89. 3085 p. 280
  90. TRO 3060 p. 140
  91. Milspecs
  92. TRO Phoenix p. 20
  93. Milspecs
  94. 3085 p. 94
  95. Milspecs
  96. 3085 p. 258
  97. 3039 p. 126
  98. 3039 p. 128
  99. TRO 3050U p. 44
  100. TRO 3050U p. 46