Most people can't afford to have the various manuals of all the aircraft types. Even copies are expensive. Some are available online but have pay walls. Wikipedia certainly has its limitations and drawbacks. What about Jane's? Any opinions?

The source for decades, back to 1909. No, it won’t answer nit-noy questions, but has all the necessary details.

Thirty plus years ago I would leave school and trek to the local library that had a copy of Jane's in the Reference section. I would write down airplane makers names and addresses from around the world. I would then send them letters telling them I was kid interested in airplanes. The stuff I received in response was amazing. I would come home and find packages with every piece of airplane PR material you could believe - from folders and posters to patches and stickers. Jane's was my go-to reference guide.

Reliable? Absolutely. As reference guides go, it was the gold standard for a long time and contains a wealth of information on all types of aircraft. That being said, if you're looking for information from aircraft manuals, you're not going to find that kind of information from a Jane's reference volume. There's a reason those documents aren't free. Jane's isn't particularly cheap either, but used guides can be found relatively easily.

gunsontheroof wrote:

Reliable? Absolutely. As reference guides go, it was the gold standard for a long time and contains a wealth of information on all types of aircraft. That being said, if you're looking for information from aircraft manuals, you're not going to find that kind of information from a Jane's reference volume. There's a reason those documents aren't free. Jane's isn't particularly cheap either, but used guides can be found relatively easily.

Yes, this, AFM data and all the rest is expensive for a layman. Complete set of bizjet pubs would cost $20,000 up front plus about $4,000 per year subscription renewal.

Back when I was in operations more often that not we’d just use Wikipedia for quick reference…

Obviously not for critical questions (trying to figure out if an a/c fit in a specific hangar, etc) but otherwise it was deemed good enough. And also quicker to look up on your phone then going through the pdfs of the manuals.

For the casual or even more serious enthusiast, the manufacturer or airline internal manuals wouldn’t be too interesting. Unless you want to know things like how high off the ground the bottom of the door 2L sill is, specific ULD configurations, load limitations, where certain access panels are, etc.

I got two Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft from the 1980s. 1984 und 1987 edition. It was always fun to see how the information on eastern bloc planes evolved during the years, as secrecy was more intense then...

Generally, a fantastic source. However, some things are annoying:

1. Janes consequently erases information on older planes no longer in production. So you need access to older books.
2. It is extremely expensive. I got my copies for free, but don't buy new.
3. In the last 10-20 years, Janes has started to give out more books in order to maximise profit. You do not really find everything in the ATWA book as it used to be. Espeicially for engines and other interesting systems, the book is not as comprehensive as ist used to be.
4. Information varies from plane to plane. Not all informations are available for all planes. For example, the EpnDB Levels were not published for all planes in the book.

But generally - a great resource. I wouldnt pay 1000 USD though.

FGITD wrote:

Back when I was in operations more often that not we’d just use Wikipedia for quick reference…

Obviously not for critical questions (trying to figure out if an a/c fit in a specific hangar, etc) but otherwise it was deemed good enough. And also quicker to look up on your phone then going through the pdfs of the manuals.

For the casual or even more serious enthusiast, the manufacturer or airline internal manuals wouldn’t be too interesting. Unless you want to know things like how high off the ground the bottom of the door 2L sill is, specific ULD configurations, load limitations, where certain access panels are, etc.

The things you name, such as height off the ground and so on, are in publicly available documents.

What you don't get in publicly available documents is the FCOM, FCTM, MEL and so forth.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

https://www.airbus.com/en/airport-opera ... cteristics

Starlionblue wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Back when I was in operations more often that not we’d just use Wikipedia for quick reference…

Obviously not for critical questions (trying to figure out if an a/c fit in a specific hangar, etc) but otherwise it was deemed good enough. And also quicker to look up on your phone then going through the pdfs of the manuals.

For the casual or even more serious enthusiast, the manufacturer or airline internal manuals wouldn’t be too interesting. Unless you want to know things like how high off the ground the bottom of the door 2L sill is, specific ULD configurations, load limitations, where certain access panels are, etc.

The things you name, such as height off the ground and so on, are in publicly available documents.

What you don't get in publicly available documents is the FCOM, FCTM, MEL and so forth.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

https://www.airbus.com/en/airport-opera ... cteristics

Indeed they are! Bad examples on my part. I’m thinking more in terms of airline specificities in the handling type manuals. Things that aren’t necessarily the same for all airlines.

The actual manuals for the aircraft…very different story as mentioned by others, and also much less interesting to a casual observer I’d think. I did however enjoy the “congratulations on your purchase” card that someone I once slipped into a 787 book

canyonblue17 wrote:

Thirty plus years ago I would leave school and trek to the local library that had a copy of Jane's in the Reference section. I would write down airplane makers names and addresses from around the world. I would then send them letters telling them I was kid interested in airplanes. The stuff I received in response was amazing. I would come home and find packages with every piece of airplane PR material you could believe - from folders and posters to patches and stickers. Jane's was my go-to reference guide.

Man why didn't I do that, my wife just told me I obviously wasn't as smart as you. That is an amazing idea I wish I had done

MD8090orDRIVE wrote:

canyonblue17 wrote:

Thirty plus years ago I would leave school and trek to the local library that had a copy of Jane's in the Reference section. I would write down airplane makers names and addresses from around the world. I would then send them letters telling them I was kid interested in airplanes. The stuff I received in response was amazing. I would come home and find packages with every piece of airplane PR material you could believe - from folders and posters to patches and stickers. Jane's was my go-to reference guide.

Man why didn't I do that, my wife just told me I obviously wasn't as smart as you. That is an amazing idea I wish I had done

It's never too late to start. Many libraries still carry a copy in their reference sections. And most aircraft companies are still happy to provide tons of public relations info for free. By the way, In the end my bedroom walls were coated with 247 photos or posters I had received. All it cost was some stamps.

Aww! You're taking me back. It was an indispensable source of knowledge for my as an avgeek kid growing up in the 90's. I was lucky that my father was a professor in engineering at the local state engineering school land he had been the one to order the series for the library. I had carte blanche to check it out whenever it wasnt checked by college students eventhough I was probably 10-15 and not a student. I would get so excited and read it voraciously at home. It was such a simple charming time before the internet when if you wanted to reseach something you had to actually put in the legwork and not just have stuff appear at a few clicks so easily.