Talk:Cessna Citation Sovereign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Article redesignation

As a part of the project to reorganize the entire series of articles on Citations, it is planned that this article will be rewritten to include the entire Excel family, one of 6 distinct Citation families. The Sovereign is the lastest version of the family, so the information will will be retained, but it is planned to rename this article as Cessna Citation Excel. Any objections, please speak now. Akradecki 02:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article restoration

As explained at Talk:Cessna Citation Excel, I agree that the Sovereign is a separate design, and so am restoring this page, along with some needed improvements. The text needs expansion, and I'll rey to add that within a few days. - BillCJ (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I am typed in the C680 and you guys keep claiming that it is based on the Excel fuselage. And now you have a link to an old and inaccurate story from Airliners.net that supports this. The Sovereign uses the Citation X fuselage and nose. The wings, engines, and empennage are different. Originally Cessna was going to use the Excel fuselage and stretch it, but they did not. The airliners.net article is old and inaccurate. Call Cessna in Wichita and ask them, or ask any C680 driver like myself. The Excel fuselage has nothing to do with the Sovereign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.173.59 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting us straight. The Airliners.net article is based on a print work (which I have) that was published in 2002. Because I have not seen any more-recent published sources that corrected that info to this point, I did not realize it was incorrect. We will need verifible published sources (this can include printed/online material from Cessna, including press releases, but not verbal reports), and I will be trying to find up-to-date-material to use in the corrections. If you can, check back in a week or two to see it I've made any progress. If you have published material that you can cite, feel free to make the corrections yourself. If your unsure about how to format it correctly, just add it anyway, either in the article itself or here, and someone (probably me) will take care of the nit-picky details. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)