Talk:Learjet 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] 26 accidents out of 104 airplanes?

This article says: "A total of 104 model 23's were built. In 1998 there were still 39 LJ23's in use. Only 26 LJ23's have been lost through accidents." Do I understand correctly that 26 airplanes have been lost through accidents, on a total of 104? And the article says "Only"? If the number is correct (I did not verify), then, at least, the word "Only" should be removed. If someone has verifiable informations on why this number is so high, this would be an interesting addition. -- Francois Beaune

[edit] Range stated in current article is unrealistically high

I won't edit the article because I can't find what I consider an authoritative reference but having looked at the specs on any number of modern light jets with far more efficient engines, the stated range of 2,549 mi is simply not feasible. Some example references:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/learjet23.html : 1650 miles

http://www.consumer-guides.info/private_jets/index.html : 1875 miles

http://www.pimaair.org/Acftdatapics/LEARJET%20MOL%2023.htm : 1830 miles

UweRoss 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous conversion miles --> kilometres

I believe there is a math error in converting miles to kilometres, stated in section "Performance", line "Range" - as kilometer is shorter than mile (any mile, nautical or otherwise) the number of kilometres should always be higher than number of miles for given distance (range).

I won't edit this article myself - I'm not quite sure what the convertion ratio is, and I don't want to edit the text with data I'm not sure about. Besides, another reader of this article pointed out that this range seems to be unreasticaly high, so I think this issue should be clarified first - and only then the number of kilometres vs miles should be addressed.

85.221.205.250 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)