Talk:Very light jet

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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Aircraft list

Aircraft list should probably be a wikitable. Dbchip 17:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is now! Vivaldi (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D-Jet information

The following was put by User:208.235.233.194 onto the article page, but belongs here in the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Diamond D-Jet price is old. Here is oshkosh quote.
Diamond D-Jet VLJ debuts at AirVenture
By David Sakrison
The D-Jet flies by the AirVenture crowd. Photo by Phil Weston
The Diamond D-Jet made its world debut Wednesday morning at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, just 10 days after it was unveiled at Diamond headquarters in London, Ontario. Since then, the prototype has flown about 30 hours.
Diamond says the five-place single-engine VLJ (very light jet) should be on the market in mid-2008, priced at $1.38 million. Diamond CEO Christian Dries said the D-Jet is designed to be flown by a pilot/owner, and will offer safety, comfort, and efficiency.

[edit] External links

I’ve created ALL External Links in this article and the link to the AirTaxiFlights.com site here is no more inappropriate or a spam than links here to AW&ST, AIN or Flight Int’l sites. (Actually, contrary to those other sites, the AirTaxiFlights.com site contains no ads or some other commercial stuff). The link was here for over a month (Jun. 24 – Aug. 30) without anyone complaining, until Dbchip suddenly decided that it’s a spam and removed it.

For all you wannabe censors/policemen out there I suggest that it would be better if you contribute something of your own before you start censoring and deleting what someone else has done just because you personally don’t like it or think it’s inappropriate for others. And if you really believe it’s inappropriate, maybe you ought to start a discussion and give your reasons first, before arbitrarily deleting something for all the rest of us. 195.142.137.65 10:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, perhaps you ought to explain what's relevant about it. It sure looks like a violation of Wikipedia's policy on external links to me.--chris.lawson 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, airtaxiflights.com is operated by Creative NetVentures, Inc. [1], which is obviously nothing more than a commercial promotion company specialising in link farms. Surely there are sites out there that provide the same information (and at a higher quality -- airtaxiflights.com is a great example of bad spelling and grammar) without being so spammy.--chris.lawson 15:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AirTaxiFlights.com has the best news archive related to VLJs that I found on the web, produces its own articles on the subject the same as other magazines with external links here, and has had a good VLJ Specifications and Comparison table even before it was created here. And while this article will continue to be censored by bigots who contribute nothing of their own except a witch-hunt after self-perceived linkspams, reverting contributions of others, AirTaxiFlight.com will be a much better source of intelligence about VLJs than wikipedia. Bxb 08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Using words like "bigots" to refer to other editors is not appropriate. (see WP:NPA). Perhaps this site might be an appropriate EL for an article about the air taxi service in general, but I don't think it is worth of inclusion here on the VLJ page. Why are you so insistent on the link being included? If you have a financial interest in the company running the site then it probably isn't a good idea for you to be adding this link yourself. If consensus determines this EL is a definitive and important resource on the topic of VLJs, then it will be added. Vivaldi (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order in table

I'm going to propose that we formalize this:

The order of aircraft in the table shall be by the date, or expected or proposed or announced date, of type certification by the FAA or other recognized aviation regulation agency. For purposes of this table, all type certifications are treated as equal, whether they are limited or unlimited.

Does this sound reasonable? Georgewilliamherbert 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a new section for delivered aircraft. The order will be date of delivery to the customer. This is to distinguish from aircraft that may or may not ever actually deliver a copy to a customer. Vivaldi (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full certification schedule?

The article says "Full certification is expected by mid-September, 2006". It's November now, what happened?

For which aircraft? The Eclipse got it on 30 Sept.--chris.lawson 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders

Can we delete orders that cannot be confirmed? Like this ATG plane. I cant find an article that says 100 sold.--Bangabalunga 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means, if it's not cited or citable, it shouldn't be here.--chris.lawson 03:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a cite for the claim. Vivaldi (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please edit. Paragraph is not global enough. There are far more than only "three manufacturers". Please do also consider european ones, e.g. Diamond Aircraft. Jet.Bradley, 27th Sep. 2007, 11:50 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.31.211 (talk)

[edit] Missing Aircraft

There's at least one notable aircraft that should be listed that isnt: the Chichester-Miles Leopard (CMC Leopard), particularly noteable since it was pretty much the first VLJ with a prototype actually flying (back in the early eighties). Unfortunately, I've not seen any verbose information on its current status anywhere, if anyone sees something vaguely canon it'd be worth sticking in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadbox (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

CMC had to upgrade its design (to Leopard Six) to accommodate a larger engine, since the engine they were waiting to use became unavailable when turbofan manufacturer Williams signed an exclusive use agreement with Eclipse for the smaller engine. CMC has been unable to come up with the $100 million plus needed to start on production.[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vivaldi (talk • contribs) 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removing "Dormant or cancelled projects"

The list of three VLJs is fairly pointless as there is no detailed credible information available (that can be backed up by actual tests/certifications/etc); it isn't even clear how far these projects went, if a couple of computer renderings and speculative technical claims is all they managed to do. The focal point should be a comprehensive overview of actual planes, not possible designs. In my opinion they should be taken out of the table and briefly mentioned somewhere in the text or any other suitable form or removed altogether. Agentbla 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the information in the table than broken out into the text, although it isn't all that important no matter what we decide to do. There's only 3 planes there now and for those doing research into VLJs development history it might be helpful to see some of these failed or dormant entries. Vivaldi (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chromed stowpipe

Is it necessary to have a tailpipe to be a VLJ? Seeing that most such planes fly 6xx to 7xx km/h speeds maximum, a prop-jet could have nearly the same speed and better fuel economy. I mean something like the six-seater executive version of the Pilatus PC-12 with an 1600shp engine instead of the current 1200hp powerplant and 5-blade airscrew could fly maybe ~600km/h and with just a few dozen kilos of weight reduction, it could fit the 10k lbs limit. It would have huge range advatage over pure jet VLJs.