Talk:Aerion AS2

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Proposed merger with SBJ

The Aerion SBJ is smaller than the AS2, and is a different design, though obviously the predecessor of the AS2. The Aerion Corporate page clearly describes the AS2 as "a larger, trijet aircraft employing SNLF technology." Given that the SBJ has a 10-year history, and has different specs than the AS2, it makes sense to keep the articles separate, and not merge them. - BilCat (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 10-year history, that's debatable as firm detail design was never established; that was for the manufacture partner to perform. Wording in that source suggests a single plane whose design has evolved, whereas other sources suggest two planes - this source suggests both single and dual design. The discussion is a bit academic, as either design only exists on paper. After a merge, the smaller design should be retained and the reasons (customer input) for enlargement should be noted, as they describe market conditions. The SBJ design has all but disappeared on the company page, being only mentioned in passing, and thus questioning its notability for its own article. TGCP (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerion seems to consider the two designs as separate, and judges the JT8D as outdated. The Lockheed L-2000 was also a paper airplane. If the SBJ design was far from a napkin, it may be notable in its own right. TGCP (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough reliable sources about the SBJ for it to meet GNG, so notability in its own right shouldn't be an issue. That doesn't mean the articles should be separate of course, as that's an editorial decision. While yes the design of the SBJ has been fluid, it is different enough, as the sources point out,and existed in some similar form over the 10-year period. IIRC, one reason that the JT8D was chosen is that it was a mature design. Aerion has stated that with three engines, the required thrust per engine is now less, so the JT8D is too big anyway. It will be interesting to see what engine is eventually chosen. I think the designs are different enough to warrant covering them separately, and we certainly would have to lose the full SBJ specs section if we merged. Having two articles also gives a good historical "snapshot" of what the original design was like, and since WP is not paper, we don't lose anything as far as space goes by covering them separately. I'm also not one whose against having articles on "paper" designs, as long as they meet GNG. The SBJ design was certainly farther along,with far more sources, than this paper-only airplane, and its article was kept! - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The spec comparison is useful, and only really possible with two articles. TGCP (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for the engine change is that the JT8D is apparently going/has gone out of production. That always matters. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerion also says the JT8D is "growth limited", whatever that means. Perhaps they intend to use the same engine family for larger jets, and want to minimize development as they scale up. TGCP (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tbe SBJ article was first created in December 2005, nearly 9 years ago. If in another 9 years or so the AS2 has led nowhere/is defunct, then a single article might be a good idea, as neither article should be very long at that point. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I renew the interest in merging those. I recently confused both, and I'm afraid it could be a common mistake if both articles are kept separate. The SBJ was only a design step before the AS2, not a real plane.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

Here is their list of patents, about 37 results, several similar. I'm not sure which ones are the most notable for this article. TGCP (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a supporter of including lists of patents in articles, as they generally aren't even found in comprehensive works on aircraft, much less aviation encyclopedic works. I personally don't see the value of including them at all, but a few articles do. FWIW. - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SNLF is pretty much Aerion's ticket to the game, although Bass' Billions also help. Their patents are pretty verbose, and may serve as further info not covered by press and company website. TGCP (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking, but do you think SNLF is worth a separate article at this point? That's probably the best place for the SNLF-related patents. - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it depends on application - so far there is none. Most research is probably single source. The AS2 may or may not be the first one. If and when it flies, others applications would likely follow. A wider connection is likely to be subsonic and transsonic NLF, which may be included in such an article. We have several years to ponder the case... Until then, a simple link to the most relevant patent will serve as documentation. TGCP (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from deleting cited content

@Kaboomzoomzoom:

Please refrain from deleting cited content. If you want to remove some sentences with references, discuss it in the talk page before.
Please leave the line breaks structure as you found it, it allows to see the differences between revisions. It took a lot of time to restore that to see your changes.
Avoid marketing/greenwashing fluff, I tagged the concerned sentences accordingly and removed the most useless. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Lacoste:

sorry! thanks for the clarification. still trying to figure out the proper decorum for editing on here, so i appreciate your guidance

Thanks for your good spirit! Note that you should sign your replies by adding four "~" after it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

avoid peacock puffery and weasel words

@Kaboomzoomzoom: avoid wp:peacock puffery and wp:weasel words like "The Aerion AS2 is so anticipated" or "amassing hundreds of simulated flight hours". This is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure.

Also, if you don't understand a technicality, don't change it but ask for a clarification (Noise regulations will limit its MTOW at 54,400 kg (120,000 lb), which will limit range can't be changed into These noise regulations will limit the range to 54,400 kg (120,000 lb): range is a distance, not a weight, and the range can be limited by a weight limit).

And please keep the line break syntax for easier to read diffs between revisions. Thanks. You can be bold, but please don't make it difficult for others to sweep.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lacking references

@Kaboomzoomzoom: please provide lacking references: ppgsupply, rockwellcollins, hemmerdingerfaa. Please proof read before saving, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]